If
someone broke into your home, would you stand there arguing with him
as to what is okay for him to take and what is not? Of course you
wouldn't. And yet that is what is happening with the health care
law. People are arguing what is in the law instead of the fact that
the law is there to begin with and shouldn't be.
There is no
power given to congress that allows congress to take over the
privately owned health insurance industry and turn it into a
government ran health care system. The health care law is
basically saying that there is no longer any such thing as health
insurance. Obama-Care is a health "care" act, not a health
"insurance" act. Hence the reason that no one can be turned down. It
is not insurance. Insurance insures us in case something happens,
not after it happens. We don't get house insurance after our kitchen
burns down.
It is now health care, a government ran entity in
which everyone has to put into the pot. And it is beyond
socialism. It is out-and-out communism because of the government's
take-over of an industry, the dissolving of it and forcing
those who were in that industry to now work for a government ran
entity. It is like this. You own a clothing store. The government
says that you can no longer run it as a store; you now must run it
as a place where people can come and just get whatever it
is that they need to wear within the government's standards;
and everyone who gets their clothing from you must pay a yearly
amount to you that does not go over a government set amount of cost
to them.
You no longer own a store. You now work for the government in a
government ran clothing distribution place. And you are no
longer allowed to own and operate a true store again. You are not
allowed to make a profit above what the government allows you
to get paid yearly from each person who comes into the
government ran clothing distribution place. The government's claim
is that it has a right to regulate what you do for the good of
commerce (trade) in this country.
So how can the federal
government do this? Legally, it cannot. It can only do it illegally.
And this is how it is doing it, illegally. Congress is claiming that
it has the power to regulate commerce, under the commerce clause
when in fact, it does not have a flat out-and-out power to regulate
commerce under the clause. It has a right "To
regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several states
and with the Indian tribes."
Its power is only to regulate the actual trade (the actual commerce)
"among," as in "between" these entities, not
within. If the interpretation was really what congress is
claiming, then that would mean that congress can take over and run
every American business, Indian business, and even every business in
any other nation too. That which is true for one part of the clause
has to be true for the rest of it. But fact is, the interpretation
is not right. It is flat out wrong. So where did this come
from?
Okay, follow me here: In 1938 a law (The Agricultural
Adjustment Act) was passed by congress. The act actually put
limits on how much wheat American farmers could grow on
their land. Congress wanted to stabilize the price of wheat in
the national market, so congress sought to control the
amount of wheat produced. Congress actually wanted the wheat
prices to go up to help the economy. One farmer, Roscoe
Filburn, grew more wheat than the law allowed him to, but he
was growing it for his own use for his own animals. This resulted
in the 1942 Supreme Court case, Wickard v. Filburn, in
which the Supreme Court said he could not grow more than what the
law permitted him to grow, because while he was growing his own
wheat for his own animals, he was then not purchasing food for his
animals from somewhere else. Hence, they said he was hurting the
national market by growing his own, instead of buying the extra that
he needed.
Does this sound crazy to you? That's because it is
crazy! This is like saying that you cannot sew your own clothes
because when you sew your own clothes you are hurting the national
economy by not purchasing your clothes.
Clearly in the case
of Wickard v. Filburn, the Supreme Court made a bad ruling. And yet,
here is today's congress using that ruling in the case that is
before the Supreme Court today on Obama-Care. And both sides of the
case are acting as if the Wickard v. Filburn case was just fine. The
argument against Obama-Care is simply saying that people cannot be
forced into purchasing something. The media is reporting this as
"forced into commerce." However, this is like saying it was okay to
tell Roscoe Filburn that he could not grow the extra wheat as long
as he was not forced to buy it from someone else. Not only is that
wrong because we have a right to grow what we need, but also because
stopping him from growing what he needed, did in fact force him to
buy it from someone else. And this is not to mention the fact that
the 1938 Agricultural Adjustment Act was unconstitutional, in and of
itself, because congress only has the power to regulate what is sold
to an entity in another state, nation or Indian tribe, not within a
state.
So
here we are, in 2012, fighting a health care law that came to be on
the back of a wrong interpretation of the commerce
clause, supported by a bad 1938 law and a bad 1942 Supreme
Court judgment. And the people who are arguing against the
health care law in court are just fighting
something that is within the law, instead of the law
itself.
