Health Reform: The Constitutional Option
Daniel Jarvis (www.eRevolution.us)

Much has been made of the "public option" that seems unable to die in the current health care reform debate.  I hesitate in using the word "reform" however, because usually reforms involve changing direction, rather than accelerating the pace of the current direction. The goverment role in health care, and the "public options" already in existence, have been growing exponentially throughout my lifetime (Medicare, federally-subsidized state Medicaid, SCHIP, etc.), and from what I understand, are on the path to bankruptcy, endless deficits, and overall gloom.

All that aside, I'd like to propose a dramatic health care reform plan of my own -- an eRevolution-style reform that, while radical, might be just what the doctor ordered (or what he would order, if the government wasn't regulating his business).

A Little Background

We're used to thinking of the government chain of command running from top to bottom: the Federal government is where the real power is, and the States take care of the leftovers and the little stuff.  The Founders envisioned America differently: the States were sovereign government bodies (which derived their power from their own people), and these State governments, for mutual protection in trade, law and military matters, bound themselves together via the Constitution.  

The Constitution, then, served as the contract between the States - not to overrule them, but to link them together in the common defense of liberty.  Our Founding Fathers were so committed to this concept that they drafted the 10th Amendment to spell it out clearly: the powers not specifically granted to the Federal government in the Constitution were to be reserved for the State governments, or simply to the people themselves (private industry, charity, local governments, etc.).

With this arrangement, the day to day talk of the nation wouldn't be focused on Washington D.C., but rather on what was happening in the State capitols.  The real power then, was much closer to home.  And this worked to the advantage of the common man - he is far "closer" to the decision-makers at the State level than those at the Federal level.  

(Prime example: I recently met with a State representative from my own area of Ohio, to talk about things happening in Columbus.  We enjoyed lunch at a local Bob Evans.  Unless I was "somebody important," this would be far more difficult to arrange with my federal representatives.)  

The "closer" I am to the people making decisions as my representatives, the more influence I can have.  But the more "federal" things get, the less empowered I am as an individual citizen, and the less "voice" I really have.

So, the Founders vision of the nation involved the power being spread around to the States, not centralized in one all-powerful Washington entity.  The benefits to this arrangement are numerous; not the least of which is some healthy competition between States.  If one State enacts laws or starts programs that are unfavorable, people can move to another State.  But if the Feds do something you don't like, where can you go, realistically?  (So for me, if Ohio raised taxes too much, I might consider moving to Florida, or visa-versa.  That pressure to please the population should keep each state government from going off the deep end.)

You can read the Federalist papers for more on that, particularly #45 by James Madison.

The Constitutional Option

For health care, then, the Constitutional option would be to hand all medical programs over to the State governments and private industries or charities - precisely the opposite of the federal "public option" being discussed.  Here are some specifics:

1. Spin Medicare and other government health care initiatives off to the State governments, working out a transitional budget wherein States begin to collect Medicare taxes and write Medicare regulations.  Obviously, for years the Feds have been receiving Medicare income, and there will be a time of transition where the Federal government will need to proportionally direct money to the States and guarantee the fulfillment of promises made by federal Medicare thus far.  But within a few decades, I think the transition could be complete (and the benefits would be felt almost immediately).

Benefits: 

a) State governments know how to care for their people better than Washington bureaucrats - things that work in one part of the country may not work so well in others.  (A liberal code-word we might use here: localism.)

b) People will have more of a voice in decision-making, because they are "closer" to the decision-makers.  

c) Corruption and waste would be reduced because of the increased accountability at the State level.

d) There would be constant innovation and competition among States to provide better, more efficient Medicare/related safety net services.  States that succeed would then be able to share good ideas with other States, and plans that fail can be avoided by others.  This would likely result in better care at lower costs, and that difference would be felt throughout the system.  Examples: one State might try a "public option," while another tries private incentives and health savings accounts, another goes with the health insurance "mandate," one State may get completely out of the health-care business and contract with private companies to do the work, etc.  The best ideas win, the bad ideas lose, and overall health, prosperity, and customer choice are improved.

e) This brings our government in line with the 10th Amendment, restoring our right to a federal government limited by its Constitution.

2. Make a federal law that prohibits States from "exclusive" health insurance laws.  In other words, people should be allowed to purchase their private health insurance from any company located in any State, just like you can purchase cars, books, stocks, or oil changes from any business anywhere. 

Benefits: 

a) A whole new world of competition in the private sector, which will result in better customer service, lower costs, and better incentives.  More choices and equal opportunities for all.  

b) Pressure on State governments not to place too many regulations or taxes on insurance companies and care providers within their State (since that would risk pushing those businesses to more "friendly" states).

That's it!  Radical transformation 1790's style.  Give it some thought, and let me know what you think. What are the potential blessings of the Constitutional option, and what might be some downfalls?

Disclaimer: I don't claim to know all the in's and out's of what this could mean.  But as a student of the Constitution, I feel like we need to "reset" to our founding principles rather than continue on our current path.  

He plans to violate the U.S Constitution. 

