Where in the Constitution Does It Say “Provide for the General Welfare?”
Is there no one in the U.S. Senate who understands the issue is not health care, it’s who’s going to control our health care – government or you and I – We the People? Will someone please explain to me where in the Constitution it says “provide for the general welfare?” (Answer: It doesn’t. The word the Founders used was “promote.”)
Where, in any of our Founders’ notes on the Constitution, does it say that the Federal government should mandate wage and price controls on the free market? Where does it say that the Federal government should require all employers and all Americans to participate in this Federally mandated plan which will impose up to 25% tax increase? Where does it say that the Federal government should tell insurance companies it must provide abortion services options? Where does it say that the Federal government must provide grants to set up comprehensive school-based clinics where health professionals will provide contraceptives and abortion counseling without parental consent? We all know how Lincoln began a precedent of Federal control in an effort to keep the union from breaking apart during the civil war. We know how Wilson grabbed an unprecedented amount of executive power to “make the world safe for…democracy” (even though we aren’t a democracy) by setting up a system of executive-appointed czars. And don’t attempt to explain it away with Wickard-Filburn folly. We know how FDR used the unemployment crisis and his manipulation of farmers to prohibit them from growing a surplus of grain and actually store it for a rainy day (what a concept!) to justify and push through his expansion of Federal government. He completely re-wrote Article I Section 8 and it became an “elastic clause” that is destroying our economic stability. This alone is putting our nation in harm’s way. One enumerated power is that Congress provide for national security. How can we do this when this nation is bankrupt and yet both sides of the aisle insist that they must provide health care as a fundamental RIGHT?
Something is WRONG with this picture. The debate is and must be: should the Federal government provide health care or should this matter be returned to the various states where it was intended in the first place?
I’m a baby boomer. I’m not thrilled about approaching my retirement only to relinquish my options to what the Feds and a group of extremist czars dictate for me. We also cannot put today’s seniors in harm’s way and leave them vulnerable and without the coverage promised. We must elect a new crop of rookies who have some common sense and who will act to protect our future generation and those not yet in this doomed system and give them a new set of free market choices that they can prepare to make.
This Washington Post Blog shows just how out of touch Washington, and specifically its chief sponsor Utah’s Senator Bennett, is. If we want to do ourselves the favor of our lifetime, 2010 might a good time to vote them all out (except perhaps a handful in the Senate and a few in the House, including Michele Bachman and Jason Chaffetz… 🙂 )
Here is Washington’s spin on Wyden-Bennett Health Care – Google this bill and read pp. 15-16 (abortion coverage) and pp. 27-29 (school based health center grants) and the expansion of Federal government coverage into long term health care pp. 31-35. Just watch how schools will respond if this carrot is dangled. (e.g. “More money we can get from the Feds? Oh boy! Go for it!!!”)
Read about how insurance companies will be required to provide health benefits to domestic partnerships” (p. 17). After several decades of radical feminist folly and the devastating results for families and children, isn’t it time for this society to get serious about what is best for our children (our future)? Isn’t it time to stop the insanity of legally recognizing a relationship between two people who have children but who refuse to take the commitment to legally join together to raise those children with the legally-binding commitment those deserve? The statistics are staggering, yet we blindly wash our hands of the responsibiity to promote MARRIAGE and specifically marriage between a man and a woman. Some states have constitutional amendments that prohibit a same-sex domestic partnership (for example, Utah). Starting on page 61, read about how the IRS will be the collecting (“controlling”) agency. Every state will get “waivers” IF they meet the qualifications, which means they will be required to set up the acceptable plans in order to play by Washington’s rules. How about the concept of setting up yet another “trust” fund to transfer 90% of Medicare/Medicaid from existing funds that are already bankrupt? In fact, does anyone trust anything Washington does any more? I’m reminded of Reagan’s famous words: “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are ‘I’m from the government and I’m hear to help.'” No wonder Club for Growth has placed a tab on this bill many times more than the current national health care proposal being debated and is funding an ad campaign against it in Utah. Thank you, Chris Chocola for caring enough to alert us as to the damage to which our Utah Senator has contributed.
I held a producers license for a short time. On p. 31 this bill starts addressing how the Federal government is going to fund long term health care. Do you know how much long term care costs, on average? Some say $54,000 a year per person for an average of three years for women, and if you add inflation, the cost is astronomical over the next 20 years. How will our government provide for this care for the upcoming baby boomers? Are you 30-somethings listening? Are you not concerned about how much you will be paying to care for us retirees when we get there? I have just two thoughts in general about this Federal government approach to providing health care, or any charitable service for that matter. Those who think it’s the Federal government’s role to provide charity or to re-construct what some religious denominations call “the law of consecration” somehow missed that particular Sunday School lesson. It’s not the Federal Government that the faithful are to call upon to provide those charitable services. That’s the role of the Church. Senator Bennett should understand.
Dave Ramsey understands. He says everyone should be paying a full 10% tithing. But that’s another statistic I’ll comment on in another post. Meanwhile, you do the math – population, times, income tax collected, divided by 10% equals ??? Times poverty numbers… You will be surprised what you will find.
Here’s the Washington Post blog:
Wednesday, September 23, 2009 11:55 a.m. | The Wyden Plan
No one ever accused Ron Wyden of lacking persistence. Even as the Finance Committee is marking up a bill that is premised on leaving the current employer-based insurance system in place (for now), the Oregon Democrat was making another plug for his far more aggressive reform plan.
For several years, Wyden has, with Utah Republican Bob Bennett, been pushing a plan that would essentially dismantle the employer-based insurance system and replace it with one in which people would get tax deductions to purchase their own coverage. The thinking is that this would introduce far more competition and personal choice to health insurance and would be fairer than the current system, where people who get employer-based coverage benefit from the tax exempt nature of employer based benefits while people who buy insurance on their own must do so with after-tax dollars. The primary objection to the proposal is that it is just too dramatic a change for a country where health reformers feel the need to constantly reassure people with insurance that they can “keep what they have.”The Baucus bill has actually moved slightly closer to the Wyden vision by expanding accessibility to a new “exchange” where small businesses and people without employer-based coverage would buy insurance. The bill opens up access to the exchange to employers with as many as 100 workers, and envisions further expansions in coming years, which could over time lead to a shift away from employer-based plans and into the exchange. But Wyden said this is not going far enough to provide true choice to the 200 million Americans who now have employer-based coverage.”It does not hold insurance companies accountable and it denies choice of insurers to 200 million Americans,” he said. “It stipulates that you can keep what you have but if you don’t like what you have…you’re stuck.”
He said he realized that the odds of his plan had always been long: “I know I’m taking on what amounts to the status quo lobby,” he said.
And he made clear that he would be prepared to vote for the Baucus bill even if it fell short of his vision, as many other dissatisfied Democrats would. “This bill for a lot of my colleagues is not our first choice,” he said.
My friends, will you help us – all across this nation, we must work together to elect a new class of representatives – we need those who are activists and advocates, who aren’t going to DC to “go along to get along” but who really care about doing what is right. Please go to my website and donate today – small or large, it all helps. Keep this freedom fire burning! www.Eagar4Senate.com
All my best,
Here are the links that will connect you to this Senate race. Get connected today and pass it to your friends. We need your help – we cannot run this campaign on thin air. Your contributions are vitally important.
Free Market Solutions
Strong National Defense
… not only abroad and along our borders, but within our communities and our families.
Principled. Passionate. Persuasive. Prepared.
To donate, go to
Authorized and Paid for By Friends of Cherilyn Eagar for U.S. Senate