A necessary result of any of the major health care bills passing will be an unprecedented access to our private medical records on the part of the federal government. Surprisingly, this gross invasion of our privacy has received little press. The Dems are upset that they can't get a public option to stay on the table, and the GOP is upset that they can't get significant tort reform provisions in the bills.
But the privacy issue will become significant the moment the legislation passes because its Constitutionality will be challenged. Queen Pelosi condescendingly disregarded a challenge to the legality of the insurance mandate by predictably citing the federal government's responsibility to regulate interstate commerce. This tired argument has been used successfully to justify pretty much anything the feds fancy. A challenge to this will barely be considered before it is laughingly tossed aside by the Supreme Court.
No no. This challenge will come in a different form.
Rewind 36 years. The U. S. Supreme Court made what can arguably called the most controversial judgment in the history of our nation in Roe v. Wade. The decision struck down a Texas abortion law as unconstitutional. It did so on the grounds of the implied "right to privacy" the mother has, derived specifically from the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In other words, the federal government decided that what a person does with her body, and her medical decisions, are between her and her doctor, and the government has no right to meddle in these affairs.
Uh oh.
So, the legislation will be challenged. Either the court will be forced to stand by Roe v. Wade and declare the health care bill unconstitutional, or it will uphold the bill and overturn Roe v. Wade. Is there any other option?
I've got one! This is going to sound a little crazy, but what if we actually function like a republic, and leave these matters to the states? What a novel idea! How constitutionally sound! As the good folks at the Tenth Amendment Center pointed out, "In a truly federal government, Massachusetts could allow same-sex marriages and bar the Ten Commandments from public displays. In a truly federal government, Alabama could display the Ten Commandments in state courtrooms and outlaw same-sex marriages."
Taking issues of this nature from the federal arena and placing them in the hands of the states where they belong is the best way to make the voice of the people heard. Progressives may want to argue that a 7-to-2 court decision made in a stuffy chamber in Washington, D. C. 36 years ago is the proper way to decide what a woman in Utah does with her baby, but I say let the people govern themselves in their own states, and let the federal government do what we told it to do when we created it and ratified our Founding Document.
6 comments:
I can't think of a single argument against this. Not surprising since I'm on this side of the fence anyway. It's just common sense, and it's seemed to work for more than 200 years.
Speaking of health care, I just found this YouTube link. Better watch it before someone demands that it be removed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=G44NCvNDLfc
Great post Nic. One thing that the feds excel at is formulating one-size-fits-all policies that may work great for some, but terrible for others.
Justice Brandeis of the US Sup. Ct. believed that states should be "laboratories of democracy, with the ability to experiment in good and bad."
With this in mind, it would be helpful for federal politicians to look at the states which have experimented in their laboratories with "universal" health care.
Take Massachusetts for example. Contrary to the arguments the dems in congress and the W.H. constantly make, there is no evidence that a federal government overhaul of the system will health care costs down! The cost of health premiums in MA have continued to climb. In fact, MA had the highest family coverage premiums in the nation last year, averaging $13,800.
A senior VP at Blue Cross Blue Shield of MA said this: "State health reform has had some unexpected results, the actual costs have been much higher than what were anticipated when health care reform went into effect in 2007."
The lesson of MA seems to be falling on deaf ears in D.C.
In contrast, Utah has received accolades for having a very efficient health care industry, good coverage rates, and affordable plans. We have the private sector to thank for this.
@Ev - I watched that video and almost stood and applauded afterward, which would not have gone over well in my workplace!
Here is my rep., Rob Bishop, taking 60 seconds to make my voice heard in Washington on the topic of health care reform:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mFXNKYi_ris
Awesome! You'd think this would be obvious, but apparently it's not. Gee, who'd'a thunk it?
Amen.
Post a Comment