Massachusetts Health Care: A Model for Disaster

As a practicing physician, I agree with Mr. Ellis' comments. In short the Massachusetts disaster and Obamacare are unconstitutional, evil and do not work. The Patients' Choice Act addresses the current problem with our system and keeps the governmental involvement to a minimum.

And Tom, it's even more "Christian" than the grand larceny and deceit that is Obamacare and Mr. Romney's plan. I suggest those who support this massive governmental meddling learn from the history of those in Canada or the UK; the UK plan has been around since 1948. They now state on their website the National Health Service:
“The government is reforming adult care and support with a new national service that is fair, simple and affordable.” Wow, that’s quite a long time and they are still trying to get it right. But we’re smarter than those Brits, aren’t we?

Why would anyone with a functioning brain want the government to run our health care. Just look at what they've done to education.

I have notices a trend. Conservative bloggers and commentators repeatedly point to Massachusetts as the failure of mandatory/universal healthcare. Yet none of these commentators seem to actually be from Massachusetts. How exactly are you, a blogger from one of the Dakotas, qualified to preach on the merits of Massachusetts healthcare? Based on an editorial from another newspaper?

I, on the other hand, am from Massachusetts. Although not without its flaws, the Massachusetts system is actually pretty great, and most people agree. Indeed, one of the problems that we have run into is that so many people finally have health insurance and can finally get needed healthcare that there is a shortage of primary care physicians. Its a problem that shows exactly how effective and needed the law is.

The market will eventually adjust to address all these problems. State officials have already begun investigating some of the factors that have risen to higher prices. Although the system isn't perfect, its better than what we had before (or what the nation has now for that matter).

As to your consitutionality argument. Where exactly did you get your law degree? While your claim that there is no constitutional authority for it may have held sway in the 19th century, modern supreme court jurisprudence would clearly support finding authority in the commerce clause.

You are grasping at straws here. The simple fact is that universal healthcare is needed, and that the problems associated with it should be addressed, not cited as reasons why it is a lost cause. That is the American, and "Christian", thing to do.

Tom, I never went to the former Soviet Union. Nevertheless, I have every confidence that the information stating it was a terrible place to live was accurate. I also don't have to have my leg cut off to understand that it would be painful and unpleasant. You're grasping at straws to try and discredit an analysis you know is accurate.

As to the constitutionality argument, I'll ask again since it didn't sink in the first time: where in Article 1 Section 8, where the federal government derives its powers, is the authority for government welfare programs such as this for the federal government?

Let me provide you with a little information about how incompatible government health care is with both the constitution and Christianity.

This is what the Bible says about helping those in need (hint: people--especially families--are to do it, not government):

- If one of your countrymen becomes poor and sells some of his property, his nearest relative is to come and redeem what his countryman has sold. (Leviticus 25:25)

- Do not show favoritism to a poor man in his lawsuit (Exodus 23:3)

- Do not pervert justice; do not show partiality to the poor or favoritism to the great, but judge your neighbor fairly. (Leviticus 19:15)

- If a man will not work, he shall not eat. (2 Thessalonians 3:10)

- These should learn first of all to put their religion into practice by caring for their own family (1 Timothy 5:4)

- As for younger widows, do not put them on such a list…they get into the habit of being idle and going about from house to house (1 Timothy 5:13)

- If any woman who is a believer has widows in her family, she should help them and not let the church be burdened with them, so that the church can help those widows who are really in need. (1 Timothy 5:16)

Here is what the founders told us about the constitutionality of wealth redistribution schemes like this:

- A wise and frugal government…shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. – Thomas Jefferson

- Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated. - Thomas Jefferson

- With respect to the two words 'general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators. – James Madison

- I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents. – James Madison

- Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government. – James Madison

- We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right so to appropriate a dollar of the public money. — Congressman Davy Crockett

There is no Biblical or constitutional authority for a federal health care system.

Bob, thanks for responding. It is nice to have a dialogue, and so many blog comment threads turn into cyber screeming matches.

As to believing what you are told, obviously you cannot always experience things first hand and you can make reasonable assumptions about some things. What I am saying is that I am experiencing this first hand, and I consider the law to be largely successful, as do many of my colleauges, friends, and neighbors. I constantly see conservative commentators declaring it an utter failure, but I just don't see how that judgment is being made. I think your sources are a little biased. Again, the law isn't perfect but it is better that what we had before (i.e., nothing). Further, your accusation that I am trying to discredit an analysis that I "know is accurate" is utterly false. I have no personal stake in the law, and I certainly do not think the analysis is accurate. I know that Massachusetts has the highest rate of insured in America. That, to me, is a success, and it certainly beats letting the uninsured go bankrupt over medical bills, a cost ultimately spread to everyone else.

