The Course of History by Ira Schwartz

Ira Schwartz
March 29, 2010 Posted by Ira Schwartz ira@hollywoodrepublican.net

So it’s the day after the day after and you know what? The sun came up on both days just like it’s done for the last 5 million or so years. When the President signed his healthcare bill The United States of America had the first “Universal Healthcare bill” in our history. To all of those people who are celebrating I can only say “You should have been careful what you wished for.” To those who are on the other side of the coin Winston Churchill said it best.

“Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.”

So the fight will go on. As we speak, at least 13 state attorneys general filed suit against the federal government. The states that are definite are Alabama, Colorado, Florida, South Carolina, Pennsylvania, Texas, Utah, Michigan, Nebraska, and Washington. One of the things they claim is that the federal government does not have the authority to force its citizens to buy goods and services they do not want. Constitutional scholars are split over this issue. Some say that Federal Law trumps States Rights. Others think that there is a very distinct possibility that the Supreme Court might say that where you have a freedom secured by a state constitution that it might warrant protection, even against a federal statute. Regardless, overall 34 states are lining up to file suit. That’s more than half the Union.
Michael Boldin, founder of the Tenth Amendment Center, in an interview with the AP compared this to the Medical Marijuana confusion. “To me what that indicates is when there are enough people refusing to comply with the federal government and enough states passing laws that also refuse to comply, it’s very difficult for the federal government to enforce their laws.”
So even though the Bill has been signed into law, how its statutes will be enforced remains as fuzzy as how it will be paid for. After all they can’t throw all of us in jail.
But this bill is not all bad. There are numerous good things included in the 2000 plus pages of dribble.
1) People may no longer be denied insurance due to pre-existing conditions.
2) There will no longer be a lifetime financial cap on insurance payouts
3) Insurance companies will no longer be allowed to drop policy holders because they get sick
4) Insurance companies will no longer be allowed to arbitrarily raise rates.
5) Children will be able to stay on their parents policy until 26.
 
I’m sure those of you who have read the bill can come up with a few more.
Lita Epstein, noted author, has done a well thought out breakdown of winners and losers of this new bill. It cuts through a lot of the minutia and explains it in plain English. The link below will take you there.
http://www.walletpop.com/blog/2010/03/23/health-care-reform-are-you-a-winner-or-a-loser/
It appears now that the mid-term elections in November will be the real litmus test for “We the people”. The Democrats publicly think November will be no big deal. They feel they will lose some seats but keep the majority. Maybe. All I know is here in California, Barbara Boxer, normally a shoe in for re-election is now dead even with her Republican adversary. Is it a sign of things to come? We’ll have to wait to see. As of Monday March 23rd a Rasmussen poll indicates 31% of the nations voters approve of Barack Obama while 41% of the nation disapproves. His approval rating is up 2% from the week before. But it’s still clear a majority of the nation is not happy. The real question is can the Republicans turn this unhappiness into Republican votes? That will depend on how the GOP handles itself in the next 7 months.
For the last few weeks a quote by Thomas Jefferson has been running through my head….
“A government big enough to supply you with everything you need is a government big enough to take away everything that you have…. The course of history shows that as the government grows, liberty decreases.”
And at least all of us can agree on one thing; the size of government has grown under the present administration. Will the course of history show Barack Obama as a dismal failure or the President that started the United States on the path to affordable Universal Healthcare for its people? Will the course of history show Barack Obama as the destroyer or savior of the Democratic Party? I guess only time will answer those questions. But one thing is certain, no president since Abraham Lincoln has divided this great country of ours more than Barack Obama. And if the Republicans do gain the majority in the house and senate on November 2nd you can be sure real legislative grid lock will begin on November 3rd.
As a “post script” I want to add a short note of a personal nature. A good friend and fellow writer Craig Covello has decided it is time for him to lay down his pen and no longer continue his blog “Obama White House Diaries.” He is not giving up the fight just giving his hands a rest from all that typing. You see Craig has managed over the last year to turn out at least an article a day on what’s happening in the present administration. His articles were always fair, insightful and extremely well written. From time to time Craig even allowed Frank and I to publish several of them on our website. They always seemed to ignite a healthy debate.
D.H. Lawrence said it best. “When genuine passion moves you, say what you’ve got to say, and say it hot.” Craig managed to capture that passion in every article. I hope in the near future he decides to pick up the pen again because there appears to still be a lot that needs to be written about. Until then his writings will be missed by fans and friends alike.
The address of his website is http://www.obamawhitehousediaries.com/. Please go there and read some of his work. I promise you will not be disappointed.
© 2010 by Ira Schwartz. Used with Permission. All Rights Reserved.

