After the last day of Supreme Court hearings about the health care reform law, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) told Fox News’ Sean Hannity that people are uninsured not because they can’t afford insurance, but because they choose to be uninsured (video below).
Rep. Bachmann did not cite any evidence to support her claim. Nor did the congresswoman mention that she receives government health care.
Bachmann said: "One argument that the government was trying to make is that somehow health care is uniquely different. That government can regulate it because everyone participates. Health insurance is not uniquely different."
"It’s still an opportunity that some people choose to engage in, but 40 million people do not. And the premise was made that people don’t buy insurance because they can’t afford it. That’s not true. There are people who just decide they want to roll the dice and take their chances that they won’t need insurance."
When will she learn that being an authority on something involves actually knowing the facts about something, not just making something up that's convenient for what you want, believing it to be true with all your rotten little heart, and then saying it in an authoritative tone of voice?
Because she is retarded :P
Hmm, an argument about a detail of yet another expansion of government. Strip the laws! Restart with the raw Constitution. Vet each amendment before adding it back in, but actually change the text rather than striking it out. Vet each Supreme Court decision and change the text again. Then vet each law and tack it back on if it's good. Then consider more amendments as necessary.
And then *follow* the friggin' Constitution! The federal government has enumerated powers and nothing else. The states get a shot at handling the rest, then the local governments. Spying on citizens, trying to enforce copyright in other countries, passing taxes out, handling healthcare, and probably a slew of other things are *not enumerated*.
The problem with following the "friggin" constitution is that it is deliberately left open to interpretation and modification. Only naive constructionists such as Robert Bork and Ron Paul try to live within the minutia of the text. Even the most conservative justices to sit on the bench have "interpreted" the constitution.
The court could easily go either way on the ACA's individual mandate. It is going to come down to justice Kennedy, and it will be a 5-4 decision.
The simple fact is that most people get sick eventually, and even young people come down with catastrophic illnesses like cancer. When they can't pay, the rest of us pay anyway because either they get ER level care, they go bankrupt, or they go on SSI disability or medicaid.
The truly human question is what happens when someone without insurance gets sick? Should they be allowed to die because of this "choice?" Since people like Bachmann claim to be christian, it would seem they would be in favor of helping the sick - I think the bible mentions this a few times :p However, the problem with this approach is that it is actually more expensive. When everyone participates, there is a bigger pool of premiums to work from and everyone is protected.
The individual mandate might fail, which will kill 80% of the ACA, but this issue won't go away. We are the only first world country without some sort of national health plan. We spend more per capita than any other country in the world on healthcare, we have the best acute care in the world, yet we have some of the the worst overall healthcare outcomes, putting us in the neighborhood of some third world countries when it comes to things like infant mortality.
What are we to do?
If the Constitution doesn't allow for it, amend the Constitution or institute the necessary laws at the state level. The Constitution protects the people from the government and we, for several generations, have failed to protect the Constitution. What democracy we still have (it's sure taken a lot of work to whittle it down this far!) is slipping fast.
The problem is that the constitutionality of the mandate is unclear. If it were obvious, the case would be settled by now.
If you want an example of the "ultimate" mandate, look at the draft. Nowhere does the constitution explicitly allow government to institute a draft. However, it does say that congress can "raise an army." The draft has passed constitutional challenge multiple times even though it is not explicitly mentioned.
I think your statement about "failing to protect the constitution" is too black and white. In many areas, and I would say in most areas, the court has consistently expanded individual freedoms and protections. In areas such as free speech, the press, gun rights, illegal search and seizure, the court has consistently ruled in favor of individuals over government. This is not to say there are not laws on the books which still need to be challenged such as some provisions of the patriot act, but much has changed. Even the recent rulings on property rights which prevent government from taking land for economic "redevelopment" have expanded individual protections.
There have been many other rulings like treating corporations like people, that I think are just nuts, but there you are.
Typically, when people say we have failed to protect the constitution it is a Tea Party based argument of a very strict interpretation of the 10th amendment, which has never been successfully argued as the Tea Party has presented. If anything, if government should be even more limited, then new amendments with these restrictions should be pushed. "Interpretation" of anachronistic and general statements leads to ambiguity. If enough people feel strongly that the generalized interpretations of federal powers are too broad, then change the constitution.
Trying to fix things after precedent has been set is difficult to implement. Reducing government powers is very difficult to argue before the court.
She, technically, is right. It's a choice between paying for insurance or having basic things to live off of like food and a place over our heads. People also are intimidated over all the different types of insurance, and a lot of the legalese that they encompass. Factor that in with all the negative attention insurance companies have been getting, and people don't even know where to begin.
I'll readily admit I don't know if Obama's health care stuff is legally in place, or what I'd have to do to get involved with it.
Each time we think this arrogant bitch has reached the ultimate in stupidity, racism, or complete ignorance, she shows us that we were wrong. She can be a LOT worse than we thought.
When will the Republican party come to its senses and disavow here and all of the morons like her? Is self-destruction their true goal?
If freedom means anything, it is the liberty to tell others what they do not want to hear.
They are just waiting for her to be bumped from her congressional seat so she will go away. If the people in her home district continue to vote for her, shame on them. It is how idiots like Jesse Helms stayed in office.
You could be right. What's disturbing is I don't hear the Republican leadership disavowing her insanity. Not to condemn a wrong is to condone it.
If freedom means anything, it is the liberty to tell others what they do not want to hear.