There are many arguments for Barack Obama's healthcare reform and many arguments opposed to it. I am not going to address any of these arguments. Instead I am going to focus on the Constitution and whether or not this healthcare reform is justified by the Constitution. I would like to talk about this because this is something I do not hear people talk about much and I think that constitutionality is an important question to ask. So this entire discussion will be focused on whether or not this particular healthcare reform is constitutional and whether or not universal healthcare (which is what some people are striving towards) is constitutional.
Let us first focus on the two most common opposing sides, the liberals and the conservatives. Do these people base their policies around the Constitution? When liberals and conservatives support something do they do that because that is what they want or because that is something they can constitutionally defend? It is pretty obvious to me that neither one of these two sides really cares for the Constitution. I think it is about time that we take the Constitution rip it up and throw it away into the fire. Because we do not care what it says, we never read it, we never check whether or polices are constitutional or not.
It would be helpful for me to give an analogy. Consider Orthodox Jews and the Liberal (or Reform) Jews. The Orthodox Jews stick to the Torah, the Torah says something and they follow it. The Torah prohibits something and they abstain form whatever that is. The Orthodox Jews are clear to follow, they follow the Torah. What about the Liberal Jews? Do the Liberal Jews follow the Torah? Well, they will certainly claim that they follow the Torah. But let us examine what they follow and test whether or not that is consistent with the Torah. In Leviticus 19:18, it says to "love your fellow as yourself". This is every one's favorite verse, who can possibly object to something like that? The Liberal Jews say that they follow Torah's commandment to love other people. But the interesting thing is to go to Leviticus 19:16, just two verses before this one, where it says to kill homosexuals that have butt sex. Yet there are Liberal Jews who set up organizations for gay and lesbian Jews so that they can live together in a Jewish lifestyle (do not misunderstand me, I am not saying what these Liberal Jews do is a bad thing, it is not, it is a very loving and good thing that they do, what I am focused about here is the consistency of this act to the Torah). And what do these Liberal Jews say? How can they possibly reject a clear and obvious interpretation from the Torah? They say, "love your fellow as you love yourself". They say, the Torah says to love everyone, so we have to love our fellow gay and lesbian friends. The problem is that the Torah says, clearly, to kill homosexuals who have butt sex, yet they completely overlook this because they do not like it. This is an act of astounding cognitive dissonance by the Liberal Jews! It is astounding to me how someone can look at something which is completely opposed to their views and claim that is supports their views! This is not the only issue the Liberal Jews reject, there are prohibitions and commandments within the Torah, one after another, that the Liberal Jews interpret and re-interpret in their own way. In a way that they know is contradictory to the Torah. This act of cognitive dissonance of Liberal Jews is absolutely amazing, to reject something which is so clear and obvious for what they want and yet claim to support the very book (Torah) that they reject. Let me ask this question. Do the Liberal Jews actually follow the Torah? No, of course not. They follow their own wishful interpretation of it. They follow what they like and throw away things they do not like. Instead of deriving their set of values from the Torah, the Liberal Jews already have their own set of values and only use the Torah as a "justification" for their own values.
Let us look at the conservatives. Do they follow the Constitution? To answer this question let us just look at what they tend to support. They tend to support a federal ban on gay marriage, they support a federal ban on marijuana, they support a war which was not approved by Congress. Do any of these things have to do with the Constitution? No, of course not. Conservatives have a cognitive dissonance between what they actually want and the Constitution. Instead of asking whether or not something is justified by the Constitution they manipulate the Constitution for their own way of thinking and claim it is constitutional. The Liberal Jews in the above analogy manipulate Torah passages for whatever they believe and in the process reject an obvious interpretation. Conservatives are the same. They have their own values, for example that marijuana is evil, and then hire constitutional "scholars" (who I like to call the "constitutional apologists") to find whatever ridiculous interpretation they can find. They ban marijuana through the commerce clause. Can one reasonably ban marijuana by using the Constitution without some twisted messed up interpretation? No. It is not possible. But the conservatives have no problem doing it. The level of cognitive dissonance is astounding! To look at something so obvious and reject it entirely!
