More on Obamacare
April 3, 2012
Mark Steyn, as usual, is must-read material:
Yet he was unintentionally making a far more basic point: A 2,700-page law is not a “law” by any civilized understanding of the term. . . . It’s not just that the legislators who legislate it don’t know what’s in it, nor that the citizens on the receiving end can never hope to understand it, but that even the nation’s most eminent judges acknowledge that it is beyond individual human comprehension. A 2,700-page law is, by definition, an affront to self-government.
Meanwhile Andrew McCarthy offers a great review of how far we’ve already fallen (before Obamacare) into unconstitutional statism. Did you know that the custom of hospitals’ treating all emergency-room patients, regardless of ability to pay (or citizenship), is forced on them by a 1986 federal law? In other words, America managed to go more than two hundred years without such a law. Apparently its ostensible constitutionality weasels in not under the “commerce clause” generically, but by saying that it applies only to hospitals that accept payment from the federal entitlement program Medicare—i.e., “virtually all hospitals in the U.S.” In other words, again, how far we’ve fallen. As McCarthy discusses, each expansion of state power becomes a justification for the next.
Update (April 3rd, 2012): Also at National Review Online, a doctor discusses “Doctors, Patients, and the Future of Obamacare”:
As objectionable as the new wrinkles of Obamacare are — the individual mandate, IPAB, etc. — perhaps its worst feature is the way it takes the most harmful aspects of our current health-care system and expands them, rather than cutting them back. . . .
From a doctor’s perspective, insurance is a big problem, and government insurance is a bigger one.