Obamacare Another Assault on Federalism

(Source: Heritage Foundation)

(Source: Heritage Foundation) CLICK TO ENLARGE

Federalism and Tenth Amendment state’s rights have been under assault since the days of FDR.

The federal government was created to serve the states and, in the words of James Madison, “to be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce.”   Under the 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.

The astute constitutional student will recognize that there is no authority whatsoever under Article 1 Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution (the part of the Constitution which outlines the powers of the federal government) to create or administer a health care system.

In the past year, several states have moved to assert their rights under the Tenth Amendment. States such as South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Louisiana, North Dakota, Alaska, Idaho, Oklahoma and more have passed resolutions telling the federal government to keep its paws off areas that don’t belong to it.

Alabama has specifically moved to short-circuit the federal government’s plan to cripple the country under the cap and trade global warming tax.  Other states such as Arizona, Florida, and Texas are moving to specifically tell the federal government if they pass socialized health care, it isn’t going to fly in their states.

More states–and more work–may be needed, given what the socialists in congress and the White House have in mind.

The Heritage Foundation has an analysis of how Obamacare would hit federalism and state’s rights hard.

State flexibility regulations will be removed, making states merely administrative arms of the federal government’s bidding

If congress succeeds in raising eligibility to 133% of poverty in the final bill (if it passes, God forbid), 33 states could see their Medicare rolls increase 30%, with 10 states seeing an increase of 50%. And since–contrary to a popular conception–government can’t create money out of thin air, guess who gets to pay for that?  What will it look like if they raise it to 150% of poverty?  Got your wallet handy?

There are any number of real reform actions congress could take if only they wanted to; these involve real solutions like tort reform, promoting consumer involvement and choice, making insurance more portable, etc.

But they don’t want to improve the system and get it back within constitutional parameters and into the realm of common sense.

Their goal is to push socialized health care on America, and they’ll do it in a big step or several smaller ones.  We the people must not allow them to take even small steps in that direction.  We’re already too close to the lip of that socialist abyss.

Note: Reader comments are reviewed before publishing, and only salient comments that add to the topic will be published. Profanity is absolutely not allowed and will be summarily deleted. Spam, copied statements and other material not comprised of the reader’s own opinion will also be deleted.

  • Digg
  • Yahoo Buzz
  • Reddit
  • Yahoo Bookmarks
  • Delicious
  • StumbleUpon
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Windows Live Favorites
  • Technorati Favorites
  • NewsVine
  • Share/Bookmark
  • drewf24
    As a politically active member of society, I was delighted to read your opinion concerning the potential healthcare overhaul. I appreciated how you connected the bill to the Tenth Amendment and how state’s rights have been under assault for decades under government issued programs. As you pointed out this has led Arizona, Florida, and Texas to inform the federal government if health care reform is passed, it will not be implemented since there is no authority whatsoever under Article 1 Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution to create or administer a health care system. I believe Obamacare not only deals with states rights but doesn’t it also address efficiency of federal programs?

    Although Obamacare sounds great on paper I believe it will fail because combining government and private industry constantly falls short of expectations. Private companies exist to create wealth, and government was created to serve the states and, in the words of James Madison, “to be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce.” Furthermore, companies manage expenses and try to ensure every dollar has a positive return, whereas the government has a tendency to spend liberally and measures returns in campaign donations and encouraging polling data. Additionally, they serve different entities, corporations serve customers and investors, while government serves special interest groups, voters, politicians etc. To understand troubles that public/private partnerships present, one must recognize the contemporary examples of Amtrak and the United States Postal Service. Congress created Amtrak in 1970 as a for-profit corporation. However, they have lost money every year since. Despite receiving $30 billion in federal subsidies it has never made a profit in a 39 year life span. The Postal service has achieved similar results over its existence. The USPS is run by a board of eleven, with the president appointing nine of them. This allows politics to be integrated in the company’s efforts and failure of tough business decisions to be made. The USPS lost $2.8 billion in fiscal year 2008 and expects to lose another $3 billion to $6 billion in 2009. These losses are being paid back from the population the companies serve, the taxpayers. I am a firm believer if Obamacare includes a public option another public/private partnership with insurance companies will result in a massive deficit increase and leave the taxpayers paying for another failed government venture.
  • Thank you! I'm glad you enjoyed it.
blog comments powered by Disqus