Wednesday, December 15, 2010

Sliperry Sloping on Health

As most of you are aware, a federal court in Virginia has ruled that a key feature of ObamaCare is unconstitutional. As the WSJ reports: "A federal court ruled Monday that a key part of the health-care overhaul violates the Constitution, dealing the first legal setback to the Obama administration's signature legislative accomplishment. U.S. District Judge Henry E. Hudson said the law's requirement that most Americans carry insurance or pay a penalty "exceeds the constitutional boundaries of congressional power."

Now all of this will eventually be sorted out by the Supreme Court, but there is one feature of the judge's opinion that deserves to be highlighted-precisely because it underscores what we have said is the slippery slope dangers of any nationalized health care plan: "In court papers, the Obama administration argued that Congress's constitutional authority to regulate interstate commerce and other clauses gave it the power to require Americans to carry insurance. Since all Americans at some point get health-care services, it said, the rule is simply a way of regulating how consumers pay for their care. But Judge Hudson found that was too broad an interpretation of the Commerce Clause, arguing that "the same reasoning could apply to transportation, housing, or nutritional decisions." He added that Congress lacked precedent for "regulation of a person's decision not to purchase a product, notwithstanding its effect on interstate commerce or role in a global regulatory scheme." (emphasis added)

As we have pointed out before-citing the work of Nat Hentoff: "Under ObamaCare, health specialists in the Bloomberg mold, will be in charge of all life and death decisions: "In all of American history, this is the first time the national government will have the power to decide, in many cases, and a range of ages, how many of us will be permitted to go on living. Who will decide?...Moreover, I doubt that even many of Obama's citizen critics, including independent voters, know what was hidden beforehand in Obama's 2009 stimulus bill that includes the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research (later superseded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute)."

And then there are those nutritional decisions that will be under the purview of a Dr, Thomas Frieden or Dr. Thomas Farley clone-all part of the Bloomberg public health school of Big Mother. As we said earlier this month: "So, as New Yorkers, we see the future with a degree of clarity that might elude other Americans. It is a future where health czars in the mold of a Dr. Tom Frieden, or a Dr. Tom Farley, will be issuing rules and edicts on what will be considered the parameters of good-i.e., healthy-behavior."

Already, on the heels of the passage of the federal nutrition bill, we have the First Lady telling us that obesity is a national security issue-a harbinger for rights infringement if we've ever seen one. As Heal Blog tells us: "According to Michelle Obama, her plan on making the bill was based on her concern that as the wealthiest country on earth, the United States has to provide its people only with the healthiest and the most nutritious foods out there. She stated that the health matter is the most important thing that every country should care about and nothing can surpass the importance of it."

Which is precisely why we are rooting for the plaintiffs in this lawsuit-and for the Supreme Court-to cut this monstrous challenge to our basic liberties off at the knees. Once we elevate health in this manner, all naysayers will be squelched as enablers of poor health and an insecure America-unpatriotic, if you will. The current health law will, if not stopped, be the greatest threat to individual freedom in our life time.