There is daily coverage of the 2009 Health Care Reform Bill pros and cons. The coverage is incessant and well it should be. This health care plan will change our lives. However, there is a fundamental question that is ignored, what about the Constitution?
Very recently, Speaker of the House Pelosi was asked by CNS News, “… where does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate?” Her response was, “Are you serious? Are you serious?” CNS News: “Yes, yes I am.”
Later, Pelosi’s press secretary went on record as saying, “That is not a serious question.” My question: “Asking for Constitutional clarification is not a serious question?”
I have another question just how many of our Senators and Representatives do you think have actually read the Health Reform Act? Yes, I think you are right. Not very many.
Regardless, it seems to me that it is not within Congress’ or President Obama’s authority to dictate to any citizen whether an individual must carry health insurance. How about you? How do you feel about it?
It is like automobile seat belt laws. I know that there is evidence to support the use of seat belts. Still, in my naive way of thinking, I cannot accept being fined for not wearing my seatbelt. There is no evidence that my not wearing a seatbelt will hurt any one else.
So then, this law, the seatbelt law, is a law for my own good. A law passed by those that know better for my own good. Whatever happened to my unalienable rights? I realize that those unalienable rights are not part of the Constitution but they are words on which this nation was founded (The Declaration of Independence).
Some would argue that enacting a Public Health Policy requiring health insurance under penalty of prosecution falls under the Congress’ Constitutional prerogative or right and duty “to promote the general welfare”. I agree.Promoting the general welfare is Congress’ obligation. However, it is not their prerogative, duty or right to dictate the general welfare. Promoting and dictating are two distinct words with completely different meanings.
Any law that would require a citizen to insure himself for his own protection under penalty of prosecution is not promoting. That is dictating. It is enforcement, not a suggestion.
Do not confuse the likes of auto liability insurance, which is an enforced law in most of the country, with a required health insurance mandate.
Liability insurance protects you from the consequences of someone else’s actions. If someone causes harm or damage to you or your property, you have recourse. Liability insurance protects you from someone else’s negligence not your own.
Requiring liability insurance is promoting the general welfare. That mandate protects you from others. Health insurance protects you for you. It does not protect you from someone else.
Requiring me or anyone else to have medical insurance under penalty of prosecution is just plain wrong.
Maybe we should also require mandatory life insurance, so that I can pay those exorbitant funeral costs. What do you think?
There are many events and issues that deserve honest non-partisan review. Tony Perez is the editor of just such a review.
You can express your objective non-partisan opinions and comments at http://The-Independent-Voice.com. Go there now and give us your insight.
Article from articlesbase.com
Find More The Constitution Articles