.

Broun: Today Is a Sad Day for Liberty

Today is a sad day for liberty. The Court’s misguided decision is an attack on freedom, an insult to our Constitution, and it will ultimately destroy the best healthcare system in the world.

U.S. Congressman Paul Broun, M.D. (GA-10) today released the following statement in response to the Supreme Court’s ruling to uphold President Obama’s healthcare law, including the individual mandate, in a 5-4 decision:

“Today is a sad day for liberty.  The Court’s misguided decision is an attack on freedom, an insult to our Constitution, and it will ultimately destroy the best healthcare system in the world.  Chief Justice Roberts once said that the Supreme Court’s job is to apply the law – ‘to call balls and strikes, not to pitch or bat.’  He couldn’t have been more right in saying so, and he couldn’t have been more wrong by choosing to circumvent the Constitution this morning.  Even worse, I fear that the High Court has opened Pandora’s box by blatantly disregarding the law, and there will no longer be any real limits to what the federal government will be able to force the American people to do. 

“President Obama and Democrats in Congress promised the American people that their healthcare law wouldn’t raise taxes.  They lied.  Today the Supreme Court defined Obamacare as exactly that – a tax increase on every man, woman, and child in the United States. 

“As a physician, I can tell you that if Obamacare takes full effect – patients won’t be able to afford health insurance, medical practices will be controlled by the government, employers will stop providing coverage for their workers, and Medicare and Medicaid recipients will be left high and dry.  That’s why despite the Court’s liberal ruling, I will continue working to completely repeal Obamacare.

“It’s true that our healthcare system is in dire need of reform, but President Obama’s idea of putting everyone in one pool and handing it over to the federal government is not the way to fix it.  More than fifty percent of Americans think that members of Congress who are doctors and nurses should write new healthcare legislation, and that’s exactly what I’ve been working on in Washington.  In just 51 pages, my OPTION Act will make healthcare cheaper for everyone, provide coverage for all Americans, and save Medicare from going broke.  This replacement bill gives the people back their right to make their own healthcare decisions, and I will continue to work tirelessly on behalf of Georgians and all Americans until something like it passes.”

This post is contributed by a community member. The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Patch Media Corporation. Everyone is welcome to submit a post to Patch. If you'd like to post a blog, go here to get started.

