An argument is missing in the healthcare debate

Since the House of Representatives unveiled its various versions of healthcare “reform” there have been myriad reasons given for why it shouldn’t become law.

Opponents have called attention to some rather ominous wording within the legislation. The “end of life” counseling sessions have sparked fear among seniors. Obama himself has said there are times when it’s better to take a pain killer than to treat an ailment, pointing out that such decisions are already being made.

He’s partially correct; such decisions are part of life.

Living wills convey a patient’s wishes in the event he or she is incapacitated. Resuscitation agreements provide instructions concerning life support. And yes, private insurers sometimes deny payment. But these examples aren’t synonymous with the Democrats’ arguments. In fact, they are apples and oranges.

These life decisions are largely a private matter, at least for now. Government isn’t involved; it has no say about what treatments are offered or when those treatments are deemed unwarranted. As for insurers, even when coverage is denied there remain charitable organizations to which a patient can turn.

Allowing government to become involved in individual life decisions is a dangerous precedent, even if it appears harmless at the outset.

That’s not the only argument. Opponents of “reform” point to wording that can end private health insurance, ration care, tax individuals and businesses that don’t carry “adequate” coverage, provide health insurance to illegal aliens and set wage controls for medical professionals.

All of this came to light as the President pushed Congress to rush healthcare legislation through at light speed, which is another reason to oppose its passage. Representatives both pro and con, and even President Obama, have admitted to never having read the legislation they’re so hot to pass.

Despite this dereliction of a representative’s fundamental duties, reformists have called the opposition everything from kooks to Nazis. It would be laughable if there weren’t so many empty minds soaking up this bilge hook, line and sinker.

Not even the people who write the gibberish that passes for legislation can explain what their bills say. The must call in lawyers, who must call in other lawyers, who then advise the impending bureaucracy on how to interpret the language and establish the rules. So, in all honesty, who can claim to know what “healthcare reform” means or how it will be applied?

But there’s one argument against healthcare reform that cannot be spun or disregarded. And it’s an argument that no legislator has shown the courage to make. Just where in the Constitution is the federal government authorized to provide or manage healthcare?

All powers not constitutionally delegated to the federal government, or prohibited to the states, remain with the states and the people. Since the Constitution doesn’t allow the federal government to provide healthcare or insurance, anything passed and signed into law is invalid.

Sound radical? Take it up with Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson wrote in the Kentucky Resolutions, “whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force.”

I have yet to hear a single opponent summon the courage to challenge healthcare “reform” on constitutional grounds. Consider this a call to action, beginning with the representatives from my area.

Rep. Sue Myrick, Rep. Patrick McHenry, Senator Richard Burr and Senator Kay Hagan, heed your oath of office. Unless you want to publicly declare that your word is worthless you have no choice but to oppose this legislation.

Furthermore, you should demand expulsion for any colleague who votes for these “reform” measures. Such persons have violated their oath. They aren’t representatives enacting law; they are tyrants seizing illegitimate authority over the governed.

The Tenth Amendment hasn’t been repealed, much to the dismay of Congress. “Reform” opponents aren’t kooks, Nazis, racists, or lunatics. And there’s nothing subversive about holding our representative’s feet to the constitutional fire.