EDITORIAL: HEALTH CARE REFORM BILL OR HEALTH CARE TYRANNY BILL?

Printer-friendly versionPrinter-friendly version Share this

 

 

By Mike Benoit

April 6, 2010 (San Diego’s East County) -- First and foremost the word tyranny, as it is being used here, means: “taking power over something without the right.”

It looks like once again the race for the 52nd California Congressional Seat will have two tyranny candidates and one freedom based constitutionalist going at it. The case in point is the candidates' stand on the recent health care bill.

Duncan Hunter is unhappy that the Democrats excluded him from the reform bill as what he wanted did not get placed in the legislation. He has no problem with government being involved in this unconstitutional tyrannical act. He just wants it done his way.

Duncan Hunter has been quoted as saying:

“From the beginning of this debate, I have taken a clear and consistent position in favor of health care reform that is centered on portability, malpractice and private insurance reform, and fiscal responsibility – all of which are missing from the Democratic plan,” the East County Congressman said in a statement posted at his webpage .

Now here comes Raymond Lutz with his list of Christmas gifts, all in the bill that just passed. I guess it is not Uncle Sam now it is Santa Sam, or should we call him fast talking slick Sam, or even something for nothing Sam.

Raymond Lutz issued a press release listing a panacea of “goodies” he claims the bill will provide. Claiming the bill will make sure over 95 percent of us will have health insurance coverage and how we will save $138 billion plus preexisting conditions coverage. He goes on with his list of presents.
 

My stand is the same as the founders that is Madison’s view on the Constitution, Jefferson view on limited government and Ben Franklin’s view on liberty and security. Madison stated in Federalist Paper # 45 that the federal government was pretty strictly limited to issues foreign to the states and that the states encompassed all things relating to life, liberty and property. Jefferson stated that government which governs least governs best. And good old Ben Franklin stated that when you give up liberty for security you will end up with neither. Hunter and Lutz just don’t see it that way. I guess they think they are smarter than our wise founders.

Since the Constitution does not give the federal government any authority in the area of health care then the bill that just passed should be named the Health Care Tyranny Bill and Americans should treat it as such. This is an unconstitutional tyranny upon the people of this country.

I seek a government that secures liberty and does not promise security at its expense. The recent Health Care Tyranny Bill robs us of both security and liberty. In its pages you will find the words “penalty” (312 times), “must” (100), “fine” (72), “enforce” (97), “tax” (357), “prohibit” (76), “limit” (403), “regulate” (240), “obligation” (62), “require” (1,035) “Internal Revenue” (62) “IRS” (243), and “shall” (3,769).

I suggest we start repealing all of the tyrannies passed in the last 50 years, including all of those prohibitions and regulations against our unalienable rights. Let freedom reign once again and our security will return with it.

The choice is clear, vote for more tyranny and a false sense of security or choose a champion of liberty. I am that champion of liberty. I am the champion of the Constitution for this district and I carry the message of liberty carried by the founders.

A vote for Hunter or Lutz is a vote for the “welfare/warfare” state. Make no mistake about that. A vote for Benoit is a vote to return to a free and prosperous society, a government that secures our rights and does not plunder them.

Mike Benoit is the Libertarian candidate for the 52nd Congressional district.


The opinions expressed in this editorial reflect the views of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of East County Magazine. If you wish to submit an editorial for consideration, contact editor@eastcountymagazine.org.

 

Comments

What's best for the country?

I think Mike Benoit, while well-intentioned, got it backwards. Freedom and security means, freedom and security for all - not just for those lucky enough to be healthy. That is very much Constitutional.

Ensuring that our citizens are free from corporate tyranny is very much what Madison, Jefferson and Franklin had in mind when they created the General Welfare clause.

Right now, I'm suffering from this tyranny. I can't marry my fiancee, can't even let her move in, and I have to let my own fiancee languish in poverty simply because she has a chronic health condition that would make corporate health insurance far more expensive than my mortgage payment and bankrupt me as well as her.

from the Duncan frying pan into the Benoit fire

Or Dumb and Dumber.

Regarding our Federal or State Constitutions, as Dr. Joel Harrison pointed out in an article on this subject, they do NOT include a right to education, to clean air and water, to national parks, to libraries, to public health departments, or to beach lifeguards. But guess what? We have them and I bet Mr. Benoit has benefitted from all these "socialized" services. The Preamble to the Constitution states that one of its goals is to “promote the general welfare,” and Article II Section 8 states “The Congress shall have Power to . . . provide for the . . . general Welfare . . .To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers . . .”

Is the health of our citizens not in the interest of our general welfare? Would the savings from a Medicare for All not be in our best interest?

Medicare's constitutionality is also based on three decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court beginning in 1936 which decided the Constitutionality of the Social Security Act based on Article II Section 8’s power to provide for the general welfare states. Social Security and by extension Medicare have been ruled constitutional by our Supreme Court as an application of providing for the “general welfare.”

The sad thing is the current reform is not Medicare For All. It should be.

General Welfare

Hey Zoom, if you think the "General Welfare" clause trumps and should be consided outside the other provision and restriction on power to the federal government, there is not much I can say to you except please don't complain when they give billions to Wall Street, after all, it is for the general welfare.

Mike