Brian Crawford June 29, 2012 at 04:15 AM
You can't make this stuff up. Makes one wonder how he ever made it through Med school...oh wait, his dad was "the" Paul Broun. http://broun.house.gov/biography/
Karsten Torch June 29, 2012 at 02:15 PM
I always wonder why anybody thinks the government can handle our healthcare, when they can't successfully handle anything else. Everything the government gets involved in winds up horribly ineffiecient and substantially over any original projections. How this ruling could be considered a victory is, at best, confusing to me as well. Now the government has the ability to decide what you do and don't buy, based on some standard that they can change at will. Alternative energy? Well, it would benefit all of us, and our government is heavily invested, so why not a punishment in the form of a tax if you don't put solar panels on your house? There's really no part of this monstrosity of a bill that's a good thing, and no real bright side to this ruling. Want healthcare to be cheaper? Get government out of it. Stop mandating what has to be covered, allow the insurance companies to compete, let the free market rule the way it's supposed to. And let's let people start expecting to pay for their doctor visits like they used to, and allowing doctors to negotiate directly with people.
Karsten Torch June 29, 2012 at 02:38 PM
And Steve, let's not believe all the hype you see pushed forward by the liberal outlets. WHO rates countries on humanitarian criteria, like how free the healthcare is. Not actual experiences. Like waiting times to see a primary care physician? Best in the US. To see a specialist? Far better in the US. Life expectancy if diagnosed with a terminal disease, like cancer? Once again, the US wins. We count infant mortality from the moment of delivery, other countries have arbitrary measurements, like 60 seconds to 24 hours. If they're stillborn here, we consider an infant mortality, most don't. We have better equipment, better doctors, and more advancements come out of the US than anywhere else. Life expectancy is lower here because we have worse habits and worse health conditions, like obesity, here than elsewhere. Once again, because the government isn't paying our healthcare. But other countries aren't afraid to tell people they're too fat. You can't move into Norway, as an example, if you're too heavy or don't already have a job. Can you imagine us telling people that? Hell, we're too afraid to tell somebody that they're so big they need to buy another airline seat for fear they'll be offended. Or how about we have to randomly search 95-year old black women so that we can't be accused of profiling? We can't handle universal healthcare in this country because we're too busy being PC. And turning our healthcare over to the government won't help any of that....
Floyd Akridge June 29, 2012 at 02:41 PM
There goes Brian Crawford again parroting the MoveOn.org tag lines. But when the government taxes him for not purchasing the car they want him to...etc...he'll understand. SCOTUS now says government can tax behavior...not income.
Ron McClellan June 30, 2012 at 04:02 PM
Wrong Steve, on a number of levels. Government is NOT "all about compromise." At least it's not supposed to be. Compromise for starters, is perpetual, it never ends, which means those with parasitic ideologies are constantly tugging the those of responsible ideologies downward. Drag responsible folks down a little bit, "meet in the middle" . . .then start the process all over again, and drag "the middle" perpetually lower. Government is supposed to be about reaching a reasonable consensus, NOT compromising. If you're "happy " about Obamacare, you are simply naive. It's NOTHING to be happy about, PARTICULARLY for the uninsured in anything but the short term. But hey, liberal progressives are only about the short term. Money is free, just print more, take money from those who earned it for themselves, to pay to hand to folks who didn't, and water down health care in this country to the point where NONE of us can get adequate health care. We need health care reform . . . we just need a plan that won't DESTROY Health care by it's very nature. Funny thing is, and not many Democrats are talking about it, that early on in the Obama Administrations push to force americans into capitulation, is when some Republicans suggested this plan was actually a tax, the Obama Administration vehemently refuted that charge. Talks about two faced, lol.
Ron McClellan June 30, 2012 at 04:04 PM
The World Health Organization statistics are a joke Steve.
Ron McClellan June 30, 2012 at 04:08 PM
Agreed. Now if you would just stop pushing Anticonstitutionalist RINO Mike BeauDreau, I might put you on my Christmas card list.
Brian Crawford June 30, 2012 at 05:54 PM
Ron, consensus implies unanimity which is a near impossibility in all matters politic. I'm curious how you think Obamacare will DESTROY health care. Isn't that a bit hyperbolic?
Brian Crawford June 30, 2012 at 06:04 PM
"I always wonder why anybody thinks the government can handle our healthcare, when they can't successfully handle anything else." Spoken like a true disciple. This line of thought has been sold to us for decades but how true is it? Medicare and Social Security have been very successful as have most safety net programs. Taxpayers seldom get what they pay for when we try to privatize essential services. On the other hand how many business fail or go bankrupt due to mismanagement? Thousands. And yet government is always there to bail us out.
