Mark West
Dear Congress, oppose public health care plan
By Mark West
Dear Congressman Berry, Senator Lincoln, Senator Pryor,
I write this letter having read 400 pages of the House Health Care bill that is currently being debated. As I was reading, I had an epiphany that I felt it necessary to share with my Congressional representatives.
Attempting to recall where in the Constitution, members of Congress had found the authority to develop a federally run health care plan. Some are unfamiliar with the Constitution, so I will state for the record that Article 1 lays out what things Congress has the authority to do.
I find, through much search, no authority whatsoever for Congress to establish a federal health care plan in Article 1 of the United States Constitution.
However, as I research history, I've found that the Constitution is really no boundary for Congress.
Congress HAS the Constitutional authority to regulate and coin our currency. Yet, in 1913, Congress delegated this authority to the private banking system we call the Federal Reserve, which through the fractional reserve system, has placed our nation over $5 trillion in debt to the Federal Reserve. Congress relinquished this authority and it has cost taxpayers dearly!
Congress HAS the Constitutional authority to declare war. Yet, during the last Presidency, Congress delegated this authority to President George W Bush, which has led to many billions of dollars spent in Iraq and Afghanistan. Congress relinquished this authority and it has cost taxpayers dearly!
Congress HAS NO Constitutional authority to establish a federal retirement plan. Yet, several decades ago Congress developed the Social Security System, which is going bankrupt and will cost future taxpayers trillions of dollars to pay the liability it is incurring. Congress stole this authority and it is and will cost taxpayers dearly!
Congress HAS NO Constitutional authority to establish a federal health care plan. Yet, during the current Presidency, Congress has added this authority, which will lead to many trillions of dollars spent attempting to provide health care to all Americans. Congress is stealing this authority and it will cost taxpayers dearly!
Maybe, just maybe, Congress should do ONLY what the Constitution authorizes them to do and refuse to do what the Constitution does not authorize them to do.
If Congress had remained true to the Constitution, the United States would not:
You are Constitutionally prohibited in not just the duties given in Article 1, but in the 10th Amendment of the Bill of Rights to that Constitution which reads, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Article 1 give you no Constitutional authority to create a federal health care plan. The 10th Amendment says such belongs to the States or the people.
It is pretty clear that a federal health care plan would be unconstitutional, and thus illegal. You violate your oath of office and should be removed from office if your vote is "Yea" to a bill that creates a federal health care plan!
A vote of "Yea" on a bill that would establish a federal health care plan is willful breaking of the highest law of the United States.
Now that I have dealt with the Constitutional prohibition for a federal health care plan, I would like to express my concerns over the future of health care if this plan passes.
I fear that the elderly will be 'left behind' if this plan passes. My understanding of this issue is a concern over cost. As President Obama himself stated, that those who are chronically ill, or near the end of life make up 80% of health care costs.
How can those costs be effectively reduced other than in rationing of the care they will receive? One proposed formula floating around concerns a cost versus use ratio. Basically, "A" amount equals "B" period of use.
In simple terms, how much are we willing to spend for each period of time that passes? If we spend $20,000 for an operation or treatment, how much projected life span will be needed to warrant this expenditure?
I've also seen advocates for a form of soft-kill of the elderly, a pleasant euthanasia, as the elderly are refused treatments and procedures because their lives are considered worth less than a younger person seeking the same procedures.
What age or how many health conditions must exist before an elder cannot have access to a hip replacement? As President Obama said this is a difficult moral issues that will be presented to us if we have a federal health care plan.
If the cost of those who are chronically ill or near the end of their life are not those being rationed, then most certainly the eugenics-style system of cost control advocated by Science Czar John Holdren would next logically follow.
Forced sterilization and abortion upon the poor and the undesirables will help drive up cost from that end of the spectrum. Restriction of reproductive rights, as advocated by Holdren and Ezekiel Emmanual, will lead to many moral issues that America faced prior to World War II. Factually, we inspired Hitler's extermination of the masses with our eugenics application. Twelve states in the United States passed forced sterilization laws in the years leading up to World War II. Some of these laws still exist in some states.
Where will this measure lead our country? How far will cost cutting go?
Unfortunately, what I have not found in the bill so far, and I may find it as I keep reading, is any real reform of the regulatory problems that plague the health care industry.
Congress does have the Constitutional authority to regulate interstate commerce. Why isn't Constitutionally authorized regulatory reform a center-piece of what is being billed as health care reform instead of a Constitutionally prohibited federal health care plan?
I believe your constituents are going to ask you where the reform is. This federal health care plan is not cost savings, it is cost shifting. An accounting trick akin to the accounting tricks that ended Enron and put Madoff in prison.
If you have a problem with the Constitution, then please go through the proper Amendment process. Unfortunately, it's easier for you to just violate the Constitution and hope no one notices. I think this is because you realize that Amending the Constitution in this way would fail.
My hope is that you will uphold the Constitution that you have sworn to protect rather than cave to the pressure of big money interests and the strong hand Chicago politics of this President.
Do your duty and vote against a federal "public" health care plan? It is unconstitutional and the beginning of a slippery slope into a society that no American wants to wish on the generation to come!
