Transparent and Bi-Partisan?

Where do I start? How about this little debacle that our government is attempting to shove down our throats under the guise of resolving the health care "crisis"?

Let me preface this latest rant by stating that I have been without health insurance for the last 27 months. This is largely by choice as I am self employed and the cost of a policy for myself is staggering. I weighed the financial aspect of purchasing a policy versus the amount I typically spend in a year on medical care. With only minor use of my abacus, I discovered that, barring something catastrophic, I would spend about 10% of what a policy would cost on health care per year. Simple arithmetic told me that I could gamble that I would be able to maintain my relatively good health and save a ton of money by just paying cash.

Funny thing is I found out on my first visit to the doctor, that I actually would receive a cash discount for not using insurance. In other words, I would save even more money over the cost of a policy. By taking a look at what my portion of the cost of my group coverage was costing me previously ($300/mo), and factoring in the co-pay for each doctor visit ($15), the group plan would cost me roughly $915 per quarter with a single visit to the doctor. My doctor charges me $65 per visit before my 15% discount for paying cash bringing my standard office visit to $55.25.

Once again, a bit of bead movement on the abacus told me that I could visit the doctor and pay cash 16 times a quarter and still break even. Now since there are 12 weeks in a quarter, that means I could go visit my doctor every week and still save money. Now where is the crisis?

The Health Care "Crisis"

Today I read a couple of news articles that had very similar content. Each of these stated that the Democrats are planning on foregoing a number of the standard procedural steps to get the two versions of the bill to BHO's desk and signed before his state of the union address in February. This is all to avoid the potential that some cooler heads in our government may prevail and keep the bill from passing.

In that same article, it mentions that a number of the attorneys general are going to challenge the constitutionality of the deal that was made with Senator Ben Nelson from Nebraska to get him to sign on to the bill. I am proud to say, that Texas Attorney General Greg Abbot is one of those ready to challenge this deal.

Now I recall one of the cornerstones of BHO's campaign was a more transparent and bi-partisan administration. What I am seeing here is a bill that is split almost exactly along party lines (Let's exclude the sweetheart deal Nebraska's Senator Ben Nelson was offered for his support for now). That is hardly bi-partisan in even the wildest imagination. When sweetheart deals are made to gain support and standard procedural steps are circumvented in the name of passage of a bill, then something is rotten in Washington.

This whole bill reeks in so many ways it is pathetic. Being somewhat of a critical thinker I have to ask myself a number of questions that seem to escape the powers to be:

First, if there is indeed a health care "crisis", then why will the bills not go into effect until 2013 or 2014 and the taxes will start immediately. So, let me get this straight, our government, deeply in debt right now, is telling me that I need to start paying for something today that I will not receive for four or five years? Why, if there is a "crisis" doesn't the bill take effect immediately to resolve this issue? Could this be just a disguised tax increase that will swell the coffers to allow for doling out more pork projects? Now we all know full well how poorly our government acts as a steward for our money. Recent bailouts indicate that this administration will already spend money that it does not have. What will happen to this money that is to be earmarked to resolve this "crisis"?

Now second, let's question the constitutionality of this bill. I read through the whopping four pages of the document that set up this great country. No place in that document is the power to dictate health care granted to our government. If we expand the search to include the the Bill of Rights, there also is nothing that grants the government that power. In fact, the Tenth Amendment clearly states; "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". In other words, under the Constitution, the government does not have the power to force us to purchase anything. This includes a government run/mandated health care plan.

Since 1884, our leaders have taken the following oath upon assuming their duties as our representatives: I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.

In a previous post, I mention the oath that I took when I enlisted in the U.S. Navy. That oath also cited the defense of the Constitution as one of my obligations. I still feel that I am bound by that oath to protect and defend the Constitution. Now I ask, why can't our elected officials stand by the promise that they made to each of us to protect and defend our rights while they are still in office? Since the powers are not granted to the government, then the bill is not constitutional and is therefore illegal.