Brian Crawford June 30, 2012 at 06:06 PM
Just like they punish folks for not buying homes or having children. Government has often exercised this power, it's nothing new.
M.K. OSBORNE June 30, 2012 at 06:14 PM
i don't see how someone cannot support the forced portion of obama and then with the same conviction and principle support Beadreau and his forced plans with no vote by the public. I am confused by the hypocritical mentality of this.
Tammy Osier June 30, 2012 at 06:15 PM
You mean like the marriage tax and death taxes? The kind of thing that Republicans repeal and Democrats put back in when theye get in office?
M.K. OSBORNE June 30, 2012 at 06:22 PM
I do not support the forced portion of Obama Care and i do not support the forced Beadreau care trash plan , cell tower revenue swipe , or stadium deal . MA GAWD !! this has to end !!
Brian Crawford June 30, 2012 at 06:59 PM
Actually the death tax is an entirely different issue, and one that many of our founders would have heartily agreed with.
Ron McClellan June 30, 2012 at 07:00 PM
Brina Crawford: "Ron, consensus implies unanimity which is a near impossibility in all matters politic. I'm curious how you think Obamacare will DESTROY health care. Isn't that a bit hyperbolic?" Well for starters, consensus doesn't imply unanimity , it implies general opinion of a substantial majority. And no, my opinion that Obamacare will destroy health care as we know it, is certainly not hyperbolic. Heck, even in the abstract it simply can't work, economically . . . which in turn means "at all". For starters, our government has a DISMAL track record of getting burned in negotiating with the private sector, be it for 600 dollar hammers, or . . .drum roll please. The bottom line is, the private sector can negotiate rings around clueless government bureaucrats. And government administered programs of any type are grossly mismanaged and rife with waste. Heck, look at the cash for clunkers program under Obamas leadership. they spent 19,000 dollars . . .PER REBATE . . .of five thousand dollars for a dirt simple program. I mean dang, mailing out a check. 24 thousand dollars . . .it would have been cheaper to simply give folks a new Corolla. And these are the same bunch who will possibly be "managing" our health care. Crap, not enough room
Ron McClellan June 30, 2012 at 07:11 PM
Continued: . . . . One reason some Insurance companies are "on board" with it . . .for now anyway, is that it's a short term cash cow. Government will MAKE consumers buy health insurance . . . or these insurance companies will get paid by the government to administer the government insurance, so they make money either way . . .initially. But it's really lighting the fuse at both ends, in the longer term, particularly as middle class Americans who now pay for some of their own insurance realize it's cheaper to just pay the "tax" (choke) and get the government policy. This will end up losing money for the insurance companies in the mid-to long term. And they aree't going to like that. So . . .they raise tates on folks still paying their own way and re-negotiate with the government . . . who sucks at negotiation. More taxes, and higher insurance rates. Of course the government is gonna try to cut costs, by severely limiting what they'll pay for certain procedures, which will inevitably and INARGUABLY result in cuts in service, or raised standards for coverage (like "death boards") plus medical people and businesses just dropping out as government limits force them out of profitability. Already under Obamas watch, What Medicaid pays dentists has been cut 10% . . . and then ten percent again, just in the last few years. Many are simply opting out of the Medicaid program altogether, even now. And that trend IS gonna accelerate.
Brian Crawford June 30, 2012 at 07:18 PM
Actually Ron I was more interested in what specific provisions of Obamacare you felt were so disastrous to our health care system. Also, the Cash for Clunkers program was very successful in jump starting auto sales at a time when no one was buying cars. It's one of the reasons the US auto industry survived to become as successful as it is today. The largest rebate available was $4,500.
Brian Crawford June 30, 2012 at 07:30 PM
No one will receive "the government policy" by paying the tax. They'll pay the tax and still be without health care.
Ron McClellan June 30, 2012 at 07:51 PM
Brian Crawford: Actually Ron I was more interested in what specific provisions of Obamacare you felt were so disastrous to our health care system. Also, the Cash for Clunkers program was very successful in jump starting auto sales at a time when no one was buying cars. It's one of the reasons the US auto industry survived to become as successful as it is today. The largest rebate available was $4,500. Okay . . .they spent 24 grand to distribute a 4500 dollar check, not a 5000 dollar check . . . . that makes it better . . .how? And it didn't have a stimulating effect on the Auto industry either, in ANY even remotely practical manner. It merely shuffled the date some people purchased a car, since a 4500 dollar freebie was too good a deal to pass up. The benefit was lost economically probably within months. Further, for some odd reason, Liberal progressives seem to think that if ANY benefit, no matter how small or insignificant, can be found, it automatically justifies a program, no matter HOW mismanaged or cost inefficient it was. If I ask my foreman to purchase some maple, and he naively pays someone 19 thousand dollars to deliver 4,500 dollars worth of wood that would have otherwise been delivered free . . .just to get it here a day early. A democrat would think that was a job well done.