I think it might also make sense at this point to clear up a little confusion. The Massachusetts system is not "government" health care. The law is simple. If you do not have health insurance, you are penalized on your taxes. If you cannot afford it or your employer does not offer it, there is a state insurance system you can buy into. To avoid the situation where employers stop offering health insurance so that people will buy into the state system, employers are taxed if they don't offer it. The government does not decide who you buy it from, or who you go see, or whether you ever use it. The government only requires you have it, or pay a price. It is really the same thing as requiring car owners to have car insurance (or is that some sort of horrible evil also?). The rationale is the same -- if you didnt have insurance, you would indirectly be passing the cost on to everyone else when something bad happens.

Back to the constitutionality argument. First, Article I section 8 is not "where the federal government derives its powers." Articles I, II, and III all give the federal government power -- the legislative, executive, and judicial branches respectively. Section 8 outlines the scope of legislative powers. Next, to answer your question: there are two places in section 8 giving authority for such programs. 1) The Commerce Clause: "To regulate Commerce ... among the several States" which has been interpreted expansively to justify a huge multitude of legislation. The fact is the healthcare industry is massive and interstate -- the Supreme Court has upheld much more attenuated legislation under the commerce clause. 2) The Tax and Spend Clause: "The Congress shall have Power To .... provide for the ... general Welfare of the United States..." I think that one is fairly obvious, as you seem to have tried to avert it before I raised it.

While the quotes you cite are nice and all, they are not controlling legal authority. As I said before, your analysis would have held sway in the 18th and 19th century, but under modern constitutional juridprudence, decided by our duly appointed Supreme Court Justices over time, there is indeed authority for such a program (the same authority that authorizes all the other "charitble" programs like TANF, Medicare, Medicaid, FICA etc.)

Now "I'll ask again since it didn't sink in the first time:" Where exactly did you get your law degree?

As to the christianity argument -- well that was tounge-in-cheek to begin with. I will defer to your interpretation on that, which is ultimately irrelevant. I will say, however, that I remember stories of Jesus curing the blind and performing other miracles on sick people -- not blaming them for not being able to afford a cure.

Tom, while I haven't experienced the Massachusetts version of socialized medicine, I lived in England for three years and enjoyed their lovely mess. And there is usually little variance in such systems: they are universally inefficient, costly, ignore human nature, and epitomize the word "boondoggle".

I strongly disagree that the Mass. system is not a government health care system. While it is true that it is not a totally micromanaged system like the one in England, government controls every aspect of the system. You don't have any choice as an employer not to participate--they'll jam you with taxes if you don't. You also don't have a choice of whether to get health coverage or not, regardless of whether you're young and healthy, independently wealthy, etc. Freedom is ushered out the door on the tip of a government boot.

And the Constitution most certainly does NOT give the federal government authority to steal money from one person and give it to another, nor does it give the government authority to run the health care system. Liberals have attempted to pervert portions of the Constitution--such as the Commerce Clause--to manufacture an excuse to do what is clearly illegal. Ours was a constitution and government designed to be limited in scope and authority, specifically because the founders recognized the threat to freedom a large and powerful government presents--exactly what we're seeing today, as we have thumbed our noses at our Constitution.

The reason I quoted the founders is because these are the men who created our nation, our government and our constitution. I would think they would have at least some small clue as to how our government is supposed to operate and what the Constitution does and does not authorize. So I'll include their elaboration on this matter once again, because I understand that personal freedom and limited government are alien concepts to liberals and it often takes repeated exposure for these truths to sink through:

- A wise and frugal government…shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. – Thomas Jefferson

- To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it. — Thomas Jefferson

- Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated. - Thomas Jefferson

- The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If 'Thou shalt not covet' and 'Thou shalt not steal' were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society before it can be civilized or made free." — John Adams

- [Congressional jurisdiction of power] is limited to certain enumerated objects, which concern all the members of the republic, but which are not to be attained by the separate provisions of any." - James Madison

- The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined . . . to be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce." - James Madison

- With respect to the two words 'general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators. – James Madison

- I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents. – James Madison

- Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government. – James Madison

- We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right so to appropriate a dollar of the public money. — Congressman Davy Crockett

If we want to foolishly change the Constitution to allow such demonstrably bad programs, then the Constitution does allow for that with the amendment process. We don't just get to make it up as we go--not legally, anyway. We have been operating largely outside the Constitution--and thus illegally--since FDR began the modern trend of showing such contempt for the Constitution. And "because we've done it for 60 years" is not justification to continue showing such contempt for our governing document.

I do not have a law degree, nor do I need one to understand such basic facts about our Constitution and government. (Do you have a degree in computer science, preferably one dealing with internet technology--if not, perhaps you shouldn't be meddling about on the computer right now.) Many people do have law degrees, yet lack a basic understanding of them...or more likely, do understand and simply find them inconvenient. Your question seems to be based in the typical liberal elitist attitude that unless one has a law degree, one cannot possibly understand the intricate complexities of such important matters that are more properly left to one's betters.

Finally, though comment disparaged such "irrelevant" matters as morality, human origins and eternity, you admitted with your own comment that Christ tended to the needs of these people himself, rather than hiring a government thug to take money from someone and give it to them, and without sending them to a government health system. Because that is how Christians are taught to show compassion (people to people, not government to people), and how our nation was designed to function.

