Health care bill is to complex to be good
Having read the 2,700-page Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare; HR3962), I have some thoughts/opinions. The fact it had 2,700 pages should have been a red flag right out of the chute.
A bill this big, this complex, this hard to understand, cannot be good. One or two congressmen said they read it. I doubt it. It passed anyway.
The Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (created by Obamacare) will decide who gets treatment and who doesn’t, based on cost of treatment divided by how many years, actuarially, you have to live. High cost? Few years left, statistically? Get end of life counseling. To call this commission a “death panel” is a bit hyperbolic, but metaphorically it hits the nail on the head.
The Secretary of Health and Human Services will become the second most powerful person in the government, domestic policy-wise, after the president. He/she (Kathleen Sebelius currently) will have unlimited power to write rules and regulations without need of congressional approval.
HR3962 will, by my reading, add thousands of bureaucrats (starting with the IRS) in order to handle the tsunami of paperwork, populate new agencies created, and enforce new, after the fact, rules and regs. As someone wise said, the purpose of the federal government is not to care for we the people, rather it is to protect and grow the bureaucracy. This certainly seems true of Obamacare. The cost to the taxpayer? When a bill has the word “affordable” in its title, look out.
If I recall correctly, 350 pages, including a section on “urban Indians,” are dedicated to Indian health care. Wonder why an Indian is different than me from an Obamacare perspective? Also, I found it a tad humorous, and politically incorrect, that the bill refers to “Indian(s)” rather than “Native American(s).” How offensive!
I would also like to offer comment(s) on Justices Kagan and Ginsburg, who, as members of the Supreme Court, will participate in deciding the Affordable Care Act’s constitutionality.
I fail to comprehend why Justice Kagan has not recused herself. Prior to her nomination to the Supreme Court she participated in crafting and supporting the bill, did she not? How can she render an unbiased opinion? Doesn’t matter. Any recusal, by any justice, is strictly voluntary.
Justice Ginsburg remains seated on the court even though she publicly stated that if she were drafting a constitution she would not look to ours as a model. Ginsburg took an oath to defend and uphold a document she admittedly dislikes and she keeps her job?
Our Constitution states that Supreme Court justices, “… shall hold their offices during good behavior.” From where I sit, both Kagan and Ginsburg are exhibiting bad behavior.
With my layman’s understanding of our Constitution, the Supreme Court should rule Obamacare unconstitutional. However, it will be decided on liberal/conservative ideological lines. The Constitution will likely be ignored, while the personal beliefs/biases of individual justices will prevail. Kagan and Ginsburg will find Obamacare constitutional come hell or high water. If either one mutinies I’m looking for cover… a lightning bolt is about to strike.
God bless America and God bless our troops.
STEVE BRIXEN
Sandpoint