The Problem With Government Healthcare

The American Healthcare Reform Act, or “Trumpcare,” as it is coming to be known, is a roughly 95-page piece of legislation (this is strictly the current text) which claims to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare). In the essence of time, I have not had the opportunity to read the bill in its entirety. However, there is one aspect that I find particularly interesting.

Besides repealing and replacing the Affordable Care Act, “Trumpcare” also promises to defund Planned Parenthood — the infamous infanticidal organization — for a whole whopping year. Then government money slides once again into their back pocket, and they’re free to continue their murder of the unborn.
Many are lauding this as the end of Planned Parenthood or abortion in general, but they fail to realize (or maybe they blind themselves) that it’s only for a year. It is doubtful that more than a meager handful of Planned Parenthood facilities would go under during that time, especially with millionaire celebrities like Emma Watson who are constantly throwing money in the organization’s direction.
The same people who are so excited about the one-year governmental defunding of Planned Parenthood also seem to be under the impression that a Planned Parenthood facility is the only place the women can get an abortion. BREAKING — it’s not. Government-funded hospitals perform abortions on a daily basis. They just do it legally and require a parental consent for minors in states that also require it.

Another crowd, this one leaning towards the left, screams that healthcare is a right and therefore should be provided by the government. Republicans, in a sorry attempt to keep them happy, have created, as we have seen, its own ghastly rendition of federally-controlled healthcare, which only promises to dig this nation a deeper hole (and the left still isn’t happy).

Then there is the group that is rarely heard from. This group is made up of people who can’t afford healthcare, but are now required to get healthcare, at the risk of paying a large fine. So, they look into signing up for Obamacare, only to find out that they are not qualified. Therefore, they are by default required to pay an annual penalty for A. Not being able to pay for healthcare, and B. Not fitting into the government mold. Is this how we are supposed to help the lower class in our country?

Government healthcare has been a complete and utter failure thus far, but that should not necessarily be our primary concern. The underlying issue here is this: does the federal government have the power to control an individual’s healthcare? Anyone with a basic knowledge of the Constitution would say “no.” The Constitution lays out the federal government’s powers very clearly, and nowhere in the Constitution does it say “Congress shall henceforth mandate healthcare for every citizen.”

There’s a saying in politics, and it’s really quite true. “What the government pays for, the government controls.” It might be said that this should be clear to anyone, with which I would agree. However, there are those who would disagree, and for these individuals, I would like to provide a bit of perspective.
If the federal government pays for your healthcare, it controls your healthcare. If the government controls your healthcare, they presumably control your health. If they control your health, they control your life.


Is the Convention of States Relevant?

What is the Convention of States?
Article V of the U.S. Constitution states

“…on the application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof…”

In plain English, it simply says that state legislatures can amend the U.S. Constitution, provided two thirds of the states agree to do so. States will vote to elect delegates to represent them at the Convention. These delegates will vote on various bills that have been passed by the represented states’ legislatures to be presented at the Convention. If three fourths of the states’ delegates vote in favor of an issue, it passes and goes directly to Congress to be voted on. In this way, the people can amend the U.S. Constitution.

The Convention of States is not a new movement or idea. There was also a Convention of States in 1789, through which the Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments that protect the basic rights of the citizen, was established.

The Modern Movement
The modern Convention of States movement seeks to restore state sovereignty, mend the federal debt/spending issues, etc. Dr. Michael P. Farris,  Project Director of the Convention of States Project, says,

“The only and best solution is for the states to stand together and not merely defy federal power grabs, we can actually remove their power. This is called the Convention of States.”

Through the Convention, many are hoping to eliminate executive overreach, impose term limits on Congress and Supreme Justices, etc.
This has been sparked by the many executive orders under the Bush and Obama administrations, along with other factors such as the incompetence of Congress to establish a balanced federal budget.

While it seems that the country could profit from such a Convention, there are many who are concerned about what could potentially go wrong after delegates are chosen and power is passed out of the hands of the people. They believe that it is likely to become a “runaway convention” in which the people have no voice at all. Some suggest that the delegates might even go as far as to eliminate the Bill of Rights completely.

The most weighty arguments against the Convention of States include the idea that Congress pays little mind to what the Constitution currently says, and a Convention to amend it most likely won’t make a difference in the matter. Some even argue that the Constitution isn’t flawed to begin with.
There is also a concern as to which party will hold the majority at the Convention, and how that will affect what gets passed into law.
As with many projects such as this, there is the question of who will pay for an event of this size, the answer to which seems to be “taxpayers.”

The founding fathers recognized that the Constitution would have flaws and so included in the document ways in which it can be amended, one of which is included in Article V. Is this an advisable method? You decide.

“The founders inserted this alternative method [the Convention of States] of obtaining constitutional amendments because they knew the Congress would be unwilling to give attention to many issues the people are concerned with, particularly those involving restrictions on the federal government’s own power. The founders foresaw that and they provided the convention as a remedy. If the only way to get that convention is to take this minimal risk, then it is a reasonable one.” – Supreme Justice Antonin Scalia, 1979