Let us look at the liberals. Do they follow the Constitution? To answer this question let us just look at what they tend to support. They tend to support a federal ban on handguns. Does this have anything to do with the Constitution? No, of course not. Liberals have a cognitive dissonance between what they actually want and the Constitution. Instead of asking whether or not something is justified by the Constitution they manipulate the Constitution for their own way of thinking and claim it is constitutional. Just like the Liberal Jews and just like the conservatives in the above examples. Liberals tend to not like handguns. They want to ban them. They reject the second amendment which is starting at them and openly denies a ban on guns. The level of cognitive dissonance in these people is astounding! Just like the Liberal Jews, the liberals manipulate the second amendment into what they want. The entire amendment is clear, it has an obvious interpretation. Do they accept this interpretation. No, they pretend that it is not so simple. They come up with a ridiculous justification to why it is not referring to hand guns. They claim that the gun rights are referring to a militia not the people. It is amazing how someone can take a clear interpretation and twist it into some ridiculous non-sensical interpretation and yet claim to be following the interpretation. What is even worse is that what the Founding Fathers wrote regarding guns is clear. If one has any confusion over guns he just needs to read what the Founders said referring to guns. It is clear, obvious, what the Founders meant by guns rights. Do they listen to the clear interpretation? No. They reject it because they do not like what it says.
The interesting thing is what when a Liberal Jew would not agree with something he should say "this is wrong, this is against the Torah, God would not approve" despite the fact that he fails to even follow the Torah. The same phenomenon can be seen with liberals and conservatives. When conservatives do something unconstitutional, like trying to ban gay marriage, the liberals rise up in protest and say "this is unconstitutional". The liberals are correct in this instance. But when the liberals want to ban guns, the conservatives rise up in protest and say "this is unconstitutional". The conservatives are correct in this instance. That is what is so astounding, how these people can object to so much in these documents and yet at the same time claim to be their supporters!
Now let us finally return to the new reform proposal. Is what Barack Obama proposes constitutional? No, of course not. The conservatives are correct here. For one thing, every citizen is required, by law, to buy insurance. This itself is already a breach of the Constitution! And yet amazingly, astoundingly, there are people who think what Barack Obama is doing is constitutional. Barack Obama swore to uphold and defend the Constitution when he became the president. It is astounding at the cognitive dissonance to reject it like that! When the Liberal Jews do not like about what the Torah says about killing homosexuals who have butt sex they go to extreme lengths of rejecting what they do not like. The same thing is true with people who support this reform. They say, that people have "a right to life" therefore, as they conjure up, this means that people "have a right to healthcare". It is just what the Liberal Jews do. They do not like something in the Torah and say "love your fellow as you love yourself" while in the process rejecting a clear restriction within the Torah itself.
I need to ask this question. Can we just take the Constitution, rip it up, and throw it into the fire? We obviously do not care for what it stands for. Because at least that would be consistent, at least that would get rid of this astonishing doublethink. Remember we have an income tax in the United States, that was put in place in 1913. It is clearly unconstitutional, indeed, we had to put it into the Constitution to pretend it is actually part of the Constitution! We been ignoring the Constitution for over a hundred years. I think it is about time we just take it and throw it into the garbage. We can just say it is no longer applicable today, if we want a justification to destroy it, but whatever we say, can be please just throw it away? Because it hurts me so much to see these ridiculous "justifications" liberals and conservatives have to go through to support their own views through the Constitution. By the way, the same applies to Liberal Jews. Can you throw away the Torah already? You obviously do not care for what it stands.
The Torah and the Constitution are used as some sort of magical transcendental documents to defend your views. If a Liberal Jew makes a moral point, after making it, he may jump into the Torah and say the Torah supports it. If a liberal or a conservative say what their policies are, they might once in a while jump into the Constitution and say it is supported. As if that matters. Stop treating these documents as some magical transcendental documents. Personally, I would be interested to go back to the Articles of Confederation, but that is just me.
In conclusion, no, this healthcare reform, and universal healthcare, are opposed to what the Constitution stands for. If you still support this kind of healthcare it would intellectually honest for you to take the Constitution rip it up and throw it into the fire. But do not dare tell me that you are constitutional, because you are not, and you do not care what it says.