Bob, it appears we just disagree on some basic ideas. My original point was that I don't see how a blogger from South Dakota is qualified to declare the Massachusetts mandatory health care law an utter failure. You seem to admit that your judgment was based on 1) what you heard from other conservatives, and 2) generalized assumptions about other universal health care models that actually are quite different than the Massachusetts model. That said, people can make their own judgments on the quality of such analysis.

Again, people can buy private insurance and go to private health care providers. The idea is that if you didn't have it -- no matter how young and healthy -- and something unexpected and bad happens, the cost should not be spread around to everyone else. If a simple requirement that employers offer health insurance and people buy it, or else face a tax penalty is equivalent to government "controlling every aspect of the system," then I understand your disdain for our government. Like I said, most state government requires us to purchase auto insurance or face penalties. Not to mention the multitude of other things the federal government requires us to do or face some type of penalty.

I understand your position on the constitution. I disagree with a number of Supreme Court opinions also. Like it or not, however, in the English common law system that our country was built on, under the doctrine of stare decisis those decisions become law. The Supreme Court is tasked with interpreting the constitution, and there decisions carry the force of law while our opinions don't matter. So, yes, actually the fact that it has been done for 60 years is, legally, a reason why there is support in the constitution. Again, you are free to disagree on what the constitution holds, but barring a major revolution that results in kicking stare decisis out the door, your interpretation of the constitution is at odds with case law of the last century.

Again, our founding fathers quotes do not carry the force of law. I don't know what else to say about that but you continue to harp on it.

As for this suggestion that I am elitist for implying a law degree would be necessary to be qualified to make an assertion that a number of established government programs are unconstitutional -- I guess I fail to see how that is elitist. Your absolutely right, I don't have a degree in computer science (I'm still not sure if that was some sort of veiled threat) so I am not qualified to make claims about capabilities of computers, and citing Bill Gates would not make me anymore qualified. I can do basic functions (just as people operate within the bounds of the law everyday), but I will defer to the experts when it comes to the intricate workings of the computer. Similarly, I believe you are far more qualified than me to interpret the bible, so I will defer to your judgment on that. Most people would think I was nuts if I ran around accusing the geek squad of being elitist for knowing how to fix a computer, or if I called you elitist for telling me what is "Christian". I don't think the constitutionality of these programs is sufficiently basic that any person can obviously see that they are or aren't. With all do respect, your claims and analysis show a sophomoric understanding of the American legal system - of which the constitution is the backbone, but hardly the meat. You seem to think it is so obvious that you can take the condescending position that people who study the profession scoff at the law. Believe me, most lawyers take the rule of law very seriously.

Further, lawyers are not anyone's "betters" nor are they necessarily "important" matters. But these issues are not cut and dry -- they are highly nuanced and one should not be disdained because they chose to study and pursue a higher understanding of the system our country operates within.

I hate to go back to the Christianity argument, but first, the Church (which for a long period of time was equivalent to the government) took money from the people for various reason. Second, as our founding fathers intended, our government is by the people for the people so really what you disagree with is having centralized distribution scheme -- this people to people vs. government to people distinction is artificial if you accept the premise that the government is equivalent to the people.

I am as qualified as most people to comment on a socialized health care system regardless of my geographical location. Perhaps more qualified, since I have lived under a national one that has been long established. I based my comments on the statements made in the Examiner editorial, combined with my own personal experience. If you refute any of the statements made in the Examiner editorial, I would be interested in hearing specifics. However, they seemed credible, and in line with my experience with socialized systems. As a matter of principle, a person can do something that doesn't work in Zimbabwe, and a person can do the same thing in a similar way in Ottowa, and it doesn't take a genius to figure out that doing the same thing the same way is going to get the same results.

I also understand that the statements made by the founders do not carry the force of law. However, the CONSTITUTION carries the force of law--the highest law. The Constitution itself is very clear that it has limited, enumerated powers, beyond which it has no authority. This is clearly outlined in Article I Section 8, and further clarified by the Tenth Amendment.

Apparently, this is not clear enough for those who have an ulterior agenda and view the Constitution as an obstacle to their ambitions. The quotes from the founders, while not carrying the force of law, further clarify what should already be abundantly clear in the Constitution.

But it really isn't about ignorance, is it? It isn't really that these people who are subverting the Constitution really don't want to show disrespect for it and just don't understand, is it? They really do understand what the Constitution says, what it requires, and what its limits are...and simply don't care. They are determined to do what they want, and any twisted logic which can be used to justify the exact opposite allowable under the Constitution is exactly what they seek.

Is the NEWS so dead that you have to hammer MITT ROMNEY????
WHEN WILL YOU BIGOTS STOP??

Wow, somebody's a little sensitive about ole' Mitt.

And I didn't even mention that he was a Mormon (which is the obvious subject of the "bigot" implication).