Ken
Paxton (Texas Attorney General) summarizes in USA Today:
It’s a sad commentary that alarms go up among Washington elites when the Trump administration defends the Constitution and holds Congress to its word. That is, after all, what the Department of Justice did this week by agreeing with a federal court that all of Obamacare is unconstitutional.
Pundits declare that this decision will have disastrous political consequences for Republicans. The Constitution’s approval rating is far higher than Congress’, so I think reports of our demise are greatly exaggerated. However, if the pundits are right, the Trump administration deserves all the more credit for putting the Constitution and the rule of law ahead of politics.
* * *
The end of Obamacare is not the end of health care reform, but the beginning. Each state can now decide for itself what type of health care system it wants and how best to provide for those with pre-existing conditions, just as the Founders intended.
States like Texas will be able to return to their plans for pre-existing conditions that use high-risk pools; other states, like Massachusetts, can opt for a system along the lines of Obamacare or something else entirely. The Trump administration knows the sky is not falling on health care — it’s now the limit.
4 comments:
Each state can now decide for itself what type of health care system it wants and how best to provide for those with pre-existing conditions, just as the Founders intended.
I'll bet the Founders didn't even ponder, let alone intend, state-run health care systems that provide for 'pre-existing conditions' (itself a term of art from an insurance industry that didn't exist at the time).
Still, a reasonable overarching point.
The Founders had a dim view of Central Government-run welfare generally.
From the 3rd Congress' first session: Mr Madison wished to relieve the sufferers, but was afraid of establishing a dangerous precedent, which might hereafter be perverted to the countenance of purposes very different from those of charity. He acknowledged, for his own part, that he could not undertake to lay his finger on that article in the Federal Constitution which granted a right of Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents..
Eric Hines
Eric is exactly right. I am reminded of the time Davy Crockett rose in Congress to object to that very thing. I cannot do the story justice, I recommend reading about it here:
https://www.constitution.org/cons/crockett.htm
Good luck getting even a significant portion of "conservative" to buy into that idea anymore...
Post a Comment