ObamaCare Misleading and Constitutionally Flagrant

Barack Obama signing the Patient Protection an...

Image via Wikipedia

Perhaps one of the most dubious myths in American history is that the free-market, in most cases, leads to monopoly. Thus, government intervention has been deemed the only savior of the free-market since the early days of progressivism nearly a century ago.  Within this context, Yaron Brook and Don Watkins dissect ObamaCare’s so-called victory over “preexisting conditions.” The authors focus on three issues relating government involvement to the inefficiencies we typically see as characterizing the health care debacle:

(1) our tax code,

(2) mandates at the state level – what individual states require to be offered in any given health care package, and

(3) insurance blindfolds, which dictate to insurance companies how they should factor various risks.  In effect, this is equivalent to social planning by the government via setting artificial guidelines to determine the price of a given commodity (price-fixing).

These three areas highlight the inefficiencies associated with health care today, but are typically laid to rest within the dungeon of laissez-fair economics.  The net result of this is government expansion and takeover of health care for all Americans.

“Washington’s control of medicine has grown slowly, evolving piecemeal over decades. Even before ObamaCare, half of all heath care spending was controlled by the government.

The general pattern of the expansion works like this: advocates point to some group in real or alleged dire need and declare that Washington has a duty to act; Washington eventually does. It started with the poor (Medicaid) and the elderly (Medicare). Then came the uninsured in need of emergency care (Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act). Then came middle-class parents (S-CHIP).”

Click for full article→

F.A. Hayek was of the position that any government takeover of industry or commerce is an assault on liberty.  In his infamous A Road to Serfdom regarding the inherent dichotomy between freedom and socialism of any kind, he states:

“What our generation has forgotten is that the system of private property is the most important guaranty [sic] of freedom, not only for those who own property, but scarcely less for those who do not.  It is only because the control of the means of production is divided among many people acting independently that nobody has complete power over us, that we as individuals can decide what to do with ourselves.  If all the means of production were vested in a single hand, whether it be nominally that of “society” as a whole or that of a dictator, whoever exercises this control has complete power over us.” (my emphasis, p. 115)

So is ObamaCare really a government takeover of health care.  Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius says no, as she makes an artificial distinction between federal and state intervention.  “The Affordable Care Act puts states in the driver’s seat because they often understand their health needs better than anyone else – and that is why it is so frustrating to hear opponents of reform falsely attack the law as ‘nationalized health care’.”  It seems that our leaders in Washington fail to grasp the concept that government interference is not limited to federal involvement.  Any interference with my ability to purchase a commodity, whether it concerns price, composition, or knowledge about that product, is an affront to liberty and the free-market.  Therefore, such a distinction between state and federal carries little weight in the grand scheme of ObamaCare.  Rather, the distinction we, as free Americans, need consider is that between public and private.

via Google Images

Peter Suderman makes that distinction.  He asks “what difference is there between a public system where the government taxes and spends your money, and a ‘private’ system where the government forces you to spend your money in the same way?”  If you can honestly answer that there is a difference here and that force plays no part in ObamaCare, then I invite you to recheck your premises.  Not only does force enter the equation along lines of economic freedom, but the Obama administration’s refusal to abide by Judge Vinson’s ruling in Florida renders ObamaCare constitutionally flagrant. Tracy Schmaler of the Justice Department made it abundantly clear that the Obama administration has no intention of following Vinson’s ruling.

“We are analyzing this opinion to determine what steps, if any — including seeking a stay — are necessary while the appeal is pending to continue our progress toward ensuring that Americans do not lose out on the important protections this law provides.”

However, through the end of last year, the Obama administration granted four waivers to Florida, Ohio, New Jersey, and Tennessee along with over 700 individual waivers granted to various organizations who simply cannot afford the higher benefit caps.  It seems as though Washington bureaucrats refuse to read the writing on the wall.  Despite ObamaCare’s infringement upon free commerce and liberty, its constitutional flagrancy, and its fiscal irrationalities, our leaders in Washington – and many of us around the nation – still act from and base what we regard as fact upon broken-down ideological ties to party politics rather than using our minds to make sound judgments.  Perhaps a reminder from one of our founders, Thomas Jefferson: “I am not a Federalist, because I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men…Such an addiction is the last degredation [sic] of a free and moral agent.  If I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all” (American Sphinx, p. 124).  After all, it is our ability to judge with a free conscience that makes us free, not our loyalties to any organization.  The issue of government outgrowth is not one of party politics.  It is nothing less than an issue of self-determination, the only barometer of a free individual.


About Jeremiah Dow
I have a B.S. in Politics, Philosophy, and Economics with a minor in Economics. I finished school in 2010 and am currently working on independent research in various areas including political and economic philosophy, government, and history. I am also currently looking for work in research, particularly the social sciences dealing with public policy work. I aspire to a top-level graduate institution, but would first prefer some professional research experience. Some of my primary influences are Ayn Rand, Noam Chomsky, and Howard Zinn among others.

2 Responses to ObamaCare Misleading and Constitutionally Flagrant

  1. Pingback: Dr. Yaron Brook on Government, Healthcare, and Individual Rights « kapitalcon

  2. Pingback: Ron Paul Speaks on Government Coercion and Failure « kapitalcon

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: