Posted by: Debby Durkee | March 28, 2010

“Repeal and replace” and constitutional challenges.

Debby's Web Finds
“Repeal and replace” and constitutional challenges.

Conservatives and Republicans are mounting opposition to Obamacare on the political side with arguments about what this monstrosity will do not only to our health care system, but also the economy as a whole. The Republicans’ Repeal and Replace rhetoric will appeal to many normal Americans. Attorney Generals around the country are arguing the Constitutional side, suing the federal government for infringing on states’ rights. Judge Andrew Napolitano believes that is a winnable argument, but one that will take a while to be heard in front of the Supreme Court. So, some mixed messages in today’s post, but the general message is: We must continue to fight this outrage to our country and its founding.

“Repeal and replace” will be well received.

Jennifer Rubin of Commentary Magazine’s blog, Contentions, has boiled down Yuval Levin’s Weekly Standard article on the Obamacare aftermath and the horrendous effects that will occur to our economy and our health care in the near and far term. The cost of health care will (as Obama said about the price of energy after he does away with coal companies or has passed Cap and Trade legislation) will necessarily skyrocket. This can only be seen as a deliberate punishment of the country at large and an unprecedented power grab by the Democrat Party.  Rubin believes the electorate will be receptive to the Republicans’ battle cry of “repeal and replace.”

We are herding unwilling customers into the arms of insurers, passing the bill to the taxpayers, and exacerbating the problem at the nub of the health-care-cost problem — consumers do not foot their own bills and have little incentive to spend wisely and monitor costs. Conservatives have further reason to object to the scheme: “It aims to spend a trillion dollars on subsidies to large insurance companies and the expansion of Medicaid, to micromanage the insurance industry in ways likely only to raise premiums further, to cut Medicare benefits without using the money to shore up the program or reduce the deficit, and to raise taxes on employment, investment, and medical research.” In short, there is enough for everyone to hate.

…Although there are some small benefits scheduled this year to entice voters to embrace ObamaCare (e.g., ban on dropping those already insured for pre-existing conditions, requirements to keep twenty-somethings on their parents’ insurance), these are limited and in some cases duplicate existing state regulations. (Moreover, those who already have insurance — some 80 percent of the population — surely are among the most likely voters.)  Meanwhile, employers are taking a hit and informing their shareholders and employees of the perils of ObamaCare, and the cost problem that was the rationale for the bill worsens:

Premiums in the individual market will increase by more than 10 percent very quickly, and middle-class families in the new exchanges (where large numbers of Americans who now receive coverage through their employers will find themselves dumped) will be forced to choose from a very limited menu of government-approved plans, the cheapest of which, CBO estimates, will cost more than $12,000.

Throw in a plethora of new taxes and perverse incentives for employers to drop their employees from coverage, and you can see why it is an “unmitigated disaster — for our health care system, for our fiscal future, and for any notion of limited government.” …There is no shortage of market-based alternative plans from conservatives. But first, the existing one must be abandoned before it can do permanent damage to the health-care system and to our economy… Rarely is there such a stark choice for voters, but there is no fuzzying up the differences between the two sides on this one. Are you for or against a giant new entitlement program? Do you think individuals should be forced to buy insurance plans they don’t want? Is it smart to levy huge new taxes when the economic recovery is stalled? If framed clearly, the “Repeal and Replace” brigade has a compelling position.

…The public has not, contrary to the Left’s expectations, become enamored of big government in the wake of the financial meltdown. To the contrary, the bailouts and stimulus plan have engendered suspicion and contempt…the mound of debt has reinforced the public’s suspicion that the White House and Congress are unserious and ill-equipped to address our fiscal train wreck. In other words, the “Repeal and Replace” contingent will be making its case to an electorate already predisposed to accept much of its argument.

November can’t get here fast enough. Read it all here:

Napolitano: Supremes could strike down Obamacare.

But not for a few years…so says Judge Andrew Napolitano. Newsmax interviewed Napolitano recently, and he said he thinks the states will likely prevail in their suit of the federal government over Obamacare. Let’s hope he’s right, but in the mean time, much damage could be done to our system. This is from David A. Patten.

In an exclusive interview with Newsmax.TV’s Ashley Martella, Napolitano says the president’s healthcare reforms amount to “commandeering” the state legislatures for federal purposes, which the Supreme Court has forbidden as unconstitutional.

The Constitution does not authorize the Congress to regulate the state governments,” Napolitano says. “Nevertheless, in this piece of legislation, the Congress has told the state governments that they must modify their regulation of certain areas of healthcare, they must surrender their regulation of other areas of healthcare, and they must spend state taxpayer-generated dollars in a way that the Congress wants it done.

That’s called commandeering the legislature,” he says. “That’s the Congress taking away the discretion of the legislature with respect to regulation, and spending taxpayer dollars. That’s prohibited in a couple of Supreme Court cases. So on that argument, the attorneys general have a pretty strong case and I think they will prevail.”

Napolitano, author of his just-released “Lies the Government Told You: Myth, Power, and Deception in American History” and a Fox News senior judicial analyst, is the youngest Superior Court judge ever to attain lifetime tenure in the state of New Jersey. He served on the bench from 1987 to 1995.

Napolitano tells Newsmax that the longstanding precedent of state regulation of the healthcare industry makes the new federal regulations that much more problematic.

“The Supreme Court has ruled that in areas of human behavior that are not delegated to the Congress in the Constitution, and that have been traditionally regulated by the states, the Congress can’t simply move in there,” Napolitano says. “And the states for 230 years have had near exclusive regulation over the delivery of healthcare. The states license hospitals. The states license medications. The states license healthcare providers whether they’re doctors, nurses, or pharmacists. The feds have had nothing to do with it.

“The Congress can’t simply wake up one day and decide that it wants to regulate this. I predict that the Supreme Court will invalidate major portions of what the president just signed into law…”  Snip –

For those who oppose healthcare, the Fox legal expert says, the bad news is that many of the legal challenges to healthcare reform will have to wait until 2014, when the changes become fully operational. Snip –

He believes American is in danger of becoming “a fascist country,” which he defines as “private ownership, but government control.”  Snip –

Napolitano says that members of Congress infringe on Constitutional rights because they fail to recognize its basis. “They reject Jefferson’s argument, in the Declaration of Independence, that our rights come from our Creator, therefore they’re natural rights, therefore they can’t be legislated away,” Napolitano says. “They think they can legislate on any activity, regulate any behavior, tax any person or thing, as long as the politics will let them survive. They’re wrong, and with this healthcare legislation, they may be proven wrong, in a very direct and in-your-face way.”

Napolitano takes on much more in this extensive article about other aspects of the health care bill and its unconstitutional portions such as forcing Americans to purchase a product, the violation of the equal protections clause displayed by the sweetheart deals that favor some states over others and favor unions over everyday Americans. If you’re outraged, you’re not alone, and you have every right to be. Please read the whole thing here:


Bookmark and Share

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: