I have searched long and hard, far and wide, near and far to answer a simple question about your health care bill and the ideas behind them.  Even though I question the motives behind the push for this bill, I have set all of that aside and made the assumption that you know what you are doing.  However, during this process, I found that my blood pressure was raised on several occasions.  The main cause for this was not due to the increase in my taxes that will be necessary to support this bill or the fact that, even according to your own CBO, this legislation will cost well over what you have said it would.  My anger and frustration lies with the fact that no one, and I mean no one has been able to answer one simple question.  Here is the question and I hope the rest of the United States thinks of this question as well.

How can the Government of the United States force its citizens to buy something?

Now, before you answer, or attempt to answer, let me tell you some facts that I do know.

1.  Never, never, ever, in the history of the United States of America, has the Government forced its citizens to purchase something.  When this point has been brought up in the past everyone always gives that same, lame attempt at an answer such as "Well, the government forces you to buy car insurance" or "the Government forces you to buy home insurance."  Before you go off half cocked please remember this one simple thing:  The Government requires you to have car or home insurance only IF YOU BUY A CAR OR HOME FIRST!  THE GOVERNMENT DOESN’T MAKE YOU BUY A CAR OR A HOME.  PLEASE, TELL ALL OF THE CONGRESSIONAL AIDS THIS ONE SIMPLE FACT SO I DON’T GO INSANE WITH THIS PSEUDO ARGUMENT EVERYTIME I CALL.

2.  Don’t try to use the interstate commerce clause BULLSHIT on the citizens of the United States.  Nowhere, and I mean nowhere in any case has the commerce clause been used to make someone buy something.  If you have an example then please, nay, I dare you to go on national television and tell everyone in the United States the exact law, case, constitutional section that details this.  Go on…I dare you!

For those of you that don’t know, the interstate commerce clause was meant to regulate, not demand, the purchase of goods across state lines.  Now, here is a funny one.  Have you ever heard of Wickard v. Filburn?  This was a goody by our Supreme Court.  It seems that Mr. Filburn was trying to grow wheat to feed his chickens.  Because he grew it himself, he didn’t have to buy it.  The Supreme Court said that because of this, Mr. Filburn wouldn’t engage in commerce and it would affect interstate commerce.  Mr. Filburn was forced to burn his wheat and pay a fine.

This is the same case that I am told of time and time again.  Of course, even though the Supreme Court was on the equivalent of crack at the time, the ruling did not force Mr. Filburn to purchase wheat.  The Government didn’t force Mr. Filburn to have chickens.  The Supreme Court simply told him what he couldn’t do, it didn’t tell him to raise chickens that needed to be fed with wheat.  For the love of IN GOD WE TRUST WOULD SOME SMARTY PANTS CONSTITUTIONAL LAWYER TYPE PLEASE TELL ME HOW THIS CASE EVEN APPLIES TO THE HEALTH CARE BILL?  DON’T GIVE ME A DISSERTATION, DON’T GIVE ME DICK V. JANE OR BUTT V. CRACK, SIMPLY TELL ME AND THE REST OF THE COUNTRY IF THIS CASE IS A CLEAR CUT EXAMPLE OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FORCING SOMEONE TO BUY SOMETHING.  I HAVE ASKED MY REPRESENTATIVES IN CONGRESS THIS EXACT SAME QUESTION AND NO ONE, AND I MEAN NO ONE, CAN ANSWER IT FOR ME.

3.  Don’t try to use the General Welfare clause to get this pushed through.  I have heard this approach before and you know and I know that it is total CRAP!  Do you want to know why it is CRAP?  I will tell you but you probably already know and are just hoping that the citizens of the United States won’t know or won’t care.  If you were truly pushing though this Health Care bill to promote the General Welfare then the Government of the United States would be able to do ANYTHING to the citizens, ANYTHING to the country and say that it is to promote the General Welfare.  If it were truly to promote the General Welfare then why don’t you cover dental care or eye care?  People can get just as sick from a gum infection as they can get with any other disease.  If you think about it, since the Federal Government is responsible for our highway system, why do we have to pay for glasses or contact lenses?  Wouldn’t better sighted drivers make the roads safer and thus improve the General Welfare of the citizens?  Better yet, why doesn’t the Federal Government give everyone Lasik eye surgery for free?  That would certainly make the roads safer.  For that matter, why doesn’t the Federal Government mandate that everyone watch Oprah?  I certainly feel better after watching her show.  Just think how much our General Welfare would be improved if EVERYONE watched it.  The entire United States would be ready for one huge group hug.  Here’s another one:  Why doesn’t the Federal Government mandate that everyone have a dog?  There are so many studies that indicate that pets actually lower blood pressure. 

The General Welfare clause doesn’t stick here.  If it did, why in the hell did we need the rest of the Constitution?  If you think about it, the Government would be able to promote the General Welfare and have everything fall under it.  That would have certainly made the Constitution shorter.  It would have looked something like this:

Article 1, Section 1

The Congress shall have the power to promote the General Welfare.

Article 1, Section 2

If you don’t like Section 1 then piss off.

More to come…