Why the New Federal Health Care Bill is Unconstitutional

Or Why the Health Care Bill Should Be Repealed

Replace and REPEAL

There has been recent talk involving the very likely possibility that certain proceedings would be instituted to repeal the health care bill. Understandably, experts, smarter than me believe that this prospect is very unlikely. Despite the fact I am not even in the same ballpark as say Charles Krauthammer, I’m going to tentatively and respectively disagree.

There is an excellent article/blog by Sean Trende titled: Why the Health Care Bill Could Be Repealed that does an excellent job of explaining why despite some who think this event unlikely, it actually could be done.

I’m writing to add that it absolutely positively needs to be done.

Going back in history any program that even resembles this enormous overhaul of our economy like Medicare for example, any estimate of how much this law would end up costing in taxpayer money has always been horribly underestimated. For example, in 1966 after Medicare became law, it cost the taxpayer $3 billion. It was estimated that by The House Ways and Means Committee by1990, the cost would increase to $12 billion. In reality, the cost ballooned to $107 billion and in 2007 the taxpayers paid $468.7 billion.

And as we all know, Medicare is now bankrupt. This 2010 health care bill just recently signed into law has no real means of paying for it and we absolutely know the estimated costs of this bill are way, way underestimated (by design) by the Obama administration and other lawmakers who rammed it down our collective American throats.

This overthrow of our American constitution can and should be repealed and it begins with the 2010 elections. Defunding this monstrosity is one way to stop it in its tracks instantly. Challenging it as unconstitutional on many levels – compelling private citizens to buy a product from other private citizens is another way. Still another way (as I see it) is unlike Social Security (see the above mentioned article), this law clearly ignores Article 1 Section 8 of our constitution: “The Congress shall have Power to lay and can collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.” Emphasis mine.

This health care bill recently signed by President Obama clearly is not Uniform for all throughout the United States. This bill plans to tax/impost/impose excises on some Americans to benefit another group of Americans especially given most Americans already have health care coverage. The federal government therefore is not providing something for everyone, equally benefitting everyone uniformly.

In addition, when reading Section 8 further, nowhere on that list does it say that the Congress shall impose said taxes/excises/imposts for health care.

Now, I’m no expert on Constitutional law like Mr. Obama. So perhaps I’m missing something here. But I have to say, the Constitution is actually a fairly easy document to read. It’s not terribly long and it’s written in plain language. Unlike the Obamacare bill.

As American citizens for these reasons and so many other reasons (like there is absolutely no way to pay for this health care bill that was recently signed into law among many other reasons) we must repeal this law.

Become proactive. If you can’t give money, give of your time. Write blogs, go out and stump for your congressmen/women and senators who are running in 2010 and who will repeal this bill.

Do something, anything that is legal, to make certain that this bill does not remain the law of the land, before we have no land left to pay taxes in!

I’ll close now – I think I hear some black helicopters hovering over my home… ;-)

More by this Author

Comments 17 comments

maven101 profile image

maven101 6 years ago from Northern Arizona

I would think the possibility of the Supreme Court overturning the health care bill is highly unlikely. This is such a massive bill, involving 137 new bureaucracies, thousands of new government employees, infrastructure dedicated to their activities, and computer systems developed to handle the influx of new rules and requirements yet to be imposed...No, I think the only solution would be for a Republican blow-out in November, then congress can simply deny funding for the various parts of this hugh bureaucracy that give government control over 1/6 of our economy. Keep the good parts, and defund those that allow government to force certain parts of it down our throats, like abortion, mandatory insurance, and special treatment for unions...Larry

cjv123 profile image

cjv123 6 years ago from Michigan Author

Maven/Larry - can't really argue that! I'd give a thumbs up to your way! I was just tossing them all out hoping one or more would stick! Great comment!

sheila b. profile image

sheila b. 6 years ago

Not only do we have to vote the Democrats out, we have to get the right Republicans in. I think that means getting rid of many of the old guys and voting for the younger ones who understand the Constitution and know they have to answer to the voters. You're right, we can't let the pressure off.

cjv123 profile image

cjv123 6 years ago from Michigan Author

You are 100% right Sheila! Another great comment!

breakfastpop profile image

breakfastpop 6 years ago

Terrific article cj. I am hoping beyond hope that the Supreme Court finds this bill to be unconstitutional. I have been doing a great deal of research on this matter and honestly, everything points to this bill being declared a dud. Let's hope for the best, because once the bill gets rolling it will be extremely difficult to reverse course.

cjv123 profile image

cjv123 6 years ago from Michigan Author

I hear ya Pop - but I'm still hoping that the bill can be defunded and then pull out the socialist agenda and actually FIX health care by fixing this horrible bill. But I agree if it gets rolling - it will be very difficult to fix.

Cedar Cove Farm profile image

Cedar Cove Farm 6 years ago from Southern Missouri

I am not convinced that even the neo-cons actually want the bill repealed. I am increasingly of the opinion that both sides of the aisle are in cahoots. MHO.

cjv123 profile image

cjv123 6 years ago from Michigan Author

Cedar Cove Farm - Do you mean you believe the Republican Party is probably not against this? I think if they weren't really that against it before, now that they've seen and recognized the public outcry - they are now, That is if these louts want to keep their jobs they will!

Cedar Cove Farm profile image

Cedar Cove Farm 6 years ago from Southern Missouri

That's just it. Why are they, all of a sudden, finding their conservativism? Take John McCain for example. He is as wishy washy and liberal as they get (check his voting record), now, when he wants to keep his job, he has a spine again? Where were all these people 5, 10, 20 years ago? I get the impression that the republicrats are only conservative when it is convenient. Again, just my opinion.

Why, after all the years of "conservative" judicial appointments, do we still have abortion in this country? A sitting president can get rid of that law, but they don't seem to really want to.

cjv123 profile image

cjv123 6 years ago from Michigan Author

I concur with everything you say! And it's a reason why we should NOT consider Romney as a Presidential candidate. He lied to get into office as governor of Mass. Then he signed into Mass. law a health care bill that was cloned into the federal health care bill! He's a Republican, but he's the same kind of politician that we've always had in government. Time for a CHANGE!

Cedar Cove Farm profile image

Cedar Cove Farm 6 years ago from Southern Missouri

We got our change, all right. Personally, I'd like to see more like Ron Paul. He understands the constitution. Romney is NOT the one to pick, and I am done voting for "the lesser of two evils". It is still voting for evil. Government is about a common defense and inter-state commerce. We need to get back to that.

cjv123 profile image

cjv123 6 years ago from Michigan Author

We'll have to disagree, Ron Paul quite frankly is unbalanced. He has some very good ideas but overall - he's nutty. We need common sense in the White House and someone who has a chance of winning - Allen West is someone to pay very close attention to. Distinguished, very, very smart, not a Washington insider and he has a great chance of taking the White House. Ron Paul doesn't have a chance of winning even if he wasn't a nut.

Cedar Cove Farm profile image

Cedar Cove Farm 6 years ago from Southern Missouri

How is he a nut? Is it because he bucks the system? I say more power to him. I have looked at his voting record and he votes the way he talks. How many can say that? Ron Paul thinks that men like your husband should be home, defending our borders, rather than being strewn across the world. I agree. We could balance the budget with all the money we save on maintaining foreign military bases. This is not an anti-military statement. Just a practical one.

Know this, I have begun to greatly respect you views. All I seek is that when you vote, vote your conscience, not the "lesser of two evils", or, strait Republican. There are viable alternatives out there. I will look into Allen West. I must admit, I don't know who he is.

Thanks for the discussion.

billyaustindillon profile image

billyaustindillon 6 years ago

I enjoyed the discussion and comments here, lots of valid points. I can't see the Supreme court throwing the bill out though. it comes down to November for huge changes in it or flat out rejection. I figure either way they will keep in bills for the youth health care etc - the parts that were liked by the majority

cjv123 profile image

cjv123 6 years ago from Michigan Author

OH HAVE MERCY! I would never vote a straight Party line - ever! And I haven't. My God is the Great I AM - not the Republican Party I assure you. I've been meaning to write a Hub about the possible nomination of Mitt Romney to the Republican ticket and why - if that happens - they'll lose me for good. If I could find two minutes...

Also - you know what - I never should have written I think he's a nut given the fact you were interested in him for a possible Presidential run. So I really do apologize for that.

