October 1st 2013 - National Healthcare Launches (sort of)
Based on a Manhattan Institute analysis of the HHS numbers, Obamacare will increase underlying insurance rates for younger men by an average of 97 to 99 percent, and for younger women by an average of 55 to 62 percent. Worst off is North Carolina, which will see individual-market rates triple for women, and quadruple for men. - http://hotair.com/archives/2013/09/26/white-house-resets-expectations-for-obamacare-exchanges-in-light-of-embarrassing-failures/
Table of Contents
31 January 2011 - Federal Judge Halts Implementation of Health Care Law by Declaring it Unconstitutional
New Study 21 October 2010 - Healthcare subsidies potentially five times higher in first year than predicted
June 28th 2012 - Supreme Court Rules National Healthcare Bill Constitutional
Analysis of The SCOTUS Decision
* And putting Obamacare under the taxing power of Congress may make repeal “easier to overturn by several orders of magnitude. The ordinary process, of course, requires 60 votes to overcome a filibuster in the Senate. But when it concerns budgetary matters, including taxes (like the Bush tax cuts), 51 votes are sufficient to put the law on hold for 10 years…. Fifty-one Republicans could have attempted this in any case, but now they can do so with much greater plausibility because this is a matter of taxing and spending and not regulation of commerce.”
* First, the Roberts Court put real limits on what the government can and cannot do. For starters, it restricted the limits of the Commerce Clause, which does not give the government the power to create activity for the purpose of regulating it. This is a huge victory for those of us who believe that the Constitution is a document which offers a limited grant of power.
* It seems very, very clear to me in reviewing John Roberts’ decision that he is playing a much longer game than us and can afford to with a life tenure. And he probably just handed Mitt Romney the White House.
* “The court upheld a law that was not what we were told it would be. What has been upheld here is fraud and the Internal Revenue Service has just become Barack Obama’s domestic army. That is what we face now.”
* While he acknowledged that conservatives are measuring whether the ruling is good for them “by whether the bill is left standing or not,” he thinks they will see things differently in the future. “One hundred years from now this will be looked on as a win,” he said. (Virginia Republican Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli)
Original News of The Decision
The DOW on the morning of the Supreme Court ruling…
ABC News Article Outlining Failed Promises Under National Healthcare - September 2011
On May 3, 2008, the president told voters that he had “a health care plan that would save the average family$2,500 on their premiums.”
Last year workers at the flower shop saw their insurance premiums shoot up 41 percent.
“I basically work for the health care payments,” says manager Pat Cowhig, whose husband has medical issues.
The Kaiser Family Foundation shows family premiums topped $15,000 a year for the first time in 2011, increasing a whopping 9% this year, three times more than the increase the year before. The study says that up to 2% of that increase is because of the health care law’s provisions, such as allowing families to add grown children up to 26 years old to their policies.
So what about that $2,500 in savings the president pledged? White House deputy chief of staff Nancy-Ann DeParle insists families will see that savings — by 2019.
“Many of the changes in the Affordable Care Act are starting this year, and in succeeding years,” DeParle told ABC News, “and by 2019 we estimate that the average family will save around $2,000.”
One Year Anniversary of National Healthcare - March 2011
1. Did you know that … since Jan. 1 of this year (2011), you cannot use your flex-account at work (FSA) or health savings account (HSA) to purchase over-the-counter medicines?
2. Did you know that … since July 1 of last year (2010), Americans have been paying a 10 percent excise tax on all indoor tanning services?
3. Did you know that … starting in 2018, if your health insurance is “too good” or considered a “Cadillac” plan, then you will incur a new 40 percent tax on your health plan?
4. Did you know that … Obamacare has 21 new or higher taxes in it, totaling over $500 billion in increased taxes going to the government over 10 years?
5. Did you know that … beginning in 2014, individuals and families that do not purchase “qualifying” — as defined by federal bureaucrats — health insurance will be forced to pay a yearly tax penalty?
6. Did you know that … 7 tax hikes in Obamacare directly break President Obama’s “firm pledge” not to raise any form of taxes on individuals making less than $200,000 per year and families making less than $250,000 per year?
7. Did you know that … the capital gains tax rate under Obamacare will rise to 23.8 percent starting in 2012? That is a 59 percent increase from its current rate.
8. Did you know that … in 2013, those Americans facing the highest medical bills and the least ability to pay for them will find their ability to deduct medical expenses is further limited (medical expenses must be reduced by 10 percent of income under Obamacare, rather than current law’s 7.5 percent)
9. Did you know that … beginning in 2014, businesses with over 50 employees will be forced to offer health coverage for everyone, or pay a hefty tax for each employee?
10. Did you know that … in 2013, Obamacare caps the amount individuals and families can put in their flexible savings accounts at $2500? Currently there is no cap and these accounts are used for a myriad of health expenses including paying upwards of $14,000 in tuition to special needs schools for some parents?
31 January 2011 - Federal Judge Halts Implementation of Health Care Law by Declaring it Unconstitutional
"Obamacare is dead in its tracks. Now, Judge Vinson himself or the Eleventh Circuit (or even the Supreme Court) may issue an emergency stay of this or any other part of the ruling, but as of right now, the federal government must stop implementing Obamacare. " - http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/florida-ruling-requires-government-to-stop-implementing-obamacare/
"a long-standing presumption “that officials of the Executive Branch will adhere to the law as declared by the court. As a result, the declaratory judgment is the functional equivalent of an injunction”…”declaratory judgment is, in a context such as this where federal officers are defendants, the practical equivalent of specific relief such as an injunction”…Thus, the award of declaratory relief is adequate and separate injunctive relief is not necessary. In other words, absent intervention from a higher court, HHS must now sit on its hands. " - http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/obamacare-falls/
The Plan For November 2010 And Beyond…
- Learn - Find out why the health care bill must be repealed (this page gathers some resources for this purpose)
- Vote - Vote in US Congressional candidates that will pledge to vote for a repeal of this bill.
- Repeal - Support and urge newly elected candidates to undo the socialization of the US
"And if you don’t do this and if I don’t do it, one of these days you and I are going to spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children, what it once was like in America when men were free." - Ronald Reagan on Government Health Care - 1961
Senate Health Care Bill
What Is In The Bill - Year By Year Breakdown of New Taxes
From the The Washington Journal 22 March 2010
2010 - Changes To Start Taking Effect This Year - Bloomberg.com Article on 23 March 2010
- Indoor tanning salons will charge customers a 10 percent tax beginning today
- Insurers will be required by September to begin providing health coverage to kids with pre-existing illnesses and allow parents to keep children younger than 26 on their plans.
- …or maybe not… AP Article 24 March 2010 - "Under the new law, insurance companies still would be able to refuse new coverage to children because of a pre-existing medical problem, said Karen Lightfoot, spokeswoman for the House Energy and Commerce Committee, one of the main congressional panels that wrote the bill Obama signed into law Tuesday."
- …and… Washington Examiner Article 29 March 2010 - "Top insurance exec: Your health premiums will go up, coverage will change under Obamacare"
- Within 90 days, the law will provide immediate access to high-risk insurance plans for people who can’t get insurance because of a pre-existing medical problem, Harris said. These high-risk pools will be funded by $5 billion in federal grants.
- Companies led by Minnetonka, Minnesota-based UnitedHealth Group Inc., the largest health insurer, will be banned within six months from dropping a person’s coverage because of severe illness and from limiting lifetime or annual benefits.
- Employers with more than 50 employees that don't provide affordable coverage must pay a fine if employees receive tax credits to buy insurance.
- Fine is up to $3,000 per employee, excluding first 30 employees.
- Insurance industry must pay annual fee of $8 billion (rises in subsequent years).
- New Medicare taxes on individuals earning more than $200,000 a year and couples filing jointly earning more than $250,000 a year.
- Tax on wages rises to 2.35% from 1.45%.
- New 3.8% tax on unearned income such as dividends and interest.
- Excise tax of 2.9% imposed on sale of medical devices.
- Penalty for those who don't carry coverage rises to 2.5% of taxable income or $695, whichever is greater.
- Excise tax of 40% imposed on health plans valued at more than $10,200 for individual coverage and $27,500 for family coverage.
Costs And Deficit Increase
"Contrary to recent claims, the Democratic health care overhaul will increase Federal deficits by at
least $59 billion, and more likely $260 billion, over the next 10 years.
New analysis from the Congressional Budget Office [CBO] provided at the request of House
Budget Ranking Republican Paul Ryan, indicates that including the “doc fix” in the Majority’s
health care overhaul adds $208 billion to the cost of the bill, increasing the deficit by $59 billion
over the next 10 years." Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) - Congressional Budget Office Analysis of Full Health Care Package
"The Spectator's Phil Klein has repeatedly pointed out the back-loaded spending built into each incarnation of the health care bill in order to disguise their true cost. " The Washington Examiner, 15 December 2009
CBS News: Already Insured? Get Ready to Pay More - "But premiums will continue to rise. How much? No one's certain. To pay for this sweeping reform, here's what will change: Those tax-free flexible spending accounts will be cut in half. They reimburse some medical bills not covered by insurance. The new cap: $2,500."
New Study 21 October 2010 - Healthcare subsidies potentially five times higher in first year than predicted
A new study commissioned by Families USA, a group that supports ObamaCare, shows that the Democrats and the CBO badly miscalculated the level of subsidies provided. In the first year (2014), 28 million Americans would have eligibility for more than $110 billion, outstripping the Congressional/CBO estimate by almost 600%:
IRS To Enforce Purchase of Health Insurance
"…new analysis by the Joint Economic Committee and the House Ways & Means Committee minority staff estimates up to 16,500 new IRS personnel will be needed to collect, examine and audit new tax information mandated on families and small businesses in the ‘reconciliation’ bill being taken up by the U.S. House of Representatives this weekend. …
Scores of new federal mandates and fifteen different tax increases totaling $400 billion are imposed under the Democratic House bill. In addition to more complicated tax returns, families and small businesses will be forced to reveal further tax information to the IRS, provide proof of ‘government approved’ health care and submit detailed sales information to comply with new excise taxes."
Is health-care reform constitutional
- If you choose to drive a car, then maybe you can be made to buy insurance against the possibility of inflicting harm on others. But making you buy insurance merely because you are alive is a claim of power from which many Americans instinctively shrink. Senate Republicans made this objection, and it was defeated on a party-line vote, but it will return.
- Congress can always argue that, say, an Air Force base in Nebraska benefits the United States as a whole. But the deals in the Senate bill are different. It is really hard to identify a benefit to all the states from exempting one state from an increase in Medicare costs or allowing only the citizens of Florida to get Medicare Advantage.
- If this sounds far-fetched, consider another recent case in which the smart money doubted there were five votes to intervene in a politicized controversy involving technical procedures. A case in which five justices may have perceived that long-established rules were being gamed for purely partisan advantage. You might have heard of it: Bush v. Gore
- In 1942, the Supreme Court issued one of its most expansive Commerce Clause opinions. The case, Wickard v. Filburn, involved the federal regulation of the production and consumption of wheat. The court held that Congress could prohibit a farmer from growing wheat for his own personal consumption. Even though the farmer wasn't placing his wheat in the stream of commerce, he was substantially affecting the market by growing his own wheat because he wouldn't buy wheat on the open market.
- In 2005, the court heard a similar case called Rich v. Gonzales. The court, instead of reversing Wickard, held that Congress had the power under the Commerce Clause to prohibit individuals from growing medicinal marijuana for their own use. It didn't matter that the so-called market was an illegal one.
- In both cases, Congress is attempting to regulate activities, growing wheat and medicinal marijuana, which has a substantial effect on interstate commerce. There's no activity being regulated under the individual mandate. In fact, Congress is trying to regulate inactivity.
- If the mandate is deemed constitutional, Congress could mandate that people buy cars, video games or any other good or service because those purchases would help the interstate market for those goods or services. It would create an absurd result with no logical limit.
- The strongest claims of the opponents of “Obamacare” is that there is no precedent upholding the individual mandate and a mandate of this kind is an improper means of exercising a federal power. And by conditioning 100% of Medicaid funding on states either setting up insurance exchanges or greatly expanding Medicaid coverage, Congress is “coercing” the states (See South Dakota v Dole in which conditioning 5% of highway funds was deemed to be insufficiently coercive) and thereby unconstitutionally “commandeering” their legislative and executive branches (see New York v U.S. [no commandeering of state legislatures] & Printz v U.S. [no commandeering of state executives]). Will there be five votes for either of these claims? No one really knows for sure, which makes these viable constitutional claims that are also consistent with original meaning.
- …Although commonly conceived as a Commerce Clause doctrine, from its inception this doctrine has been grounded in the Necessary and Proper Clause. In the 1990s, the Supreme Court developed a judicially administrable test for whether it is “necessary” for Congress to reach intrastate activity that substantially affects interstate commerce: the distinction between economic and noneconomic intrastate activity.
- …because the “individual responsibility requirement” purports to be a regulation of commerce and cannot possibly be construed as a tax, it is not justified under the tax power of Congress; and, if the “requirement” or mandate is an unconstitutional regulation, there is nothing for the “penalty” to enforce. Neither is the penalty, considered apart from the regulatory requirement, a tax under current doctrine.
- ..the Supreme Court should not further expand Congress’s power beyond existing doctrine to allow it to mandate that individuals engage in economic activity by entering into contracts with private companies.
States With Legislation Countering The Federal Health Care Bill
"U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson had said at a hearing last month that he would block efforts by the Justice Department to dismiss the lawsuit, led by Florida and 19 other states.
'In this order, I have not attempted to determine whether the line between constitutional and extraconstitutional government has been crossed,' Vinson, of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida, wrote in his ruling."
States With Enacted Legislation: 2 (Virginia, Idaho)
- [http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5g0LSHNfmnWDnZ_JylqiFxeT5GKEQD9EGLNDO0 Idaho News Article
- Virginia News Article
- (April 22nd 2010) Today, Florida's Health Care Freedom Act (HJR 37/SJR 72), sponsored by Florida Representative Scott Plakon and Florida Senator Carey Baker, passed the House and Senate and will appear on the November ballot.
States With Pending Legislation: 33
- Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming
States Which Have Announced Legislation: 6
- Montana, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Utah, Colorado
- Texas Is 39th State to Defend Health Care Choice - 22 Mar 2010 "The bill that passed last night is a radical departure from the role of government our founders put in the Constitution," said Hughes. "There is no question that it will lead to increased taxes, fewer health care options, and more government control of our most basic personal decisions. For these reasons and so many others, I will file legislation protecting Texans from the federal bill as soon as we are back in session."
- Idaho, 6 Other States, to “Nullify” ObamaCare - 22 Jan 2011 "One potential fly in the ointment for Idaho and other states considering nullification is the 1958 U.S. Supreme Court decision reaffirming that federal laws “shall be the supreme law of the land.” If nothing else, these moves will result in some interesting legal battles"
- From The New York Times, 22 March 2010 "Attorneys general in three states — Virginia, Florida and South Carolina — have indicated they will file legal challenges to the measure, on the grounds that it violates the Constitution by requiring individuals to purchase insurance."
- Virginia "Attorney General Kenneth Cuccinelli, a Republican, said on Monday that Congress lacks authority under its constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce to force people to buy insurance. He said the bill also conflicts with a state law that says Virginians cannot be required to buy insurance…. "If a person decides not to buy health insurance, that person by definition is not engaging in commerce," Cuccinelli said in recorded comments. "If you are not engaging in commerce, how can the federal government regulate you?" "
- Florida's attorney general will file a lawsuit with nine other state attorneys general opposing the healthcare legislation passed by Congress, a spokeswoman said on Monday. "On behalf of the State of Florida and of the Attorneys General from South Carolina, Nebraska, Texas, Utah, Pennsylvania, Washington, North Dakota, South Dakota and Alabama if the President signs this bill into law, we will file a lawsuit to protect the rights and the interests of American citizens."
- Washington joins lawsuit over mandate - "State Attorney General Rob McKenna said Monday he'll join a lawsuit challenging the health-care overhaul passed by Congress, prompting a barrage of attacks from Gov. Chris Gregoire and other state Democratic leaders."
- Alaska Gov. Sean Parnell said Tuesday the state will join 20 others led mostly by Republican governors in suing to overturn the health care overhaul bill signed into law last month by President Barack Obama.
- American Center For Liberty And Justice, 21 March 2010 - "We're preparing legal action to challenge this measure and we intend to file a lawsuit in federal court soon challenging a law that is not only wrong for America - but a law with a forced mandate that penalizes Americans who choose not to participate. That is unconstitutional and we believe ultimately will be overturned by the courts."
- Wisconsin AG applies for authorization to sue over Health Care Legislation, 25 March 2010 - "Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen today requested authorization necessary to bring an action to contest certain provisions of the federal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and protect Wisconsin’s sovereign interests and that of its citizens. The request was made to Governor James E. Doyle and both Senate and Assembly leadership."
- Indiana Joins Health Care Reform Lawsuit 29th March 2010 - "Attorney General Greg Zoeller says Indiana is joining at least 13 other states in a legal challenge to the new federal health care law. He says it is in the best interests of all to raise constitutional questions about the reform package to the United State Supreme Court."
Become Plaintiff In The ACLJ Lawsuit
- Check out the site to see if you qualify: http://aclj.org/healthcare/
- You are a lawful resident of the United States currently residing in the United States.
- You are over the age of 30.
- You do not have existing health insurance, including catastrophic coverage, insurance purchased in the individual market, insurance provided through your employer of your spouse’s employer, or insurance sponsored by the government (such as Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP, TRICARE for Life, or a veteran’s health care program).
- You are not a member of a Health Care Sharing Ministry.
- You are intentionally without health insurance (in other words, are you intentionally choosing to pay for your health care expenses out of pocket rather than carrying an insurance policy) and you could afford to purchase health insurance if you so chose.
- You are required to file a federal income tax return.
Class Action Lawsuit
(from the FAQ page on the web site)
Q. Can anyone join the class action against Obamacare?
A. Any US citizen or company can join as a plaintiff to the action by filling out the form HERE.
Q. Will it cost me anything to join the class action against Obamacare?
A. No, Attorney Van Irion is litigating the case pro bono and is covering the court costs personally.
November 16th 2010 Update
"The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee has dismissed our case without a hearing. It ruled that over 25,000 American citizens have no right to challenge the Constitutionality of Obamacare. The most stunning part of this ruling was the reasoning of the court. It ignored recent rulings from other Federal District Courts in Michigan and Virginia. Those Courts both ruled that most Americans have standing to challenge the Constitutionality of Obamacare. The Tennessee court ignored their rulings and concluded that none of the 25,000 named plaintiffs could possibly prove that they are being personally injured by Obamacare. This ruling is, of course, absurd. It is also an insult to common sense, an insult to the rules of civil procedure, and an insult to the rule of law."
Senator Debbie Clary is leading the charge in introducing this legislation in the North Carolina Senate: "….We have no intention of sitting this out. We will do all that is possible…..The Republican Senate Caucus has asked me to take the lead on filing the bill that would challenge the constitutionality of the health care reform bill."
Passing this legislation will be a long shot for North Carolina. We have a pro Health Care Governor, and a liberal majority in our state assembly. Consider calling Governor Perdue and let her know that you want North Carolina to join the other 40 states in this legislation initiative. (800) 662-7952 or (919) 733-2391
- GOP Delegation to AG Cooper: Add NC To The 14 States Challenging ObamaCare
- Email North Carolina's Attorney General Roy Cooper, and let him know your opinion about our state's participation of the lawsuits being organized.
- His office has setup this email address for this purpose: vog.jodcn|erachtlaeh#vog.jodcn|erachtlaeh
The Senate Conservatives Fund - Repeal The Health Care Bill
"Electing just any Republican is not the answer. We've seen what happens when we send Republicans to Washington who don't truly believe in the principles of freedom. They abandon their principles, lose the trust of the American people, and leave us with Democrats controlling Congress and the White House.
Instead, we must support true conservatives who love the Constitution and who will fight for limited government, a strong national defense, and traditional family values. And we must only help those candidates who vow to repeal ObamaCare."
