A Patriot's History of the USA

 
Home > Blog > Forget Supreme Court Challenges to this Monstrosity!

Forget Supreme Court Challenges to this Monstrosity!

Thursday, December 24th, 2009

Folks, I hate to be a perpetual gloomster here, but anyone putting his faith in a Supreme Court reversal of any of this health non-care monstrosity has another think coming. First, the USSC seldom rules in favor of constitutionally limited government. Even in the Affirmative Action slapdown of the University of Michigan several years ago, the Court said in essence, “what you’re doing is wrong the way you’re doing it, but try other methods to reach racial balance.” In the notorious Kelo case, the Court affirmed the right of a local government to take land from one person and give it to another solely on the basis of efficient use of the land.

So prepare yourselves: the challenges to the health non-care bill will be on the grounds of inequality—that is, Nebraska got a special deal—or various “takings” that say that the Federal Government is taking money without constitutional authority. While valid in and of themselves, even if successful, they will result in a nit-picking approach that legitimates the entire premise that a) health care is a “right” and b) everyone else is forced to pay for your right.

Moreover, on the Fox Business Channel, a roundtable of analysts debated the impact on business, and this raises yet another danger of ever repealing this, namely it was argued that small businesses will simply pay the $750 fine rather than pick up the $9,000 health care tab for employees, foisting it on the federal government. I’d do the same if I was a small business owner, but this avoids the central point that the government will instantly adjust those fines to be $10,000. Once something is deemed illegal, the fine is the easiest thing to manipulate—just look at speeding fines.

The Republicans, both in the House and Senate, combined for a 256/257 votes against the bill (Cao, LA voting for the House version, but announcing he would vote against the conference bill). I don’t want to ever, ever again hear how the two parties are the same. You will never see such a stark difference in ideology, where even the limp-wristed RINOs voted against this horrid legislation. Elections do have consequences.

That said, the next election can swing dramatically the Republicans’ way, and make little difference. First, it’s darn near impossible to withdraw or repeal legislation once the bureaucracy starts to take root. Rush Limbaugh has explained this quite well. Second, the ideological commitment to take something away that has already been given requires an increased factor of two or more—look at how long it took to get rid of just some of the farm welfare programs, which lasted from the New Deal to 1994. No conservative president or congress has ever dismantled the Department of Education or Department of Energy.

But here’s the real genius of the Democrats’ plan, and it has even escaped some of our conservative commentators: Why did the Democrats put in place the taxes immediately, but the benefits only after 2014? Isn’t that the exact opposite of the FDR strategy of carrots first, sticks later?

In fact, the Democrats are well aware of the Tea Parties, which are now going to work against liberty. Here’s how: by passing the stimulus first and ballooning the deficits—which the Tea Parties and Liberty Groups became obsessed with (rightly so)—the Democrats will now run specifically on the tax increases as a means to battle the deficits and claim that any attempt to repeal any of this health non-care bill will be fiscally irresponsible and will result in higher deficits. I don’t know if it will work, but it’s the only play they have right now, and Republicans, running on dismantling the health non-care system will be fighting both the image of taking health care away from granny AND “spending more money.”

What’s the solution? There are only two avenues that I can see. One is to not only elect Republicans (and ONLY Republicans, because third parties are going to destroy any chance of repealing this by electing more Democrats), but to elect so many conservative Republicans that you actually get a massive majority in the House to the point that they can, and will, de-fund any and all parts of this. That’s a very, very tough row to hoe, because Newt tried it in 1995 and was permanently damaged by it. And we’re talking a very big majority—perhaps 60-100 new seats. Possible? Maybe. Likely? Not right now. The other alternative is a massive citizen strike, of such tremendous proportions that you pull a reverse “Piven-Cloward.” This is the radical Left strategy of so overloading the social welfare system that it breaks down and forces a radical revolution. (If no one gets their welfare checks, they take to the streets).

Lots of people have been blustering that they won’t pay their taxes, or will “go to jail” rather than follow parts of this bill—and absolutely a black market in medicine and drugs will appear—or otherwise refuse to comply with regulations. The problem with this approach is that the new legislation is going to be regulated and policed almost entirely either by the IRS or by employers. So it shifts the burden of civil disobedience from the many to the few who have the most to lose (owners), while at the same time taking the resolution of all protests out of the hands of citizen juries and into the hands of the government (the Tax Man).

If the Liberty Groups/Tea Parties were smart, they’d fold up their tents and attempt to get a two-thirds GOP majority in both houses, which is our last, best hope.


10 Comments


  1. A RINO is “Republican in Name Only,” applied to such people as Snowe, Collins, and even I think McCain.


  2. Diane Borawski says:

    Unfortunately it seems there are more RINOs than not in our Congress. When are they going to get past the politically correct thing to do and do the right thing? They won’t. Voters must recognize this and go for, as you say Larry, only those conservative candidates…those who truly believe in minimal government. Oh, and your mention of the Department of Education sends me into a genuine tizzy. As a lifelong educator, I have been opposed to this very costly burdeon on the American people.


  3. What is remarkable about the new health bill is the extent to which the Leftist Statists in Congress are willing to sacrifice their own political well-being to get it passed. It seems that the Leftists understand that once this horror is bolted in place, the Left will have achieved its goal of turning America into a true Statist country.

    I really wonder whether small businesses in America will even be able to afford to operate with this monstrosity in place. If there is a surcharge of $10,000 per employee or somesuch, it seems inevitable that many small businesses will desperately avoid adding headcount.

    The result will be that America will become like Mexico, where it is almost impossible to start a small businesses due to the bureaucratic roadblocks. That is why so many Mexicans come here. Where will the Americans go?


  4. Roger, you are right and your question is appropriate. If this is put into place, I truly envision offshore hospital ships, the way the Brits had pirate radio ships when the BBC banned the Beatles. Now, clearly this wouldn’t work for emergencies, or for “routine” care—for that, you’d be stuck with government “non-care.” But for the wealthy and for those who can plan their surgeries and care, I could see people taking “medical” vacations.


  5. And maybe, just maybe mind you, the voters of Massachusetts have saved us all.

    Perhaps God DOES look out for fools, drunkards, and the United States of America…

    because with Congress we’re obviously talking about all three.


  6. How are you, I like all your posts, keep them coming.


  7. Thanks for this good post.


  8. Bunches of dependable, tough to acquire information here. Encountered this blog entry by luck on AOL Search. You’re actually causing me change my my view about this stuff and seldom does that happen to me… LOL. Thanks!


  9. I don’t usually reply to posts but I will in this case. WoW

Leave a Reply