McClintock, R-CA: Healthcare mandates “brazenly unconstitutional”

posted at 4:20 pm on November 7, 2009 by Laura
[ Healthcare ]    printer-friendly

On Wednesday, as part of the GOP push against this healthcare bill, I had the opportunity to interview two GOP Congressmen:  Tom McClintock (post/transcript) and Mario Diaz-Balart (post/transcript).

I asked McClintock about a pet peeve of mine – the fact that this bill may make Christian Science prayer treatments eligible to receive taxpayer reimbursement as a medical treatment. First, let me point out that the ACLU would be screeching like a goth in the sun if a mainstream Christian denomination tried this.  Second, I can’t help but wonder if Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah), who inserted this provision, has been hanging around with Barney Frank’s boyfriend.  It was introduced in the House by Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill.) and actually removed by Nancy Pelosi.  Because it is still in the Senate version, it may remain in the final bill.  Thanks, GOP! But McClintock – who was also not enthused about that provision – made a larger point:

But the other point that you raise is there is not just you know funding for let’s say Christian Science programs. It’s the government imposing all of these mandates on the insurance that – for every one of us that we’re required to pay for whether we want it or not, whether we need it or not we end up being required to pay for it because Nancy Pelosi and her friends believe that we should.

[T]he frightening thing is that under their bill everyone of us will be forced to purchase insurance that meets all of those mandates or end up being fined for not carrying such insurance.

It has been noted since then that we will either buy government-approved insurance, pay prohibitive fines, or go to jail. Up to a year for misdemeanor noncompliance, and five years for felony noncompliance. McClintock described it as “brazenly unconstitutional” and he agreed that a court challenge is inevitable.

It will be challenged, if it is adopted, but that misses the point. It should never be adopted. Every member of Congress takes an oath of office to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. If they’re acting in a manner that is brazenly unconstitutional, the ultimate remedy is the ballot box.

Congressman Diaz-Balart noted how hard it is to get people out of entitlement programs once they are created:

once you have you know thousands or millions of people in this entitlement program how do you get rid of it?

You know Speaker Pelosi she needs to be willing to sacrifice a huge number of her House members in order to get that part of the bill done. I think it’s because she believes that this is irreversible and I don’t know if it’s totally irreversible. But it’s clearly very difficult, if not impossible, to reverse which is why the battle is now.

One thing that particularly encouraged me about my conversations with both men is that it seems the GOP is finally starting to comprehend three things:

• Fiscal conservatism is not optional, now more than ever.
• If they want to get the message out, they need to be more receptive to alternative media than the GOP has been in the past.
• They need to embrace the tea party conservatives if they want to regain power.  As Roger Pilon put it -

The question, therefore, is not whether Tea Party conservatism is a help or a hazard for Republicans seeking a return to power?  To the contrary, it is whether the Republican Party is a help or a hindrance to the Tea Party movement?  It will be a help only if it returns to its roots.  The mainstream media, overwhelmingly of the Democratic persuasion, will continue to push Republicans to be “moderate,” of course – meaning “Democrat Lite” — to which the proper response is:  Why would voters go for that when they can get the real thing on the Democratic line?  If Tuesday’s returns showed anything, it is that Independents, a truly mixed lot, are up for grabs; but at the same time, they are looking for leaders who promise not simply to “solve problems” but to do so in a way that respects our traditions of individual liberty, free markets, and limited government.  When Republican candidates stand clearly and firmly for those principles, they stand a far better chance of being elected than when they temporize. That is the lesson that Republicans must grasp — and not forget — if they are to return to power.

Blowback

You must be logged in to post a comment.