Tags: , , , ,

10 Responses to The Course of History by Ira Schwartz

  1. Deborah A. Cook on March 29, 2010 at 1:15 pm

    Very well articulated Ira and a mirroring of previous articles and comments made by you on this blog in the past. I may not always agree with your perspectives but I always enjoy your writing stylings and would defend your right to share them to the death. I won't re-hash how or why you and I see things differently I will say you possess the same level of passion in this regard as I do. The only thing I will say regarding the article is as I was reading it I found myself thinking "wouldn't it be nice if just once we had a government that wasn't about how the democrats are destroying the country or the republicans are obstructionists?" What a pleasure it would be to witness a government that really did exist and work fervently towards the good of the country COLLECTIVELY. I truly believe unless ALL OF US severe our ties with partisan reasoning and viewpoints we are doomed to fail. I had an in-depth conversation yesterday with my 27 year old son who, as you know, served 6 years in the USAF. The topic matter was politics which we usually respectfully disagree on as he labels himself as a Conservative and I an Independent. As we talked and ventured onto various aspects of our political system; past, present and future, we both were pleasantly surprised to find there did exist numerous commonalities for us to agree upon. Common sense, logically based concepts which neither of us were aware we saw eye-to-eye on. How unique would it be for all the participants in Washington to engage in an exercise of identifying those ideas on which all parties can agree up and build from there? It would appear that they're so busy highlighting the other's shortcomings as a means towards making themselves appear the better of the two. I personally don't care which party is in the White House or which is in power in the Senate. All I think we really need is a group of people who can answer the following three questions truthfully with a "yes" answer:

    1. Can I trust you?
    2. Are you committed to excellence?
    3. Do you care about me?

    These questions won't tell me all I need to know about a person but they will assure me I'm dealing with a qaulity individual. Their party affiliation means nothing to me beyond that.

  2. ira on March 29, 2010 at 3:25 pm

    Well Deb we agree on much more than we disagree. It would be a pleasure if just once both political parties did what was right for the whole country and not just their political agendas. If you strip away most of the hype most democrats want the same as most republicans and most liberals want the same as most conservatives but they have, over the years forgotten how to communicate with one another. Quite frankly I don't know what can be done anymore. But like you I am not a quitter and will continue to hope and fight for the day our government cares more about the people they represent than their own political careers. Thanks for the comments.

    Ira

  3. Deborah A. Cook on March 30, 2010 at 12:25 pm

    Unfortunately yours and my viewpoints on this subject won't sell newspapers and won't cause folks to tune into their favorite news programs. We have a responsibility in this matter first by holding those accountable who don't "do the right thing" and second by not becoming puppets to the media outlets who like to stir up the populace on both sides of the spectrum. Give me an avenue where I can get unbiased facts and I will become a loyal supporter forever. Again, that won't stir people's passions so it just won't sell, sadly.

  4. Anonymous on March 30, 2010 at 2:14 pm

    Isn’t it interesting that Republicans and Conservatists, and I am one, are now embracing the good points in the ObamaCare Bill, that is if they have “interpreted” it correctly. They raise their support of the issues of 1) Pre-existing conditions, 2) Removal of Lifetime cap on insurance, 3) Insurance companies will no longer be allowed to drop sick policy holders, 4) Insurance companies will have rate controls, 5) Children, defined to be humans to age 26, will stay on parents policy.

    One is tempted to say “What nonsense.” One has to suspend disbelief not to realize that all of these “Good Things” are intended to and will drive Insurance companies out of business. And, yes, the Government will pick up the slack with the ubiquitous Single Payer System. And then the smart money, common sense and history tells us the government will not be held accountable to the same standards that are proven, repeat proven, to be unsustainable in the private sector. And the National Debt will continue out of control. National HealthCare and the Federal Reserve may well turn out to be the destruction of America as we know it.

    Had the Republicans and Conservatives effectively addressed items 1 through 4 plus insurance competition across state lines, plus catastrophic insurance coverage, and a safety net for the uninsured then today’s cure would not be worse than the disease. The battle over whether healthcare is a right has metastasized. The birth of healthcare benefits can be traced to the era of wage price controls where companies were creative in their pursuit of good workers. And then the capitalistic system dropped the ball. Yes, today’s crisis is as much the fault of unbridled capitalism as it is the fault of misguided liberalism.

    There is however a crack appearing in the façade of the Democratic victory that will be interesting to research, encourage and follow. The three branches of our government, by design of our founding fathers, were constructed such that an attempt by any branch of the government to usurp totalitarian control is check mated by their independence. There are emerging three issues that in some form or other may make their way to the Supreme Court. First, the Federal Government does not have the Constitutional right to require States to tax and spend money on Federal programs such as Medicare. Second, The Federal Government cannot mandate, force citizens to buy shoes, cars, houses, shirts, dresses or ObamaCare. Third, The Federal Government has no Constitutional right to interfere, monitor, or administrate the private dialogue between doctor and patient. Precedent favors striking down part if not all of the ObamaCare Bill. And the public disdain of the Executive Branch toward the Judicial Branch, as displayed in the State of the Union Speech, is a wildcard we would like in the game.

    In the mean time the one area when Conservatives and Republicans can and should focus in on is insuring that the “bad” sections of the ObamaCare Bill never, yes, never, get funded. This is a time tested way to defeat any signed bill. It will require the Conservatives and Republicans to regain control of Congress. It will also require Conservatives and Republicans to return to their core beliefs. Return to the reservation, please, or nothing has been learned.

  5. Deborah A. Cook on March 30, 2010 at 7:10 pm

    Anonymous, whoever you may be.
    There is so much about your submission which represents propaganda and falsehoods that it almost hurts my eyes to read it. I won't waste my energies breaking it down point by point because frankly my time is too valuable. Additionally I know I could type till my fingers were bloody and not one word would ever change your perspective, I do know this quite well.

    However, there is one sentence which requires clarification because it is the sentence which is the catalyst for this "precedent" you refer to as a means to striking down the bill.
    You write: "The Federal Government has no Constitutional right to interfere, monitor, or administrate the private dialogue between doctor and patient." There is no language anywhere which even eludes to such action and anyone who thinks there is has spent more time watching TV pundits and not enough time actually reading the bill itself. As a side note, even the republican representatives are now admitting any hope of repeal has very little chance of success.

    As to your call to the republicans to return to their "core beliefs", that dog won't hunt anymore. They and their counterparts on the other side of the aisle are so up to their necks in lobby affiliations and kickbacks that they no longer remember what those core beliefs actually are. Apparently their $174,000.00 salaries weren't incentive enough to maintain the focus on the good of the country. You or I aren't important anymore, it is the corporate entities who line their pockets which are and will remain their focus now and into the future. To believe otherwise is somewhat delusional and naive.

  6. Anonymous on March 30, 2010 at 7:37 pm

    I do believe you made my point. You diminish your cache, which is admirable when you attack the messenger and not the message. You express yourself well. I standby by my narrative. And history is the arbiter. If I am wrong there will be no crisis. I pray for that.

  7. KK on March 30, 2010 at 9:35 pm

    I agree with you Anonymous and might add that the Libs/Dems never admit to their Progressive Agenda which is really what we have going on in the White House right now. Everything that is happening to our country must be colored with the Progressive marker. To ignore or deny that is the real problem.

  8. Deborah A. Cook on March 31, 2010 at 1:22 pm

    Specifically to Anonymous:
    There was no attack on the messenger other than the reference to your steadfast commitment to your beliefs. I know very well what I speak of as I am the same way. The rest of my comment was partially in reference to the message and mostly my viewpoint on ALL of the elected officials. As I stated earlier, it matters less to me which party any of them might be affiliated with and more about the caliber of them as individuals.

  9. Anonymous on March 31, 2010 at 6:44 pm

    Your kindness prompts further discussion.

    When the people fear the government we have tyranny. When the government fears the people we have liberty.

    Other constitutional scholars have said it better than I could so let me paraphrase. There are four areas; time will probably uncover more, constitutional defects in ObamaCare worthy of consideration by the Supreme Court.

    First, the federal governments take over of student loans. Second, Creation of healthcare and an army, the States National guard and the hiring of 16 thousand new IRS agents to “enforce” a congressional mandate. Third, The Constitution is violated when Congress orders the States on “what to do.” And on what it “orders the people to do. A) There is a clear challenge when States are ordered to increase “state” taxes and spend money collected on national healthcare ,B) when individuals are ordered to acquire health insurance that provides coverage acceptable to federal bureaucrats, C) When the Federal Government transfers Healthcare from the States to itself and puts itself between patient and physician.

    The Federal Government has no right to tell states how to spend state generated tax dollars.

    The States formed the Federal Government, not the reverse. When states formed the federal government that gave away only seventeen specific powers, all written down in the Constitution, all other powers they retained for themselves. Nation States gave specific powers to the Federal Government. These powers were to, First, raise and army and navy. Second, operate a court system. Third, provide for standard weights and measures. Fourth, coin money. Fifth, create a post office.

    State retained specifically for themselves the right and power to legislate health, safety, welfare and morality. The Federal Government has no Constitutional authority to regulate in areas reserved to the states or to tell these states what to do in these areas. For 200 years States have regulated healthcare, visit the issue of cross state line health insurance.. That power has not been ceded to the Federal Government.

    Some raise the Commerce Clause as a federal government “right” to interfere between patient and physician. The Commerce meant to regulate STATE (across state lines) commerce, not regular intra state commerce like local businesses such as schools, cake bake sales, Tupperware parties or doctors offices.

    And privacy rights have been tested and upheld in several areas that define privacy, such as lawyer client confidentiality, the confidentiality of confessional, and doctor patient confidentiality, that is until now.

    The Supreme Court has upheld the “privacy of patient/physician conversations and the Federal Government shall not intrude. The ObamaCare Bill violates this privacy by requiring patient/physician to share medical information with federal bureaucrats. And further allows those bureaucrats to direct physicians on how to treat those patients.

    Any rational personal should concede that the federal government is terribly inefficient in running Amtrak and the Post Office. It has bankrupted Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.

    Congress takes an oath to uphold the Constitution. As a last resort the Supreme Curt interprets. And precedents have been reversed, slavery being one. The issue here is “rules/laws’ not “right/wrong.” States reserved to themselves the right to legislate “morality”, an example. Congress cannot be allowed to dawn the mantra of a general legislature in order to right any wrong, regulate any activity and tax any event. These activities and concepts are universes apart from the Constitutional intent of our founding Fathers, the doctrine of inalienable rights and limited government that was bequeathed to us.

    The ObamaCare Bill holds no limitations over its own power and it opens the door to a serious debate and a certain challenge on these issues of Constitutional violations.

    These are not my beliefs, they are the sum total of where I stand today on what I know about the facts, however clouded by spin and emotion.

  10. ira on April 1, 2010 at 7:09 am

    Anonymous what you say is true. When I was doing research on my last article I ran across most of the information you discussed above. This will cross the desk of the Supreme Court and what ever decision they make will set a new legal precedence for the numerous future lawsuits that will be filed.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Feature

Epilog C An Immoral Jihad

“Moral nihilists assert that morality does not inherently exist, and that any established moral values are abstractly contrived. Nihilism can also take epistemological or...

Obama’s Stunning Snub

By Selena Zito GETTYSBURG – He almost was not asked to speak. In October 1863, President Abraham Lincoln received the same plain envelope that...