The
current debate on health care has been framed largely in terms of policy, with
disagreements focusing mostly on whether the details of the Affordable Care Act
(Obamacare) or the details of the American Health Care Act (the bill that was
recently passed by Republicans in the House of Representatives) are bad or
good. But these are secondary points. The primary (often
deliberately overlooked) point is that, under the Constitution, the federal
government does not have the power to adopt any law, bad or
good, regarding this kind of health care.
Overall,
the Constitution is structured in a way that protects the
rights of the people from being violated by the federal government. And
the rights of the people -- since the beginning of U.S.
history -- have been defined as
the natural rights to life, liberty, and property.
In the
Founding Era, it was fully understood that governments deprive people of life,
liberty, and property not only by taking life, liberty, and property, but also
by controlling life, liberty, and property with laws and regulations.
Consequently, the Constitution only provides the federal government with
a small
number of powers, and it does not provide the federal government with
any power whatsoever in many areas.
The
regulation of health care is a state issue. In short, if the people of
any one state want the government to provide them with health insurance, they
have the power to adopt a state law that does so; likewise, if the people of a
different state favor a different policy, they have the power to implement the
favored policy in that state.
However,
for decades, the Supreme Court has been reinterpreting the Constitution,
expanding federal power and enabling the federal government to impose
progressive-liberal ideology on the entire nation. The Court relied on
its own previous reinterpretation of the Constitution's taxing clause to upholdObamacare,
and the Court has reinterpreted many of the Constitution's other clauses to,
among other things, expand the federal government's spending power, commerce
power, and monetary power.
The
federal government's use of these expanded powers has repeatedly had a
devastating impact on not only the rights of the people, but also the economy
of the nation. Indeed, past events provide a clear picture of what the
future holds regarding the federal government's use of its expanded power over
health care.
In
particular, the Great Depression offers lessons that have been ignored
(typically for ideological reasons) by politicians and government officials
from every generation since. To review, government intervention caused a
stock market crash in 1929, and government intervention following the crash not
only caused an economic depression, but also impeded the economy's recovery.
The
distinguished economist Murray Rothbard explained that
"any governmental interference with the depression process can only
prolong it, thus making things worse from almost everyone's point of
view. Since the depression process is the recovery process, any halting
or slowing down of the process impedes the advent of recovery."
Moreover,
as Rothbard also explained,
a depression is not the cause of the economic trouble. Rather,
distortions of the economy, accompanied by wasteful investments, are the causes
of the economic trouble. And these distortions and wasteful investments
both occur before a depression, during a boom stage of the economic
cycle. Later, during the depression process (which, to repeat, is the
recovery process), the distortions and wasteful investments are eliminated.
Basically,
the federal government's policies (most significantly, the Federal Reserve's
policy of increasing the money supply) distorted the economy and tempted people
to make wasteful investments during the 1920s, "the Roaring Twenties"
(a boom stage), which made the stock market crash inevitable. Next, the
federal government's increased control of economic activities (with massive
amounts of taxing, spending, and regulation) following the crash made the
depression inevitable. Finally, the federal government's interference
with the depression process, year after year, prolonged the misery for over a
decade. Notably, both Republican and Democratic presidents held power,
and engaged in government intervention, during this period.
More
recently, the Recession of the late 2000s, also known as the Great Recession,
showed that politicians and government officials have refused to learn from
prior mistakes. The federal government's policies (including, but not
limited to, its "affordable housing" policy in the 1990s and 2000s
that required financial institutions to accept risky mortgages) distorted the
economy and tempted people to make wasteful investments, which made a financial
crisis inevitable (when risky mortgages defaulted in large numbers and
financial institutions suffered deep losses). And the federal
government's increased control of economic activities (with even more spending
and even more regulation) during the crisis made a severe and prolonged
recession inevitable. Once again, both Republican and Democratic
presidents held power, and engaged in government intervention, during this
period.
Now,
in 2017, if the Republican-controlled Senate accepts the health care bill
passed by the Republican-controlled House, or if the Senate and House (and
president) agree to changes that do not fully repeal Obamacare, but still have
the federal government involved with this kind of health care, the consequences
will be profound.
The
regulation of health care by the federal government will be further entrenched
into law with the support of both major political parties. And health
care spending represents a substantial part of the American economy; presently,17
percent of the nation's GDP. The damage to the economy that the
federal government will (not might, but will) eventually inflict as it
exercises increased control of health care realistically could make both the
Great Depression of the 1930s and the Recession of the late 2000s appear trivial
in comparison; the possible federal policies on health care that could
radically distort the economy and tempt (or require) wasteful investments are
innumerable.
Nevertheless,
some conservatives have been arguing in favor of the House bill as the first step
of an incremental approach to repealing Obamacare. However, while
appropriate in some instances, an incremental approach to changing a law is not
an adequate approach for Obamacare under the circumstances that exist today.
As one
former president long ago said, "I know no
method to secure the repeal of bad or obnoxious laws so effective as their
stringent execution." This would be a better approach (but without
the "stringent" part) for conservatives in Congress to follow since
there are not enough Republicans willing to fully repeal Obamacare; simply let
the law continue to implode. At the very least, conservatives in Congress
would be ensuring that opposition to federal regulation of health care remains
constant from one of the major political parties.
The
argument that Republicans have a duty to "fix" health care is a
logical fallacy based on the demonstrably false assumption that health care is
a federal responsibility. Under the Constitution, the correct
"fix" would involve the federal government returning the regulation
of health care (including health insurance) back to each state.
Yet
the members of Congress are in the process of violating the Constitution and
the nation's fundamental principles. Again. For an encore, perhaps
they will repeal and replace "In God We Trust" with a motto that
seemingly reflects their personal beliefs more accurately, such as "In
Government We Trust."
Paul Pauker is the author of Morality
and Law in America. He also runs a sitededicated
to advancing the unalienable rights to life, liberty, and property.
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/05/health_care_in_government_we_trust.html