Ron McClellan June 30, 2012 at 07:54 PM
Brian Crawford: "No one will receive "the government policy" by paying the tax. They'll pay the tax and still be without health care." Wanna bet? If I drop my healthcare plan and just pay the "tax" in 2015 . . . .and I get sick and go to the hospital . . . . guess what happens? You can play semantic shell games Brian, but the reality is that I WILL have my health care covered by Obmacare . . . . though the quality of that care WILL get lower in 2016, then lower still in 2017, and lower still in 2018 . . .as more and more folks figure out that is EXACTLY what will happen . . .kinda like I already said, actually.
Brian Crawford June 30, 2012 at 08:42 PM
Your information on cash for clunkers is wrong. http://www.dot.gov/affairs/2009/dot13309.htm People with no health insurance going to the emergency room for treatment is what's happening NOW. That's a large part of why health care costs are so high. Under Obamacare more folks will be able to afford health insurance so the number of free loaders will decrease. Yes there will always be hard core deadbeats who do as you described but there will be much fewer of them.
Ron McClellan July 01, 2012 at 04:57 AM
Brian Crawford, to me: "Your information on cash for clunkers is wrong." No it isn't. For starters that is a general release Department of Transportation Data sheet from 2009, and doesn't even pretend to examine the actual cost to administer to program. It's essentially a breakdown of distribution, and even for that narrow purpose it was only intended as a casual informational overview. Just a tip Brian: It's best to make sure the links you supply to support your position . . . actually support your position. Brian Crawford: People with no health insurance going to the emergency room for treatment is what's happening NOW. My Reply: Yes it is. And that is gonna increase exponentially, as many of the lower middle class, who often struggle even more financially that people who are officially considered poor . . . . figure out it's be cheaper for them to just pay the tax. Of course that creates a smaller insurance pool to share the risk among . . . raising rates for payors, which creates a second wave of folks who just see the folly of actually paying for insurance. Soon the government, inevitably with the present plan, has to start cutting corners, and well . . . collapse of quality care.
Karsten Torch July 02, 2012 at 08:55 PM
Difference, Brian, is you DON'T get the tax credit if you don't own a house or have children. There's no extra fee assessed for failure to follow. In this case, you're actually fined for not having the insurance.
Karsten Torch July 02, 2012 at 09:04 PM
I'm a little fuzzy on the whole 'successful' concept. We're running well over a trillion dollars a year deficit. How are our programs cost-effective? Medicare costs us more than we take in to cover it, and social security is the largest legal Ponzi scheme ever. We have forced participation in these programs, which encourage people to not have to worry about their own personal means of retirement, or of securing some form of healthcare in their later years. And how convenient for government to be there to bail us out...by spending money it doesn't have. I may be a true disciple, but at least I don't have some blind faith in government. I'm not convinced they have my best interests at heart any more than corporations do. But at least, ultimately, corporations have to answer to customers or fail. The government has no such restrictions.
Racer X July 24, 2012 at 11:17 AM
Wrong Steve, and naive. Check the track records of all other government programs. Federal government = waste on a huge scale.
Racer X July 24, 2012 at 11:22 AM
.........Actually, statistically, if anyone is smoking something, it's likely a liberal.
Racer X July 24, 2012 at 11:24 AM
Brian- Saying that our Social Security program is successful is one of the most idiotic things I have ever heard. That statement is shockingly ignorant, even coming from you.
Racer X July 24, 2012 at 11:29 AM
Floyd- Brian Crawford understand? The guy who thinks Social Security is successful? I admire your optimism.
Racer X July 24, 2012 at 11:35 AM
US citizens already pay huge death taxes. It's called unused Social Security funds. When you retire at 65, after paying in nearly a million bucks (If you made $30K/year), if you die at 72, which happened to my father and happens a heck of a lot I found out, the unused money is gone. Huge, untold dollars, gone, into the void that is our Federal Government. Social security, thanks to liberals, is a Ponzi-scheme.
Kent Clarke November 08, 2012 at 07:10 PM
Well Obama is back in now, so we'll see what really happens. Kent - http:www.mautostore.com

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something