The passage of the Senate’s version of so called, “Health Care Reform” is a great political victory as political victories go, but it is a disaster for America. The core idea was not, is not and never has been to provide truly universal and high quality care for all Americans. Its purpose was, is and ever will be, in Obama’s words, “to spread the wealth around,” considering the way it was passed, through dictatorial edict. If enacted it would expand government and bureaucratic authority over citizens, that is, except selected officials of the Federal Government, since they have exempted themselves. It was enlightening to listen to the media spin on the debate between Democrats, as though that was a debate. It was more realistically a staged show to suggest that among Democrats there were actually differences. At the end, all Democrats and no Republicans voted for the bill. Republican ideas were not invited and were not considered. It was done entirely behind closed doors; so much for transparency!

That Kabuki may have satiated the media’s appetite for political theatre but it is, as the name suggests, a sham. Democrats will crow that passage is a great day for America in the face of 60% citizen opposition to the two thousand plus page bill. If they actually believe that the bill will survive after they are routed from power, and there will be a rout, they are smoking the same marijuana that Bill Clinton didn’t inhale, or more accurately, they are snorting some of the same cocaine that Obama used, or is it, “uses?”

The bill is unconstitutional on its face. One provision would establish a government bureaucracy to dispense health care cannot be repealed. Such bureaucracies are as a matter of fact death panels because once the program is in place those panels would decide who gets what care based on what the panel(s) deem to be the relative merit of one person’s life over another’s. It is highly likely that one thing that the panels would immediately do would be to shut down most if not all institutions that provide care for persons with severe disabilities, or at the least pull the plug on such people. After all, they contribute nothing except as objects for research and sources of income for providers, and are therefore a huge economic drain. Another group that will be allowed to expire are the elderly in assisted living facilities or anyone at a point in life where in the panel’s judgment the person is too much of a drain in relation to the cost of keeping “it” alive. Once “it” becomes ill, “it” will be allowed to die for the same or similar economic reasons as those with severe disabilities.

Another component that is inherently unconstitutional is the mandatory requirement for all Americans to buy health care enforced through penalties imposed upon those who do not. In a recent television interview, one advocate for the bill asserted that it would be no different than mandating the purchase of automobile insurance. B.arbra S.treisand! Anyone with any sense can instantly make the distinction, but since liberals inherently don’t get it: first, not everyone drives or owns a car so the analogy does not hold; second, it would be a form of “life tax,” i.e. if you are alive one is required to buy insurance. That fact opens the door for government to dictate who and how many children a family can produce, and runs directly into the issue of “reproductive rights.” It is the back door approach to China’s “one child” policy, enforced by mandatory abortion.

by Colonel Bob Pappas, USMC, Retired

Source: Theodore’s World

FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml