by Maximus on Thu Apr 01, 2010 12:18 am
1. There is already in process in the federal courts a challenge to the law based on these grounds: the law apparently will require the public to engage in a private commercial transaction (purchasing health insurance) under threat of civil penalties. This is different than taxing the public to provide a public service run by the government, with public oversight etc. The former described action is according to at least some experts unconstitutional, and therefore not a requirement the Congress can validly impose on the people.
2. It makes demands on the states to provide services without providing any additional revenues for the states to fund those services. With CA bankrupt and a bunch of other states not far behind, this is both a violation of states' sovereignty and fiscally irresponsible.
3. The bill contains a decent amount of "pork" ie bribes for specific states, the only purpose of which was effectively to buy the votes of different legislators. Although this is par for the course for politics, it is certainly contrary to Obama and the Dems' (and Reps' for that matter) promises both to be above board in their policies and to reduce/eliminate "pork" spending.
4. If I understand correctly, the so-called "public option" was not a part of the final bill that was passed. Although this one would have been the worst example, the law in numerous lesser but still serious ways violates the idea of subsidiarity - the idea that it's best to deal with things on the smallest possible scale (locally, state, etc) and involve the higher levels (ie federal) only when absolutely necessary. This is to prevent consolidation of powers (=decrease of freedom and autonomy), and enable each community to make decisions that make sense for it that may not make sense elsewhere. Say for example public health care would be good for New Jersey but not for Idaho. Under a federal law, all people in the country have to follow the same rules, whether they make any sense for a particular location or not.
5. The bill in its current implementation contains no provision to enforce the long-standing prohibition on providing federal funding for abortion, or the so-called conscience clause that allows medical professionals to refuse to engage in actions they consider immoral (abortions among other things). The Obama administration knows full well the Hyde Amendment doesn't apply and the recent executive order will be ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court and nullified before too long.
These are just a few of the reasons the bill is unpopular.
No one disagrees that the health care system is in need of reform. But quite a few, including a majority of the American public (I generally hear numbers in the 70% range) are against the current implementation of so-called reform. It changes too much too fast and brings way too many bad side effects. There are other ways to solve the health care problems without defunding Medicare, disregarding the long-standing block of federal funds for abortion and other anti-life activites, and creating 150-odd (at last count) new government bureaucracies to take control of 20% of our national economy (the healthcare sector). At this point, I and quite a few others would like to see Congress go back to the drawing board and come up with a plan that doesn't suck.
"A government big enough to supply you with everything you need, is a government big enough to take away everything that you have...." - Pres. Gerald Ford
