[The Brazil Times nameplate] A Few Clouds ~ 87°F  
Feels like: 96°F
Friday, Aug. 26, 2016

Healthcare Part II

Posted Friday, March 19, 2010, at 8:42 AM

I have been bursting at the seams to write on the continuing developments in this horror film known as healthcare reform.

Unfortunately, preparation for several coming trials had stilled my pen. Now, I can wait no longer.

Approximately half of our members of Congress are quietly bring us to a Constitutional crisis. It is one thing to pass a law that has unconstitutional provisions in it. While that is hard to justify, it happens at a minimum of once every few years. It is quite another to threaten the citizens with the power of the federal government mandating that we comply with a fiat decree.

A fiat decree? Indeed! When the government compels the citizens to comply with the dictates of a portion of the ruling class without going through the process of passing a law, you have rule by fiat. You have tyranny.

Rule by fiat, tyranny, in America/ Why such extreme language? What else would you call dictating the behavior of otherwise free citizens without passing a law?

The primary purpose of the United States Constitution is to limit the power of those who would rule us. Article One of the Constitution regulates what was thought to be the most powerful branch of government, the legislature. The Constitution lays out with great specificity how the legislative body is to make a law.

Of particular relevance at the moment is Article 1, Section 7, Clause 2. "Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall ... But in all such cases the vote of both houses shall be determined by yeas and nays, and the names of the persons voting for and against the bill shall be entered on the journal of each house respectively."

We have all seen this. A bill comes to the floor and every member present votes Yea, Nay or Abstain by name and every vote is recorded by name. However, the present plan, the "Slaughter Rule," is to "deem" that the healthcare bill has passed without actually voting on the bill. Rather, by the House voting on a list of amendments to the bill, amendments that have not been voted on in the Senate, the Speaker of the House will declare that the healthcare bill has passed. Not vote will actually be taken on the healthcare bill, just some proposed amendments. There is no requirement that the Senate ever consider the amendments proposed by the House and no requirement that the President sign the amendments.

When you understand more details of law making, this violation is even more outrageous. If the House amends the bill, making it different from the bill passed by the Senate, the bill cannot be sent to the President until the Senate votes on the amended bill in the exact form as passed by the House.

The only other way to amend the bill is to pass it in the identical form passed by the Senate and have it signed by the President. Then, the House can pass amendments to the law, the Senate can pass the identical amendments, and the amendments be sent to the President for signature or veto. In short, the so-called amendments that the House would be voting on are not really amendments to the bill at all, but are a new bill and the healthcare bill will have never received a vote in the House.

Ah, but the Speaker of the House proclaims that Republicans have done the same thing in the past. Since it is not possible for Republicans to be corrupt, since it is not possible for Republicans to do things that are unconstitutional, then it must be just fine to do it this time. Since Republicans are incapable of error or sin, if the Democrats emulate them, they must surely be absolved from any misdeeds.

If this decree can be given the force of law without being voted on by one of the two houses of Congress, what other mandates can be imposed on us without being voted on by both houses of Congress. If they can nationalize 17-20 percent of our nation's economy without passing a law to do it, then they can surely regulate any other part of our lives without having to endure the formalities of passing a law.

The good news is that if this decree imposing government controlled healthcare upon us is enforced, the regulating agency will be the IRS, who will be hiring 14,000 new employees as provided for in this healthcare decree. Knowing what it is like to try to secure payment for the medical services my family desires under the present antiquated system of freedom and personal responsibility, I can only imagine what it will be like under the benevolent new system to get permission from the government (the IRS?), to receive the treatment desired.

I think of George Orwell's book, "Animal Farm," where everyone is equal, but some animals are more equal than others.

Showing comments in chronological order
[Show most recent comments first]

It is the IRS that will be hiring 14,000 new employees and be the regulating agency governing the healthcare decree. While the Irish Republican Army (IRA), a terrorist organization, seems strangely appropriate, the number one American terrorist organization, the Internal Revenue Service, will do the job.

-- Posted by Charles Hear on Fri, Mar 19, 2010, at 8:31 AM

But Charles, this is no different that what our state government did a few years ago, instilling the 1,2,3% property tax that is in direct opposition to our state constitution Indiana's forefathers created. Instead of blogging about something that we may not have any chance of changing except by pleading with our representatives, how about making sure everyone knows that they can VOTE this change in our own state down as now our state government "leaders" are going to try to correct their illegal decision that favors one group over the other by trying to change the state constitution? AND putting the blame on the voter instead of correcting the mistake themselves, hoping that the voter will just see the personal advantage to their own pocket and not the injustice done to their Hoosier brethren due to the change in the constitution.

Fear mongering and using exaggerated adjectives does no good but to get people frustrated. Especially with no suggested solutions. Not even to attend the various cracker barrels to try to get a balanced opinion. Comparing the IRS with the other IRS borders on being irresponsible as collecting tax revenue, while not popular [I believe it was St Matthew[?] who was also a tax collector so not all can be painted with the same prejudicial brush by being a part of the group], they are necessary to keep our infrastructure up and running. You can go all the way back to the time of Lincoln and the state's rights issues. Had it not been for collected federal taxes, we might still have slavery in this country. While no entity is perfect as it is run by human beings, no entity is totally terrorist either. This type of talk is what promotes prejudice and hate. Not respect, true knowledge, or willingness to go into situations with an open mind. Have a good day.

-- Posted by Jenny Moore on Fri, Mar 19, 2010, at 10:35 AM


Among the valuable lessons I learned from my mom was that two wrongs don't make a right. Republicans did it! It's still wrong. The Governor did it! It's still wrong.

My intentions when I write any column is to analyze and comment on life. The column typically posted on Sunday I focus on serious news events. The column typically posted on Wednesday I try to make a humor piece. Being generally a jolly person, humor tends to creep into the serious pieces, but sarcasm can be missed when there is a serious tone.

I also appreciate your reference to St. Matthew. As a Catholic I understand and agree with the requirement to follow civil laws which are not contrary to God's law and accept the civil punishment for any worldly law broken by me in choosing to follow God's law. The reference to the IRS as a terrorist organization is the punch line to an old joke.

Nevertheless, it is incredibly important to point out that our Congressmen are willing to violate the Constitution that they have sworn to uphold and protect. It is also important that our President is not troubled by this violation of the Constitution. If our government is not constrained by the Constitution, things may be just fine when they do things we like or want, but there is nothing to stop them from imposing any tyranny as time goes on.

As always, I appreciate your comments.

-- Posted by Charles Hear on Fri, Mar 19, 2010, at 4:58 PM


I am relieved somewhat to hear that some of your comments were said in jest but without the benefit of being face to face that attempt at sarcasm is lost as it travels through cyberspace. All that's left are the literal definations of your words. You may have many misinterpreting you, thinking you are serious about some of your statement when there are said tongue in cheek. Though I don't know you well, I have worked along side you at Annunciation and I could not discern which of your comments were literal and which were in jest. You have cleared up the IRS issue but some other parts of your blog still seem quite extreme. Words like tyranny, decree,[fiat? Maybe a redundancy whose meaning is very much like decree?]. You yourself admit it is strong language but do not qualify it as being in jest still may result in fear mongering as though you exaggerate what may be true, more importantly you leave out details. This omission may be accepted when representing clients in court, but not generally when presenting all the facts to those seeking information. SOME of what is being attempted in congress is something maybe the state government in California should have put into place and maybe they wouldn't be in such a financial mess. They passed a law requiring decision to raise taxes go to voters. Of course voters just see what's going out of their pocket and rarely support spending if that spending does not benefit them personally... so Californai is now broke as taxes have not kept up with increased revenue needed to education and maintain infrastructure. Sometimes we need the inside information our representatives have so they can make the right decisions to protect our investments. Sometimes it doesn't work. Sometimes it does. In the case of California it would surely have worked better than letting the voters decide.

Like health care in our country is already such a mess that unless something is done to provide minimal coverage to all, the cost for those who are covered is soon going to be out of reach for more people. Those who are not covered are in a crap game as if/when they find themselves in a situation where they need major medical care, it is likely to ruin them financially as they have to pay inflated prices to cover those who are no pays.

Did you know that Union Hospital now provides a nurse practitioner to the St Ann free clinic as paying for her saves more in their ER when non urgent no pays come to their door? In addition the clinic's disease maintenance programs for cardiac care and diabetes management prevents many of those ER visits by those with no insurance below poverty level who do not qualify for medicare? I contend that we are already paying for those who are uninsured with our premiums and high health care costs. I contend that we ALREADY have a federal health care system. Several in fact...medicare, medicaid, military to name a few. While none are perfect at least they provide basic services that can then be built upon for higher coverage in most cases. What retiree doesn't know about secondary health insurance that kicks in after medicare has paid its share. The secondary insurance is less expensive than primary insurance that would be necessary if those retirees didn't have this federal program.

No whatever plan that is presented in congress will not be perfect. I contend that when members of congress agree to be covered by this health plan, ONLY then will it be a decent one but politicians are politicians first and not humanitarians. Whatever plan gets through, it will be a step in the right direction for US citizens. Our private health care plan is going up at least 5% per year and they are talking about one in California going up 40% next year. Having a federal one will just have insurance companies fighting over auxiliary benefits and with that savings the shift from premium payments to additional taxes to pay for federal plan will allay the tax increase somewhat. While I do not like some of the details of the plan like starting funding years before coverage takes place and a few other funding details, it's a start. A long overdue start. Have a good day.

-- Posted by Jenny Moore on Sat, Mar 20, 2010, at 11:28 AM

Jenny and Charlie, I believe you have good points. Thanks for posting your thoughts on such a very divided issue.

As we see in polls, many people are hot about this topic, and because of the expressed opinions of Rush L.and politicians, Many people are acting unfriendly and unkind toward those who applaud the passing of this bill. I said it before, hate radio has caused many to act unbecoming and outragious in speech and action. The world is watching and shocked by it. Especially when they have their own healthcare inituitives that work fine. They wonder if we are barbarians.

Its a shame that this opposition is so late, as I would love to have heard this back when Bush was going to war for his own purposes and at the tax payers expense. Trillions of dollars spent to kill people. Even to this day I do not know how these wars were supported by the American people based on lies. How was it right to end Terri Schiavo's life? I could go on and on. What we have here is abuse of power yes, somehow each party has their signiture with the use of power. The question is, which one party used power as absolute power?

Medicare turned out to be a God Send. Im sure Social Security was meant to be a good thing, and it is for the many. Obama did try to include the Republicans. However, they seem to dismiss the fact that they lost the election and the two parties have severe differences in idealogy. They simply cannot work together with synergy. If democrats were to appease the R on every issue I assure you, Obama would get nothing done, much to the R favor. Obama promised to pass healthcare reform before he was even elected. The people have spoken by electing him. This is a R state, and he won in Indiana. How is it that now the people here are so unhappy with it? The people are confused only because of hate radio and powerful politicians who have lined their pockets with an industry that is corrupted by profits. My opinion is that - health is the wrong market for profit.

When you havent got your health, you have nothing.

Once again thank you, I enjoyed your posts.

-- Posted by Pearl2083 on Sat, Mar 27, 2010, at 1:07 PM

Respond to this blog

Posting a comment requires free registration:

Hear me out
by Charles Hear
Recent posts
Blog RSS feed [Feed icon]
Comments RSS feed [Feed icon]
Hot topics
Round Two
(2 ~ 9:25 PM, Sep 22)

Donald Trump
(3 ~ 11:36 AM, Sep 7)

Hey Y'all, Watch This!
(2 ~ 11:30 AM, Sep 7)

What's Wrong With America
(2 ~ 11:29 AM, Sep 7)

The First Debate Is Over
(1 ~ 11:08 AM, Sep 1)