© Mark West
July 23, 2009
Dear Congressman Berry, Senator Lincoln, Senator Pryor,
I write this letter having read 400 pages of the House Health Care bill that is currently being debated. As I was reading, I had an epiphany that I felt it necessary to share with my Congressional representatives.
Attempting to recall where in the Constitution, members of Congress had found the authority to develop a federally run health care plan. Some are unfamiliar with the Constitution, so I will state for the record that Article 1 lays out what things Congress has the authority to do.
I find, through much search, no authority whatsoever for Congress to establish a federal health care plan in Article 1 of the United States Constitution.
However, as I research history, I've found that the Constitution is really no boundary for Congress.
Congress HAS the Constitutional authority to regulate and coin our currency. Yet, in 1913, Congress delegated this authority to the private banking system we call the Federal Reserve, which through the fractional reserve system, has placed our nation over $5 trillion in debt to the Federal Reserve. Congress relinquished this authority and it has cost taxpayers dearly!
Congress HAS the Constitutional authority to declare war. Yet, during the last Presidency, Congress delegated this authority to President George W Bush, which has led to many billions of dollars spent in Iraq and Afghanistan. Congress relinquished this authority and it has cost taxpayers dearly!
Congress HAS NO Constitutional authority to establish a federal retirement plan. Yet, several decades ago Congress developed the Social Security System, which is going bankrupt and will cost future taxpayers trillions of dollars to pay the liability it is incurring. Congress stole this authority and it is and will cost taxpayers dearly!
Congress HAS NO Constitutional authority to establish a federal health care plan. Yet, during the current Presidency, Congress has added this authority, which will lead to many trillions of dollars spent attempting to provide health care to all Americans. Congress is stealing this authority and it will cost taxpayers dearly!
Maybe, just maybe, Congress should do ONLY what the Constitution authorizes them to do and refuse to do what the Constitution does not authorize them to do.
If Congress had remained true to the Constitution, the United States would not:
- Be $5 trillion in debt to a private banking system we know as the Federal Reserve.
- Be paying billions to fund wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
- Be the guarantor of trillions of dollars in Social Security liability.
- Soon be the guarantor of trillions of dollar in health care plan liability.
You are Constitutionally prohibited in not just the duties given in Article 1, but in the 10th Amendment of the Bill of Rights to that Constitution which reads, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Article 1 give you no Constitutional authority to create a federal health care plan. The 10th Amendment says such belongs to the States or the people.
It is pretty clear that a federal health care plan would be unconstitutional, and thus illegal. You violate your oath of office and should be removed from office if your vote is "Yea" to a bill that creates a federal health care plan!
A vote of "Yea" on a bill that would establish a federal health care plan is willful breaking of the highest law of the United States.
Now that I have dealt with the Constitutional prohibition for a federal health care plan, I would like to express my concerns over the future of health care if this plan passes.
I fear that the elderly will be 'left behind' if this plan passes. My understanding of this issue is a concern over cost. As President Obama himself stated, that those who are chronically ill, or near the end of life make up 80% of health care costs.
How can those costs be effectively reduced other than in rationing of the care they will receive? One proposed formula floating around concerns a cost versus use ratio. Basically, "A" amount equals "B" period of use.
In simple terms, how much are we willing to spend for each period of time that passes? If we spend $20,000 for an operation or treatment, how much projected life span will be needed to warrant this expenditure?
I've also seen advocates for a form of soft-kill of the elderly, a pleasant euthanasia, as the elderly are refused treatments and procedures because their lives are considered worth less than a younger person seeking the same procedures.
What age or how many health conditions must exist before an elder cannot have access to a hip replacement? As President Obama said this is a difficult moral issues that will be presented to us if we have a federal health care plan.
If the cost of those who are chronically ill or near the end of their life are not those being rationed, then most certainly the eugenics-style system of cost control advocated by Science Czar John Holdren would next logically follow.
Forced sterilization and abortion upon the poor and the undesirables will help drive up cost from that end of the spectrum. Restriction of reproductive rights, as advocated by Holdren and Ezekiel Emmanual, will lead to many moral issues that America faced prior to World War II. Factually, we inspired Hitler's extermination of the masses with our eugenics application. Twelve states in the United States passed forced sterilization laws in the years leading up to World War II. Some of these laws still exist in some states.
Where will this measure lead our country? How far will cost cutting go?
Unfortunately, what I have not found in the bill so far, and I may find it as I keep reading, is any real reform of the regulatory problems that plague the health care industry.
Congress does have the Constitutional authority to regulate interstate commerce. Why isn't Constitutionally authorized regulatory reform a center-piece of what is being billed as health care reform instead of a Constitutionally prohibited federal health care plan?
I believe your constituents are going to ask you where the reform is. This federal health care plan is not cost savings, it is cost shifting. An accounting trick akin to the accounting tricks that ended Enron and put Madoff in prison.
If you have a problem with the Constitution, then please go through the proper Amendment process. Unfortunately, it's easier for you to just violate the Constitution and hope no one notices. I think this is because you realize that Amending the Constitution in this way would fail.
My hope is that you will uphold the Constitution that you have sworn to protect rather than cave to the pressure of big money interests and the strong hand Chicago politics of this President.
Do your duty and vote against a federal "public" health care plan? It is unconstitutional and the beginning of a slippery slope into a society that no American wants to wish on the generation to come!
© Mark West
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