Now, admittedly, most of today’s politicians are at fault on this one, but Obama takes it to a new level.  His ideas about the role of government in private life, particularly regarding the redistribution of wealth, are completely at odds with the U.S. Constitution, a document written specifically to limit the powers and reach of the Federal government.

For example, Obama wants to use the Federal tax code as a way of redistributing wealth from richer to poorer folks, by raising taxes on the upper income people and crediting “negative tax” to those lower on the scale.  (Negative taxes mean that rather than the poor simply paying no taxes [essentially what happens now], the poor actually receive money from the rich, via the IRS, on April 15.)

Now, whether or not you think this idea has merit (we can argue Socialism and Marxism later), such “equalizing of wealth” is not a power granted by the Constitution to the Federal government.  In Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, our Founders gave specific powers to the Federal government, none of which even hint at enforced “fairness,” social spending, etc.

As if that weren’t clear enough, some patriots at our nation’s founding worried that the Federal government might not interpret this list of granted powers as the limit of their reach, but the beginning of it.  They feared that the Federal government would grow beyond the scope they intended, and become just as controlling, taxing and tyrannical as the British crown.  So, they insisted on the 10^th Amendment, the last statement in the Bill of Rights:

“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.”

Now, I freely admit that politicians on both sides of the aisle have conveniently ignored this Amendment – this right – of the people.

Obama correctly asserts that he wants change in America – but his sort of change is precisely opposite of our founding documents.  That means that if/when he stands to proclaim his oath of office, to “preserve, protect and defend” the Constitution, he’ll be lying, plain and simple.

He has no intention of preserving or protecting Article I, Section 8, nor does he plan to defend the 10^th Amendment.  In fact, his policy ideas may be America’s final step away from its Constitution.

So, what does this all mean?

1.  If Americans really believe that social spending and “spreading the wealth” should be functions of the Federal government, then they need to pass a Constitutional Amendment that grants this power to Congress, or write a new constitution that includes socialist values.  Our current Constitution has a viable amendment process, whereby the States agree to a “change of terms” in the agreement that binds them together as “United States.”

2.  As it stands today, the individual States could (and do) implement such changes on their own, but based on the 10^th Amendment, the Federal government should have nothing to do with social spending programs.  (For example, if Maine wanted to institute government health care, or a socialistic tax policy, that’s their decision.  But the Federal government can’t do it without amending its founding contract with the States.)

3.  The Supreme Court has not been vigilant in fulfilling its Constitutional role either, allowing such legislation to pass in the past, and probably allowing it through in the future. 

4.  America was founded on a simple principle: limited, accountable government.  Electing leaders who wish to expand the government’s role without being accountable to the Constitutional process would be a grave mistake.

As one familiar with Constitutional law, Senator Obama should echoing these sentiments, urging that his brand of “change” pass through the legislative channels required by our founding documents.  However, he is well aware that the States won’t ratify any such amendment, and thus seeks to bring socialism to our shores by ignoring the Constitution and packing the courts with those who will do the same.

His failure to uphold the Constitution should disqualify him from the Presidency, and should alarm every freedom-loving citizen, Republican or Democrat.

**************

Evidence: In this previous eRev post, I show how Senator Obama wishes to levy taxes on Americans to enforce “fairness,” not because it would help the government fulfill its legitimate Constitutional functions.

Also see:

No to Obama: Reason 2: He will expose the United States to unnecessary military risk.

No to Obama: Reason 1:  He lacks moral convictions on the issue that matters most: human rights.

He will expose the United States to unnecessary military risk.

Obama has promised to “slow the development of future combat systems” and to make “deep cuts” in our nuclear arsenal. Consider:

-America’s known enemies are actively increasing their military power.

- the U.S.military is the one force on earth that can stand against radical Islamic facism and resurgent, militant Communism.

- there are growing threats from unexpected places, like Russia and Venezuela.

-U.S.military strength, specifically our nuclear arsenal, is the only reason our nation is not attacked by vicious enemies who seek (and even pray) for our destruction.  Staying ahead of these enemies in military strength and technology is critical to our children's future.

The United States has nothing to gain and everything to lose from the “deep cuts” Obama proposes. His idea that a weakened military makes us somehow morally stronger is not only absurd, but downright frightening. Peace is always made possible by strength, not just “strong words.”

This leads us to some important questions:

>“Future combat systems” would undoubtedly save American lives (especially our troops) during a time of war. Why would Obama want to slow such development down?

> Is not the prevention of war, along with the speedy and decisive execution of needed war, the most important investment our government can make, and a primary purpose for which the government exists? [“Provide for the common defense”] 

> If budget-cutting is really important, how about looking to less-critical areas of government spending first?

> What candidate is Iran, Russia, Syria and al-Qaeda rooting for right now, based on what you know from their policy positions?  (If you aren't sure, just watch the video below.)

We need a leader who understands that foreign policy can’t be dictated by lawyers; that international leadership isn’t settled at a banquet, but on the battlefield.

Obama is not that leader. In his own words:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRGru2CPC4E

Also see: