Is there a Doctor in the House?

Just when Obama thought that his bin Laden foray had diverted attention from things domestic we learned a couple of days ago that Social Security goes broke in 2036, a year earlier than thought in 2010 and the outlook for Medicare is even bleaker. That runs out in 2024 which is a full 5 years earlier than previous estimates. All this gives Paul Ryan’s budget proposals to overhaul both programs even greater urgency and should make it harder for the other side of the aisle to bury their heads in the congressional sand. And surely, the last thing we need to do to pile onto Medicare’s misery is to add Obamacare with all its fiscal profligacy. Unlike the proponents of Obamacare, the opponents are often medical professionals including one Congressman Burgess. After spending nearly three decades practicing medicine in North Texas, Congressman Michael C. Burgess, M.D., was first elected to Congress in 2002, and re-elected in 2004, 2006, 2008, and most recently in 2010 and he is warning that pulling the reins on the Obamacare expansion of federal bureaucracy, costs and control over consumers is critical right now. Burgess said during an interview last week that the longer the problematic legislation is left unaddressed the worse it will be. "Oddly enough I year ago I wouldn't have thought this would be where we were today," Burgess, whose new book “Doctor in the House,” outlines what he sees as solutions America needs to embrace. "We're looking at the courts actually to save us from this," he continued. "Defunding right now is critical because the rapidity with which it is being implemented is startling." "It's only going to be more difficult to unwind in a year, when the Supreme Court finally rules," he continued. "It's bad from start to finish." He referenced the political manipulation through which the bill was adopted: pressure that was applied to some Democrats who said they were pro-life and opposed the plan for its favors to the abortion industry. One key member changed his vote at virtually the last minute, greasing the way for Obama's plan to become law. "Right until that pro-life Democrat switched his position that Sunday night, no one thought this thing was ever going to go anywhere," Burgess said. "People really won't know how bad it is until 2014, 2016 when some of the major provisions kick in.” He was referencing some of the provisions in Obamacare that raise taxes and delete consumer choice as the full spectrum of government boards, panels, rules, guidelines, demands, requirements and procedures, including details such as government access to bank accounts and medical records, become reality. The Obamacare law is also being challenged in a number of lawsuits, and more than half of the states are trying to prevent its implementation. Those lawsuits now mostly are at the level of appellate courts, probably en route to the U.S. Supreme Court. They argue that it simply is unconstitutional for the government to require consumers to purchase a product or face a tax penalty for not doing so. One such is in Virginia where the challenge is the constitutionality of this president or any other to take over the healthcare decision-making processes in these United States.

But the arguments before the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals will go far beyond the dispute over health care and its related issues of privacy, federal limits on treatment, an unaccountable panel imposing its payment rates on doctors and others.

The appeals court will be hearing arguments in two cases. In the first, Liberty University’s Counsel is arguing that the law's individual and employer mandates are unconstitutional.

Furthermore, critics have argued that by expanding the definition of "interstate commerce" to include someone in his or her own home, not participating in any business transaction, there simply is nothing that the federal government could not do in pursuit of providing a "better" life.

For example, critics have said the government then could ban certain foods, or require consumers to buy others, ban certain vehicles or require consumers to buy those earning government approval. There even have been accusations that the government could restrict a person's purchases or activities based on a health profile that a person would be required to provide, in order to "protect" the person.

Under the law, consumers must purchase the health insurance mandated by the government or pay massive fines and penalties to be collected by the Internal Revenue Service. Employers have mandates to provide certain levels of coverage – also all under the thumb of government bureaucrats who are scheduled to watch to make sure the government's demands are met.

According to Mathew Staver, chief of Liberty Counsel, the fight really is about just how much of your life can Washington simply take control of and dictate.

"This really is a major step toward centralized government," he emphasized. "This is government by coercive power."

There also remain several additional cases that are advancing on the appellate court level at this point, including one in Florida where the judge ruled the law unconstitutional at the request of more than two dozen states.

Liberty University's challenge alleges both the individual and employer mandate are illegal while in a second case, Commonwealth of Virginia v. Sebelius, alleges only that the individual mandate is illegal.

Under the law, consumers must purchase the health insurance mandated by the government or pay massive fines and penalties to be collected by the Internal Revenue Service. Employers have mandates to provide certain levels of coverage – also all under the thumb of government bureaucrats who are scheduled to watch to make sure the government's demands are met.

Staver said the issue of health care is significant, but he said the Obamacare plan, which is expected to end up before the U.S. Supreme Court, moves far beyond what the Constitution allows.

The government's arguments cite the Commerce Clause, which allows regulation of "interstate commerce." Bureaucrats then defined someone sitting in his own living room, not making purchases or requiring services, to be part of the definition of "interstate commerce."

"This massive health insurance law goes beyond the outer limits of the Constitution. It is a big step toward a centralized government. … This case goes beyond health insurance and is more about the role of the federal government to control private decisions and burden the free enterprise system,” Staver said.

Amen to that.