Sign The Pledge To Help Vote In Senators That Will Repeal The Bill
Article By Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC)
"This plan raids $52 billion from Social Security. It cuts nearly $500 billion from Medicare and doesn’t count the hundreds of billions needed to compensate doctors who treat elderly patients. A portion of this trillion dollar bill is paid for with a government takeover of the student loan industry. The government will shut down private lenders, sell expensive loans to 19 million college students and use the profits to finance “ObamaCare.” "
Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) on Next Steps
"Our offense will be hammering them for wrecking the health-care system, their demonization of the insurance companies, and their push for government control. That is the future fight. They’ve got a president here until 2013 and the votes in the Senate to support this for a few years, but it’s not over. As we work to repeal, we must recognize that we’re fighting a different and distorted progressivism. They want to hook people up to entitlements and delegate more power to unelected bureaucrats and technocrats to micromanage the economy"
The House Vote on The Senate Health Care Bill -21 March 2010
Passing the Original Senate Health Care Bill Without GOP Votes
Failing to Pass The GOP Modified Amendments Package to The Senate Bill
Passing The Amendments Package Without GOP Votes
Ronald Reagan on Health Care And How it Leads to Socialism - 1961
Ronald Reagan’s 1961 Coffeecup speech – full text
Now back in 1927 an American socialist, Norman Thomas, six times candidate for president on the Socialist Party ticket, said the American people would never vote for socialism. But he said under the name of liberalism the American people will adopt every fragment of the socialist program.
There are many ways in which our government has invaded the precincts of private citizens, the method of earning a living. Our government is in business to the extent over owning more than 19,000 businesses covering different lines of activity. This amounts to a fifth of the total industrial capacity of the United States.
But at the moment I’d like to talk about another way. Because this threat is with us and at the moment is more imminent.
One of the traditional methods of imposing statism or socialism on a people has been by way of medicine. It’s very easy to disguise a medical program as a humanitarian project. Most people are a little reluctant to oppose anything that suggests medical care for people who possibly can’t afford it.
Now, the American people, if you put it to them about socialized medicine and gave them a chance to choose, would unhesitatingly vote against it. We had an example of this. Under the Truman administration it was proposed that we have a compulsory health insurance program for all people in the United States, and, of course, the American people unhesitatingly rejected this.
So, with the American people on record as not wanting socialized medicine, Congressman Ferrand introduced the Ferrand Bill. This was the idea that all people of social security age should be brought under a program of compulsory health insurance. Now this would not only be our senior citizens, this would be the dependents and those who are disabled, this would be young people if they are dependents of someone eligible for Social Security.
Now, Congressman Ferrand brought the program out on that idea of just for that group of people. But Congressman Ferrand was subscribing to this foot in the door philosophy, because he said “if we can only break through and get our foot inside the door, then we can expand the progam after that.”
Walter Ruther said “It’s no secret that the United Automobile Workers is officially on record as backing a program of national health insurance.” And by national health insurance, he meant socialized medicine for every American. Well, let’s see what the socialists themselves have to say about it.
They say: “Once the Ferrrand bill is passed, this nation will be provided with a mechanism for socialized medicince. Capable of indefinite expansion in every direction until it includes the entire population.’ Well, we can’t say we haven’t been warned.
Now, Congressman Ferrand is no longer a congressman of the United States government. He has been replaced, not in his particular assignment, but in his backing of such a bill, by Congressman King of California. It is presented in the idea of a great emergency that millions of our senior citizens are unable to provide needed medical care. But this ignores the fact that in the last decade a hundred and twenty seven million of our citicizens in just ten years, have come under the protection of some form of privately owned medical or hospital insurance.
Now the advocates of this bill, when you try to oppose it, challenge you on an emotional basis. They say “What would you do, throw these poor old people out to die with no medical attention?” That’s ridiculous and of course no one’s has advocated it. As a matter of fact, in the last session of Congress a bill was adopted known as the Kerr-Mills Bill. Now without even allowing this bill to be tried, to see if it works, they have introduced this King Bill which is really the Ferrand Bill.
What is the Kerr-Mills Bill? It is a frank recognition of the medical need or problem of the senior citizens that I have mentioned. And it is provided from the federal government money to the states and the local communities that can be used at the discretion of the state to help those people who need it. Now what reason could the other people have for backing a bill which says “we insist on compulsory health insurance for senior citizens on the basis of age alone; regardless of whether they’re worth millions of dollars, whether they have an income, whether they’re protected by their own insurance, whether they have savings.”