I strongly disagree with Ron Paul's view about the War on Terror and actually a number of other things. He's too all over the map for me. Not at all because he speaks his mind. Here's a few examples of his overblown paranoia type of statements:http://www.counterpunch.org/paul1.html

Here he makes blatant accusations with nothing to back his claims:http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=361

Here's another example of why I disagree with him: http://www.michaelenglishmusic.com/index.php

NOW - having said that - I agree with you and him that our boarders need to be closed and interestingly (at least to me) my husband headed up a commission of military brass that went to D.C. after the first Terror attacks on the Twin Towers to show a plan he devised to shut down the boarders. Not one politician would listen. I'm right there with you about our boarders. However - I am not in sync with Paul at all regarding the War on Terror. We didn't start it - it has made the world a safer place due to Bush policies that ironically are still in place under the Obama administration and in complete contrast to Paul's beliefs, our lawmakers and the American people were definitely (at the time) in support of Bush's strategies for executing the war on Terror.

Stan K profile image

Stan K 6 years ago

Should we eliminate Medicare because it is "bankrupt"? How about our ailing Fire and Police departments? Most cities are now laying them off for lack of funds. On the same principles, why not lay them off entirely? Why not get rid of federally funded meat inspectors and roll the dice with the meat producers (The Jungle?)?

I agree with anyone that says the government is inefficient but not nearly as efficient as the big insurance companies that deny benefits and kill tens of thousands of people in the name of greater efficiency/profits.

It's a fine line to walk, but we have police and fire departments for a reason - they preserve lives. One could reasonably say that based on the principles of freedom that any taxation or government intervention of any kind is bad. But, are we better off leaving our health care, police, fire, and other life saving services in the hands of corporations? How about the court system? Why not privatize the court system? Would we get better justice if judges and juries served to enhance profits by cutting corners on an impartial justice system?

Yes, it can all be for sale - justice, police protection, fire protection - just like the preservation of life is now with our current system that kills 10's of thousands of citizens in the name of the shareholders who want bigger returns.

So, Obama dares to address the issue. I'm certain there were many opponents of pulling children out of the public labor pool in the early 1900's. Doesn't that ring nicely? I'm nostalgic for a time when children skipped that pesky, government run, education system and went straight to work at age 6 in some mine, 10 hours a day. Ah, the good old days before the government ruined it all by stepping in to stop child exploitation.

If only you could go back in time to protest that government intervention and Medicare and the government take over of the Police and Fire departments. Yep, all these impartial, government funded entities that protect our rights and lives are ridiculous and I find it worthy of criminal prosecution to support any initiative to prevent corporations from offing citizens by the thousands!

cjv123 profile image

cjv123 6 years ago from Michigan Author

I definitely see what you're saying Stan however, there are a couple of problems with your argument. One - you keep using firemen and police. Those are our LOCAL government taxes - taxes we have far, far better control over. Government is usually excessive and inefficient - look at the Post Office or any number of Federal agencies. Look at our school system - overall good - but horribly broken in many areas of the country.

When anything on a micro level is run on the macro - with regards to government - the higher up you go, the more waste and abuse. It's just a simple fact. When it's local and state taxes, I can walk right up to my Lansing Capital and have my voice heard. Do you think Mr. Obama or Nancy Pelosi is listening to you? Do you really believe that?

Secondly - the biggest flaw with your argument is while the federal gov't can tax us, they do have limited powers to do so: "Section 8. The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States...

That "All Imposts and Excises shall be uniform..." right away - invalidates the health care reform bill. That bill is not executed in a "uniform way" certainly not state by state and definitely not citizen by citizen.

Also - nothing in the constitution allows Congress to force a citizen to purchase a good. The Health Care bill literally forces a U.S. Citizen to buy insurance - or the individual faces a penalty. How can you be for something that forces people to BUY something? What next? They'll MAKE us buy an electric car because it's good for the environment? This is absolutely unprecedented in our history and if it remains the law of the land - which it truly can't - it will give the federal government almost unlimited powers over our lives. That's patently unconstitutional.

The Constitution of the United States is our guideline for the powers and the LIMITS of power the federal government should have. This administration has made a power-grab that is way, way far reaching and frankly, unconstitutional.

Lastly - Who is going to pay for it all? We've had numerous reports that state because of our tripling of the national debt in ONE YEAR'S TIME - bigger than any President had ever done - we can not keep this debt AND remain solvent. It's just that simple. You're FOR something the United States can't possibly pay for! What's worse - this was foisted upon us in a very weak economy - with double digits national unemployment. Where is the tax money going to come from to pay the debt AND pay the bill for just Health Care alone? Even if it was PERFECT and wonderful bill - it CAN NOT BE PAID FOR. As they used to say, "Money doesn't grow on trees." So where is it going to come from? Greece? The whole country is going in the toilet. Where the U.S. is headed if we don't stop the House and Senate from spending money this country can't possibly produce!

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.

    Click to Rate This Article