Articles Comments

SENTRY JOURNAL » Uncategorized » Politics on the Small Screen (27″)

Politics on the Small Screen (27″)

States, judges, and citizens haven’t bought the left’s argument regarding the constitutionality of the health care mandate; but perhaps it is just because they haven’t heard it in the right light.  Health and Human Services Secretary, Kathleen Sebelius thought that she should give the explanation a shot in a fun little contrasting metaphor.  After precluding with the typical “interstate commerce clause” that floats as well as Christine O’Donnel (not a witch), she handed us this gem:

[I]f I don’t have a 27-inch TV for the Super Bowl, I can’t demand on the day of the Super Bowl that somebody deliver that TV because I have a right to it. On the other hand, if I don’t have insurance, I come through the door of an emergency room and get treated and get cared for, and somebody else picks up the tab, (emphasis mine)

    Let’s see if we can break this down point by point.

  1. Health insurance is coveted most just before health care is needed.
  2. Televisions are coveted most just before something good comes on (Superbowl).
  3. People CAN go in and demand health care because sickness is just around the corner
  4. People CAN’T go in and demand a TV just because the Superbowl is around the corner.
  5. Currently, other people have to pay for health care provided for the uninsured.
  6. Currently, other people don’t have to pay for TV’s for those who don’t have them.
  7. Health care is a human right.
  8. Television is not a right.
  9. Conclussion: ??? 

I’m with the comparison all the way up to the conclusion.  What is she trying to justify here?  The television analogy has absolutely no tie to health care – even given her opinion that health care is a right.  If anything, this should be an argument for the forced purchasing of televisions. 

We know that she supports Obamacare, and we can assume a few things in spite of her terrible ability to form an argument.  For instance, Democrats argue that the Commerce Clause covers health care because we can presume that everyone is going to buy health care at some point in their life.  This, of course, isn’t necessarily true.  I have numerous friends who are in their 20’s and 30’s who have never been to the hospital (and a few have never purchased insurance).  If they were murdered today and found dead in the street, their contribution to the health care industry would be null.  Under Obamacare these individuals would be forced to pay into a system they may or may not ever need. 

There are some obvious things that need to be pointed out to Ms. Sebelius.  One, the Commerce Clause, by definition, can only regulate the commerce between the states.  The democrats, in spite of republican jousts, disallowed interstate commerce when it came to buying health insurance.  Also, the health care bill still allows people to opt out up until their greatest need (before going to the hospital) and even prohibits health insurance denial. 

For a better analogy, Federal Judge Roger Vincin, weighed in on that after shooting down Obamacare in his court, “Should Congress thus have power under the Commerce Clause to preemptively regulate and require individuals above a certain income level to purchase a home financed with a mortgage (and secured with mortgage guaranty insurance) in order to add stability to the housing and financial markets (and to guard against the possibility of future cost-shifting because of a defaulted mortgage), on the theory that most everyone is currently, or inevitably one day will be, active in the housing market?” (picked from

There’s another element lurking behind the scenes here and that is that televisions may soon be considered a human right.  Why not?  Estonia, France, Finland and Greece have already named internet access a human right.  The United Nations proposed that very thing in the 2003 World Summit on the Information Society (to be added to my growing list of unimportant international summits).  Heck, even “experts” are being quoted as saying that internet is a human right over at the Washington Post, “The point is not that the Internet has become sacred.  The point is that human rights have always been sacred.”  …Whatever that means.   

Oh, and this just in, televisions now have the internet on them!  Jump on Google TV, or Samsung’s Internet@TV, Logitech’s Revue, or intermingle through the Playstation’s browser, chat in games, send messages, etc.  The Internet is on our computers, phones, televisions, game systems, and electronic books.  Are these all instruments that should be required for human rights purposes?  Unfortunately, there are those would say yes. 

Perhaps the next generation will make televisions a human right here in America.  If so, there are two certain outcomes: legislatures will have better televisions than the citizens, and Ms. Sebelius’ analogy won’t be harmed at all.


Written by

Yeah, I tweet. If you want to follow me on Twitter, just click on the link below. I hope you do.

Filed under: Uncategorized · Tags: , , , ,

opinions powered by