I think we can be excused for believing that as ex-c0ngressman Ferrand said, this was simply an excuse to bring about what they wanted all the time – socialized medicine.
James Madison in 1788, speaking to the Virginia Convention said: “Since the general civilization of mankind, I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachment of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpations. ”
They want to attach this bill to Social Security. And they say here is a great insurance program now instituted, now working.
Let’s take a look at social security itself. Again, very few of us disagree with the original premise that there should be some form of saving that would keep destitution from following unemployment by reason of death, disability or old age. And to this end Social Security was adopted. But it was never intended to supplant private savings, private insurance, pension programs of unions and industries.
Now in our country under our free enterprise system, we have seen medicine reach the greatest heights that it has in any country in the world. Today, the relationship between patient and doctor in this country is something to be envied any place. The privacy, the care that is given to a person, the right to chose a doctor, the right to go from one doctor to the other.
But let’s also look from the other side, at the freedom the doctor loses. A doctor would be reluctant to say this. Well, like you, I am only a patient, so I can say it in his behalf. The doctor begins to lose freedoms; it’s like telling a lie, and one leads to another. First you decide that the doctor can have so many patients. They are equally divided among the various doctors by the government. But then the doctors aren’t equally divided geographically, so a doctor decides he wants to practice in one town and the government has to say to him you can’t live in that town, they already have enough doctors. You have to go someplace else. And from here it is only a short step to dictating where he will go.
This is a freedom that I wonder whether any of us have the right to take from any human being.
I know how I’d feel, if you my fellow citizens decided that to be an actor, I had to become a government employee and work in a national theater. Take it into your own occupation or that of your husband, all of us can see what happens – once you establish the precedent that the government can determine a man’s working place and his working methods, determine his employment. From here it is a short step to all the rest of socialism, to determining his pay and pretty soon your son won’t decide when he’s in school, where he will go or what they will do for a living. He will wait for the government to tell them where he will go to work and what he will do.
In this country of ours, took place the greatest revolution that has ever taken place in world’s history. The only true revolution. Every other revolution simply exchanged one set of rulers for another. But here for the first time in all the thousands of years of man’s relation to man, a little group of the men, the founding fathers - for the first time – established the idea that you and I had within ourselves the God given right and ability to determine our own destiny.
This freedom was built into our government with safeguards. We talk democracy today. And strangely we let democracy begin to assume the aspect of majority rule is all that is needed. Well, majority rule is a fine aspect of democracy, provided there are guarantees written in to our government concerning the rights of the individual and of the minorities.
What can we do about this? Well, you and I can do a great deal. We can write to our congressmen and our senators. We can say right now that we want no further encroachment on these individual liberties and freedoms. And at the moment, the key issue is, we do not want socialized medicine.
In Washington today, 40,000 letters, less than a hundred per congressman, are evidence of a trend in public thinking.
Representative Halleck of Indiana has said, “When the American people want something from Congress, regardless of its political complexion, if they make their wants known, Congress does what the people want.”
So write, and if your this man writes back to you and tells you that he too is for free enterprise, that we have these great services and so forth, that must be performed by government, don’t let him get away with it. Show that you have not been convinced. Write a letter right back and tell him that you believe in government economy and fiscal responsibility; that you know governments don’t tax to get the money the need; governments will always find a need for the money they get and that you demand the continuation of our traditional free enterprise system. You and I can do this. The only way we can do it is by writing to our congressmen even we believe that he is on our side to begin with. Write to strengthen his hand. Give him the ability to stand before his colleagues in Congress and say “I have heard from my constituents and this is what they want.”
Write those letters now; call your friends and tell them to write them. If you don’t, this program I promise you will pass just as surely as the sun will come up tomorrow and behind it will come other federal programs that will invade every area of freedom as we have known it in this country. Until, one day, as Normal Thomas said we will awake to find that we have socialism. And if you don’t do this and if I don’t do it, one of these days you and I are going to spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children, what it once was like in America when men were free.”