Monday, March 29, 2010

Tyranny is Tyranny Whether Federal or State Government Mandated

Author Sheldon Richman made us think again, as we have in the past like so many others, government creates or manufactures the problem, the crisis, then sooner or later, government comes around with the solution to the problem, the crisis, the solution that leads to another problem or crisis which...

the government needs to solve.

But beware. This scenario doesn't only apply to the Federal Government and its current fix of the health care system's problems and crisis. But to the State Government as well.

One need only look at the State of Massachusetts. Ah yes, when Governor Mitt Romney supported the government's role in health care insurance for his state's citizens.

Romney doesn't support the Federal Government mandate, but it's A OK with Romney that the state of Massachusetts imposed a mandate.

Health Care delivery in crisis in the state of Massachusetts so along comes the State to fix it by imposing a what? A mandate?

Exactly. And other states would like no less than to re-claim or claim Tenth Amendment States Rights to do the same. States want to deny the Federal Government an imposition of a mandate for individuals to purchase health care insurance from a private provider, but not deny themselves that power.

If this isn't the height of hypocrisy, what is?

Tenth Amendment

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

But oops, look at that, in the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, people is not even capitalized as is United States and as is States/States respectively.

We've been wondering when do the people, yes not even a capital P in people in the U.S. Constitution's Tenth Amendment, reserved powers - kick in?

When do the people get to claim power not delegated to the United States and not delegated to the States respectively?

That's right, the people are not capitalized, and so what powers do the people really have reserved to them?

Shouldn't the people have been listed first in the Tenth Amendment?

Shouldn't the Tenth Amendment read:

The people retain all powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, any powers not so delegated are reserved to the people.

It should have been written that way and then we wouldn't have any claim by Federal or State governments that they can mandate anything on any individual.

We're wondering when do the people stand up and fight for themselves as a legal body mentioned at least with a lower case people in the Constitution.

When do the people fight for themselves as individuals.

Individuals with a right to privacy, a right to self-protection via any means, a right to protect themselves from a Tyrannical Government whether Federal or State?

When do the people get to exercise any power to claim a power to form their own health care system and their own methodology of health care delivery without having to fill out any not a single government form that asks anything about the status of their health care insurance?

Another development to consider is the exemption provided in the Reconciliation Act applicable to members of one religious sect or another. While names are not mentioned in the bill, analysis shows the exempted may be individuals belonging to an Amish or Muslim sect.

When will individuals act to secure their own liberty from Federal and State intrusive government which doesn't give one thought to an individual's privacy unalienable privacy rights?

Net the Truth Online

The Goal Is Freedom | by Sheldon Richman
Wishful Thinking on Health Care

No one knows exactly what was passed.
Posted March 26, 2010

How an issue is framed is crucial to how it is decided. Advocates of the package of health insurance regulations, taxes, and mandates known as ObamaCare managed to frame the issue as “reform versus the status quo.” But to call the Obama-Pelosi-Reid plan (OPR) “reform” is to beg the question by assuming precisely what needs to be proved: namely, that the legislative package would actually reform — that is, improve — the medical system. Therefore the debate should have been not whether reform is desirable – real reform (improvement) is always desirable — but whether OPR is really reform.

A better framing of the issue would have been: real reform versus the status quo on steroids, for in the end OPR is little more than what Holman Jenkins of the Wall Street Journal calls a “doubling down on the system’s existing perversities.” For example, under OPR everyone will be forced to become a customer of the health insurance industry that the ruling political class just spent a year demonizing, and that industry will reap billions in taxpayer subsidies. Moreover, demand for medical services will be further insulated from true costs. That is already the source of so much of what’s wrong today.

Let’s look at the newly signed law from four perspectives: moral, fiscal, economic, and political...

No comments: