The views expressed in Guest Opinions are those of the author and not of BizSense or BizSense reporters.
IN good CONSCIENCE, November 11, 2009,
The unsolicited Declaration of a citizen of the fifty united States of America,
When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one citizen to dispel the political doublespeak which has emanated from his government, and to restore, despite the powers of the House, the sacred individual rights to which the Bill of Rights entitles him, a decent respect for the Constitution requires that he should declare the causes which impel him to this dissertation.
~ We hold these truths to be self-evident, that health care is not health insurance, nor health insurance health care, that all plans should not be made equal, and that patients are endowed by their status as Citizens with certain inalienable rights, that among these are the right to choose their doctor, to know the true cost of their care, and to make their own health-care decisions in pursuit of personal healthiness.
~ That to secure these rights, government, deriving its just powers from the consent of the governed, and strictly limited by the Constitution, shall not alter or intrude upon that most sacred and private relationship between doctor and patient.
~ That whenever any Act of government would be destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute alternative legislation, laying its foundation on principles of individual freedom to effect their safety and happiness.
~ Prudence, indeed, will dictate that traditions long established between doctors and patients should not be changed for political gain; and experience hath shown mankind more disposed to make their own decisions, than to trust their health and their lives to systems to which their European and Canadian brothers are so tragically accustomed.
~ But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object of universal government mandated health insurance evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to defeat such legislation, and to ensure their future liberty.
~ Such has been the patient sufferance of our citizens; and such is now the necessity which impels them to reject the takeover of health care by their government.
~ The history of the present Speaker of the House is a history of repeated injuries and obfuscations. She has refused to consider the constitutionality of her bill, as if she alone knows what is most wholesome and necessary for the public good. She has breached her explicit guarantee of transparency, and failed to disclose the content of her bill to the people in advance of its adoption. She has foreclosed the opposition from putting forth and debating eminently reasonable alternatives. She has ignored these alternatives despite opposition by large segments of the population to her proposals, intending that the people would relinquish the right of choice in their health-care decisions, a right inestimable to them and formidable only to tyrants, officious elites and health insurance executives. She would erect a multitude of new offices, and send hither swarms of bureaucrats to harass our people, control their doctors, and exercise the power of life and death over them, in the guise of terminal counseling. She would blindly copy other nations to subject us to a health-care system foreign to our constitution, and unsupported by our laws; rather than entertain reform less radical and offensive to our rights:
To deny us freedom of choice in the name of “fairness,” “justice” and “fiscal restraint,”
To impose crippling new taxes in the guise of health insurance premiums,
To fine and even to imprison those who would take responsibility for their own health care rather than submit to unwanted and poorly designed mandatory policies.~
To insert regulation and government policy into every treatment, prescription, procedure and examination that our knowledge of medicine may provide.~
In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms: our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated insult and obfuscation.~
We, therefore, as enlightened and free-thinking citizens, in the exercise of our ever dwindling rights to speak our minds, appealing to the Supreme Law of the Land for the right to express them, do, by the authority of the good people of these United States, from whose consent all power of the government derives, solemnly publish and declare, that we are, and of right ought to be free and independent of government interference in our physical bodies; that we are absolved from all allegiance to the false god of “universal coverage” and that all political correctness and doublespeak imposed between us and the truth, is and ought to be exposed in its falsehood; and that as free citizens, we have full power to choose to purchase insurance, whether comprehensive, catastrophic or high deductible, or to forego such insurance altogether, to consult with our own doctors in confidence, and to do all other acts and things which independent citizens may (for now) of right do.~ And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the Constitution of these United States, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.~
Thomas Bowden is an attorney at Sands Anderson, where he focuses on mergers and acquisitions, corporate transactions and corporate finance. He has also been a partner in a technology startup. You can read more about him here. His views do not represent his firm or other attorneys at his firm.
Great stuff! Amen, brother Thomas – will you be our next Patrick Henry?
To wit your writings are most amusing and quaint in their affectations. But one whom so roundly claims to be beleaguered by doublespeak should consider ones own verity. Indeed it is clear that the misrepresentation lies more within yourself.
I will seek to shine a light on the most grievous of misrepresentations in your article, of which ther are many. And it is the one that seems to most often give opinions such as yours weight, when in fact it has no bearing in truth.
In what altered state can one look upon the current proposals that would strengthen our country, protect our citizenry, and level the playing fields of commerce and see a threat to “that most sacred and private relationship between doctor and patient”? Such an argument is the heart of your outrage, and it would be a justified outrage indeed had it any merit or bearing in truth at all. Had it an ounce of credibility after one sees the factual situation at hand.
It is clearly evident that no such abridgement exists. Indeed, abridgements such as these exist to a much larger extent today between physicians and their patients than would ever be seen under such proposed reforms. In is absurd and completely unfounded to claim (through fear-mongering) that the current proposals dictate what happens within that sacred relationship. In point of fact, the freedom unleashed would give us more outlets to ensure that they remain untainted.
If such possibilities of encroached rights and liberties offend (which they rightly should), your rallying cry should be “Aye, aye” but you have inexplicably cast your lot with the naysayers. To what purpose? To protect the status quo that weighs this country down like a stone?
Prudence indeed.
Well said, Tom. And your creative approach certainly puts this abomination in its proper perspective. Some may say that those who oppose this “Healthcare” on Constitutional grounds are overreacting. I suspect those people have not even read the Constitution. Or if they have, consider it irrelevant in the twenty-first century.
It’s too bad that if you’re going to get a guest columnist for an important issue that you wouldn’t get someone who is knowledgeable about the actual legislation and underlying issue, and not someone who is just going to repeat the radio-speak litinany that is so often repeated. The opinion expressed might be cute but doesn’t lend itself to appropriately addressing a terrible piece of legislation embroiled in a significant political debate. The bottom line – the increasing costs of health care are not sustainable and businesses are not going to be able to afford to provide coverage for their employees (who in fact have no idea what the actual costs of health care are – and likely don’t care). Something has to be done. Sadly, this legislation proposed by the House misses the mark. Hopefully the Senate can lend something rational to the debate instead of obfuscation.
Bravo, Tom! (Bowden and Jefferson)
Mike Ogilvie, in his Response to Thomas Bowden’s article states that ” it is clearly evident that no such abridgement exists,” yet he doesn’t present one shred of evidence to the contrary.
In matter of fact the 1900 some odd pages of the bill that passed in the House of Representatives is loaded with various panels that will decide what doctors will, and will not, be able to do.
I find it amazing that no one has brought up the fact, during the health care debate, that Medicare denies more claims and services than any private health care provider (Aetna is second). Can anyone imagine that the federal goverment will do better if it controls the entire healthinsurance industry, which will be the ultimate outcome when price is controlled by government which has no idea as to how to run any business, let alon one as complicated as health care?
All odf us can agree that changes need to be made to the system, but why not start incrementally? Someone made the analogy of bringing a car in for service which might cost several hundred dollars. Would you scrap the car and buy a new one or repair the existing one ? I would bet that most people would try the latter. In my opinion that’s the same approach we should use with health care….. purchasing plans across state lines;providing the same tax benefits that corporations get to individuals and small businesses; tort reform. Let’s increase competition rather than work toward a government monopoly of a basic right.
Finally, for those of you that don’t think rationing will be involved in a government program I refer you to an article in USA Today, dated March 3, 2005 which clearly explains that healthcare rationing will be forthcoming, thanks to a law that Congress passed in 1997, and it is not “fear- mongering,” just the facts.
Harley and Mike
My purpose is to provoke discussion and debate, through a rhetorical device. Your posts tell me it worked at least to some extent. It would be wrong to presume that I have not read the Bill, I have read some but not all, and I agree with Harley that it is full of flaws. But my main point is that we are not looking at the problem from first principles, namely individual liberty and the sanctity of doctor-patient relationships. Instead, we seem headed to pile laws on top of laws to correct problems that resulted (totally or at least partially, depending on your point of view) from faulty or unnecessary laws in the first place.
I hope we have an open vibrant debate in the senate based on detailed and informed knowledge of the bill, and that we end up with real reform. But people must accept the fact that intelligent and well intentioned people may differ in their opinions of what reform is really needed.
Best regards,
Tom Bowden
You are not going to be denied freedom of choice and you are certainly not going to be imprisoned for deciding to provide your own private healthcare. These are just propaganda lies the insurance companies are trying to scare people with. I don’t agree with everything that is being done but don’t use senseless scare tactics as a means of conveying opinion. Leave that to the blowhards on tv and radio. They do enough of that already.
The bottom line is something has to be done. Do you think we are not already paying for the people that visit the emergency room now who don’t have health insurance? You are paying for it now. Not changing anything is not the solution, unless you would prefer to see our country go bankrupt sooner, rather than later, while the insurance companies laugh all the way to the bank, as they retire to their homes in the Caymans.
Brett – There is much that I would change – the present system is unsustainable and unacceptable. My view of reform just starts from different assumptions than the House Bill. And the bill includes a tax and a fine for not buying insurance, and it ultimately invokes all the penalties of the internal revenue code if not complied with, and yes, that can include imprisonment.
It is the personal mandate that most concerns me, and yet that is the part that the Speaker has dismissed as “not a serious question.” She starts from the proposition, based on a long line of commerce clause cases, that Congress can regulate anything it wants to. A casual and uninformed reading of those cases may lead one to conclude that there is effectively no limit on the power of congress, through the commerce clause, to control anything, because evrything affects commmerce. But this answer proves it’s own falsehood, because if the congress can regulate anything it wants to, then the power of government is unlimited, and no serious student of the constitution can support that proposition, whether they are activist, literalist or anywhere in between. I
Brian, the “public option” being a merely different type of health insurance product would have restrictions just like all current insurance products. The new exchange would have limitations in that it specifies a minimum level of coverage to be considered adequate insurance. How in the world is this worse than what we have now? I’ll tell you how it’s better: you have actual choice between products. Realistically that choice is all but non-existent now. The panels decide minimum requirements for coverage within plans that are on the exchange. Please list out a few examples of where you think they’ll be intervening between doctor and patient.
The incremental changes you propose are woefully inadequate. They leave the for-profit corporations in charge of what can be covered, unchecked by competition, with a fiduciary responsibility to keep you from getting services whenever possible.
Tom, I’m also all for debate of course. And you may say that your biggest concern is the personal mandate. But your “declaration” really was striking along the vein of government intervention in your doctor/patient relationship. That’s completely not the truth. I wish they could have passed a reform bill without the seemingly personal mandate. But I’m not sure if that was possible based on how deep of a hole we’re in. Perhaps we all need to band together to get out of the hole before moving to a more ideal solution.
You are setting too low of standard. Our country has fallen behind other countries economically and morally.
Options: Don’t Work, Get a Divorce, Pass Single Payer, Move to Canada
http://www.singlepayeraction.org/blog/?p=1702
But also realize this, our current model is unsustainable, and pretty soon we will be left with one option anyway: the government’s. And might I remind you, before it was a government controlled by corporations, it was a government controlled by citizens.
Greens urge defeat of the Democrats’ “insurance industry life-support” bill in the US Senate and call for a rally of efforts to enact Single-Payer/Medicare For All
http://gp.org/press/pr-national.php?ID=262
Hello Tom! Well said – I loved it! Where in the Constitution is Congress given the right to mandate that ALL citizens buy any product or service?
Beyond that, I do not understand why a lot of people want to take the “throw the baby out with the bathwater” approach to solving this problem. I am more inclined to take an incremental approach to solving what we all agree is an unsustainable situation.
How about starting with these three ideas, and see how they work for a few years before doing more?
1- tort reform. Have a system that holds negligent providers fully accountable, but limits punitive damages and terminates the “sue everyone who was in the room” strategy.
2- allow all healthcare insurance companies to do business all states. I’ve heard that there may be over a thousand of these companies in existence. How many does the SCC allow to operate in Virginia? This would be a great way to introduce TRUE competition, as there is no way that a for-profit entity can truly compete with the Federal government.
3- allow small businesses like mine to pool our employees with other companies to give us more negotiating leverage with health insurance providers. With only 33 employees, I have NO negotiating leverage with AETNA or Anthem. Allow me to pool with a hundred other companies my size and I know that I can reduce my premiums and the cost to my employees.
Thanks again for an enjoyable and thought-provoking editorial.
Regards…………Ed
The Declaration of Independence is freaking BEAST!!!
I Love It :p
Here is a Wall Street Journal article that reinforces the concerns I expressed http://bit.ly/3tGm8P
I also spent some time at the political factcheck.org site where they apply a novel and creative kind of logic. They confirm that imprisonment is a possible consequence for failure to comply with the individual mandate, but they rate the statement as “barely true” because, inter alia, it would not happen very often – imprisonment is only reserved for extreme cases. By that logic, murder is not a crime because very few perpetrators are caught, let alone convicted. Furthermore, the convenient comparisons of the mandate to mandatory automobile insurance are simply wrong. Driving is a choice and a privilege, and it is a potentially dangerous activity that kills some 40,000 people per year. By contrast, the individual mandate is, in effect, a tax on adult breathing. Yes, there are credits, exemptions, hardship waivers etc., but that does not change the constitutional analysis one iota. In fact, all of those qualifications are nothing more than levers that Congress or the IRS (or whatever agency* enforces this abominable mandate) can and will use to mold behavior to whatever their current definition of responsibility dictates. Bear in mind, when the income tax was first proposed, many argued it was benign because only the very wealthiest would have to pay it.
*(they’ll need a good Orwellian name – how about “Freedom Counseling Authority”? because they will “counsel” you that your freedom is too precious to jeopardize by not buying the mandated insurance – or “Department for Active Enforcement of American Health” )
Ed – The supposed authority comes from the staff of Speaker of the House, whose constitutional logic goes something like this: “Hey, the commerce clause lets Congress regulate or mandate just about anything, so why not this?” Happily, for America, the Supreme Court does not usually resort to such casual analysis of fundamental rights. But it is true, sadly, that the Commerce clause has been stretched almost to the point of being meaningless. See my comment above.