What Are the Step 2 Consequences
for Any National Healthcare Program
Expansion of the federal government has crept along slowly but surely decade after decade. It’s a bit like a “connect the dots” page, where you can’t quite make out the picture until the lines are all drawn. We don’t seem to connect the dots of cause and effect, so we never seem to see the picture until it’s too late. When someone does connect the dots, it sounds like a fairy tale because we are not used to seeing it all at once. Here is a bit of connect the dots to make you think.
Some years ago the Supreme Court (part of the federal government) determined that the government could bypass your rights as long as the government could establish a “compelling governmental interest”. That is how the government can create for itself exceptions to your 4th Amendment for national security reasons, or to your 2nd Amendment for safety reasons. The Feds say “we can, we need to, so we will, because we say we can.”
Combine this government created authority to bypass your rights with the big expansion of power through the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and the justification of a National Healthcare program. Through the use of precedent and knowledge of history, we can predict what our future may be if we stay on our present trajectory:
A National Healthcare program authorizes the federal government to subsidize your health insurance. Whenever the government spends money on a purpose, they are automatically vested with a “compelling governmental interest” in that purpose. With a “compelling governmental interest” in health insurance, they inherit a “compelling governmental interest” in anything that directly or significantly impacts that interest. Following with that Supreme Court logic we can surmise that…
- A “compelling governmental interest” in health insurance creates a “compelling governmental interest” in health care. After all, your health care and the subsequent cost of that health care directly and significantly impact your health insurance.
- A “compelling governmental interest” in health insurance creates a “compelling governmental interest” in your HEALTH. After all, your health and the subsequent impact of your health on your health care directly and significantly impact your health insurance.
- A “compelling governmental interest” in health insurance creates a “compelling governmental interest” in what you eat, where you live and where you work. After all, what you eat, where you live, and where you work all directly impact your health, the subsequent cost of that health care directly and significantly impact your health insurance.
Since according to the Supreme Court, a “compelling governmental interest” can trump any of your inalienable rights, this “compelling governmental interest” authorizes the government to tell you where you can live, what you can eat, and where you can work.
Does that sound “extreme”? Think about this. The federal government has an agency called the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee (DGAC). This committee meets with the sole purpose to:
“encourage Americans to focus on eating a healthful diet — one that focuses on foods and beverages that help achieve and maintain a healthy weight, promote health, and prevent disease. A healthy diet can reduce the risk of major chronic diseases such as heart disease, diabetes, osteoporosis, and some cancers.”
What could that agency do with a “compelling governmental interest” over your health? Perhaps they could, through HHS, regulate the food industry to make it impossible to produce food that was not “approved” under the standards, making it impossible to buy anything that is not approved by HHS. Of course the FDA is never going to give up this prime opportunity to expand its regulatory power. Having HHS deem “unregulated” food “unlawful” to sell or distribute will give the FDA all the encouragement they need to issue regulations that will prohibit the sale OR CONSUMPTION of ALL food that is not properly regulated by the FDA. After all, we already violently regulate raw milk and cheese. This could mean that your farmer’s market, your road side fruit stands, and even your backyard garden will be made “unlawful” unless it is regulated by the FDA. That is also not beyond comprehension due to the passing of the Food And Safety Modernization Act on January 4, 2011. The FDA describes this Act as:
The FDA Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA), the most sweeping reform of our food safety laws in more than 70 years, was signed into law by President Obama on January 4, 2011. It aims to ensure the U.S. food supply is safe by shifting the focus from responding to contamination to preventing it. (emphasis mine)
This act does not just control major food distributors and manufacturers, but also has a section that gives the FDA control over “very small farms” and “roadside markets”.
How does this administration view the coal and oil industry? With a “compelling governmental interest” in your health, one government study by the CDC that declares that there is a significant increase in the development of cancer or other diseases among workers in these industries, could give the government the authority to regulate them out of business. Isn’t the EPA already doing that to private businesses?
What if you live in a rural area and have to travel an hour to get to the nearest hospital. Do you consider it outside the regulatory power of the government to tell you that living so far from a hospital negatively impacts their ability to render proper and affordable healthcare, so you must move closer? Perhaps they could create zoning regulations that prohibit the construction of any residential area beyond a certain radius of a properly regulated hospital. What if the government then creates a regulation that forces all hospitals, both public and private, to comply with all government regulations, even when they conflict with the interests of the private hospitals, forcing the shutdown of all privately owned hospitals. Oops.
The ACA expanded the precedent of federal power and established in the minds of those who do not recognize the limiting nature of the Constitution, that the federal government has the power to enforce any law, anytime, anywhere. James Madison, father of the Constitution & 4th President gave Congress this warning in 1792:
“If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare… I venture to declare it as my opinion, that, were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited government established by the people of America.”
And as the Supreme Court continues to follow precedent rather than the Constitution, it will have no other choice but to authorize further elimination of your Liberty. Here is what Jefferson said about this slow creep:
“It has long however been my opinion, and I have never shrunk from it’s expression, that the germ of dissolution of our federal government is in the constitution of the federal judiciary; an irresponsible body, (for impeachment is scarcely a scare-crow) working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little to-day & a little tomorrow, and advancing it’s noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped from the states, & the government of all be consolidated into one.”
So, are you starting to get the picture?
If you would like to learn more about the Constitution or schedule KrisAnne to speak, please visit KrisAnne at http://krisannehall.com/
The views, opinions, or positions expressed by the authors and those providing comments are theirs alone, and do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, positions of Redoubt News. Social Media, including Facebook, has greatly diminished distribution of our stories to our readers’ newsfeeds and is instead promoting Main Stream Media sources. This is called ‘Shadow-banning’. Please take a moment and consider sharing this article with your friends and family. Thank you. Please support our coverage of your rights. Donate here: Paypal.me/RedoubtNews
“What Are the Step 2 Consequences for Any National Healthcare Program”
Note the word National in “National Healthcare Program”.
The intent behind changing the meanings of words is analogous to baiting a net to catch a bird.
The bait is a federation of independent states, where people are free in those states, and then the switch (bait and switch) is an all-powerful, consolidated, Nation State, which thereby catches all those birds that were once free.
It would be nice to be free from insults aimed at me personally, at my character. It is as if the subject matter does not matter. It is as if what does matter is my personal character. Why? Is that just another form of censorship? The same applies to creating fictional words written by some fictional character, and then suggesting that I wrote those words. Why do that, why resort to deception?
Malancton Smith, in a Debate in New York, on June 20th, 1788, is on record exposing the bait and switch job being done by the aristocratic gang. The aristocratic gang included Slave Traders, Warmongers, and Central Banking Frauds, and they were out for blood, just not their own blood.
The point of pointing out the difference between a voluntary association for mutual defense, and an involuntary association for the benefit of a few at the expense of everyone is explained well in the words offered by William Watkins in his book titled Reclaiming the American Revolution: The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions and Their Legacy.
The point is:
“Without competition from other units of government, the national government would have much less incentive than Tennessee would to modify the objectionable policy.”
In a federal system, which is not a national system, those who object to the policy of the national system have other national systems to choose from within the same federation of independent nation states. Those choices include choices of “policies” such as subsidized slavery. If you don’t want to pay for your own enslavement, then you can move to a nation state that does not subsidize slavery. Daniel Shays, for example, went to Vermont. Other slaves could run away from slavery to Vermont, or they could run to Rhode Island. Pennsylvania was also a sanctuary for runaway slaves.
June 17, 1788
George Mason:
“Mr. Chairman, this is a fatal section, which has created more dangers than any other. The first clause allows the importation of slaves for twenty years. Under the royal government, this evil was looked upon as a great oppression, and many attempts were made to prevent it; but the interest of the African merchants prevented its prohibition. No sooner did the revolution take place, than it was thought of. It was one of the great causes of our separation from Great Britain. Its exclusion has been a principal object of this state, and most of the states in the Union. The augmentation of slaves weakens the states; and such a trade is diabolical in itself, and disgraceful to mankind; yet, by this Constitution, it is continued for twenty years. As much as I value a union of all the states, I would not admit the Southern States into the Union unless they agree to the discontinuance of this disgraceful trade, because it would bring weakness, and not strength, to the Union.”
So…it is no longer a federation. It is, as the anti-criminal nationalists claimed, a national – not a federal – gang.
“He was pleased that, thus early in debate, the honorable gentleman had himself shown that the intent of the Constitution was not a confederacy, but a reduction of all the states into a consolidated government. He hoped the gentleman would be complaisant enough to exchange names with those who disliked the Constitution, as it appeared from his own concessions, that they were federalists, and those who advocated it were anti-federalists.”
FRIDAY, June 20, 1788
Melancton Smith
Reclaiming the American Revolution: The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions and Their Legacy
by William Watkins
“Second, federalism permits the states to operate as laboratories of democracy-to experiment with various policies and Programs. For example, if Tennessee wanted to provide a state-run health system for its citizens, the other 49 states could observe the effects of this venture on Tennessee’s economy, the quality of care provided, and the overall cost of health care. If the plan proved to be efficacious other states might choose to emulate it, or adopt a plan taking into account any problems surfacing in Tennessee. If the plan proved to be a disastrous intervention, the other 49 could decide to leave the provision of medical care to the private sector. With national plans and programs, the national officials simply roll the dice for all 284 million people of the United States and hope they get things right.
“Experimentation in policymaking also encourages a healthy competition among units of government and allows the people to vote with their feet should they find a law of policy detrimental to their interests. Using again the state-run health system as an example, if a citizen of Tennessee was unhappy with Tennessee’s meddling with the provisions of health care, the citizen could move to a neighboring state. Reallocation to a state like North Carolina, with a similar culture and climate, would not be a dramatic shift and would be a viable option. Moreover, if enough citizens exercised this option, Tennessee would be pressured to abandon its foray into socialized medicine, or else lose much of its tax base. To escape a national health system, a citizen would have to emigrate to a foreign country, an option far less appealing and less likely to be exercised than moving to a neighboring state. Without competition from other units of government, the national government would have much less incentive than Tennessee would to modify the objectionable policy. Clearly, the absence of experimentation and competition hampers the creation of effective programs and makes the modification of failed national programs less likely.”
Unfortunately, during the Federal Convention of 1787 the topic of regulating diet did come up in the guise of Sumptuary Laws which Colonel Mason tried to incorporate into the Constitution twice during the Convention:
“Monday, August 20, 1787. In Convention
…
Mr. Mason moved to enable Congress “to enact sumptuary laws.” No Government can be maintained unless the manners be made consonant to it. Such a discretionary power may do good and can do no harm. A proper regulation of excises & of trade may do a great deal but it is best to have an express provision. It was objected to sumptuary laws that they were contrary to nature. This was a vulgar error. The love of distinction it is true is natural; but the object of sumptuary laws is not to extinguish this principle but to give it a proper direction.
Mr. Elseworth. The best remedy is to enforce taxes & debts. As far as the regulation of eating & drinking can be reasonable, it is provided for in the power of taxation.
Mr. Govenor Morris argued that sumptuary laws tended to create a landed Nobility, by fixing in the great-landholders and their posterity their present possessions.
Mr. Gerry. the law of necessity is the best sumptuary law.”
From the quote above the refutation of anti-Liberty Sumptuary Laws was not that they were anti-Liberty but that by “weaponizing” taxation lawmakers could control what society eats and drinks…leading to stuff like the Salt Tax, Soda Tax, and Hamburger tax in our era.
“Weaponizing” taxation is a serious transgression. In fact, one of the main causes of the 2nd Zulu War was the the British instigated a “Hut” tax to force the Zulus to work to obtain money to pay the “Hut” tax.
“Unfortunately, during the Federal Convention of 1787…”
The local fiction writer makes a dubious claim. It was not a federal convention, to claim so is to construct an opposite meaning of a word, as if doing so makes the word have the opposite meaning for everyone. That works, to change the meanings of words, so long as enough people are inspired to repeat, and repeat, and repeat, the counterfeit meaning.
“There are but two modes by which men are connected in society, the one which operates on individuals, this always has been, and ought still to be called, national government; the other which binds States and governments together (not corporations, for there is no considerable nation on earth, despotic, monarchical, or republican, that does not contain many subordinate corporations with various constitutions) this last has heretofore been denominated a league or confederacy. The term federalists is therefore improperly applied to themselves, by the friends and supporters of the proposed constitution. This abuse of language does not help the cause; every degree of imposition serves only to irritate, but can never convince. They are national men, and their opponents, or at least a great majority of them, are federal, in the only true and strict sense of the word.”
New Constitution Creates a National Government;
Will Not Abate Foreign Influence;
Dangers of Civil War And Despotism.
Maryland Gazette and Baltimore Advertiser, March 7, 1788.
That is name commonly given to the gathering. For instance, in the following comment you refer to:
“FRIDAY, June 20, 1788
Melancton Smith”
Where? On a street corner? In a letter? To his friends? In a newspaper?
Grow up, man. Your argument is understandable…but your mania distracts from that over semantics. Demonstrated by the fact you posted two long comments not on the subject of my post but simply on the words “Federal Convention of 1787”.