New health care law is wrong legally, morally and financially

While Republicans are calling for Congress to “repeal and replace” the new Federal health care law, North Carolina's Libertarians want to make more fundamental changes. Several candidates said the law is unconstitutional and an infringement on individual liberty. They support North Carolina joining the 14 states who are suing the Federal government challenging the new law.

Most are skeptical of Republican opposition, particularly Sen. Richard Burr’s pledge to “repeal and replace” that has become the GOP battle cry.

“Burr's statement ‘repeal and replace,’ tells you one thing: we want our law, not theirs,”said Richard Evey, Libertarian candidate for N.C. Senate District 44.

“Repeal and replace with nothing is what we would like to see,” said Susan Hogarth, Wake Libertarian Party chair.

“The only reform that is needed is for the Federal Government to get completely out of health care programs,” said Thomas Rose, Libertarian candidate for Congress in District 2.

Libertarians believe a completely free market, unhampered by taxation and government regulation, is the best way to insure all people have access to the best health care at the lowest prices. They oppose the new law on legal, moral and financial grounds.

The Constitutional argument, rarely raised by Republicans during Congressional debate, is simply that health care regulation is not among the specific and enumerated powers granted to the Federal government.

Proponents claim that Article I, Section 8, Clause 3, the commerce clause, which grants the Federal government power to regulate interstate commerce gives the Federal government the right to regulate health care. But that interpretation is wrong, according to Herb Sobel, Libertarian candidate for N.C. House District 3.

“The commerce clause of the Constitution which is used so often to justify government regulation of the rights of citizens applies to positive commercial activity,” he said. “If a citizen declines to purchase health insurance, a negative commercial activity, the commerce clause can not apply.”

Even if the U.S. Supreme Court finds the law constitutional, “that will not make it right and Libertarians will still oppose it,” said Hogarth. “Our opposition is not based solely on Constitutional grounds.”

The law forces people to purchase a service they may not want or need, and it forces people to further subsidize that service for others, libertarians say. It also enforces a moral judgment.

“Providing health services for ourselves or for those who cannot afford it is an individual decision based on an internal moral judgment,” said Stephanie Watson, Libertarian candidate for N.C. Senate District 16. “Like all moral decisions, this should be up to the individual, not forced by government mandate.”

Watson said the bill will increase demand for insurance, thus driving up prices from existing insurance companies.

“A compulsory system with higher health insurance rates means healthcare overall will be an even greater cost to the people of North Carolina,” she said. As a state senator, she said she’d work to keep North Carolina free from any costs and obligations imposed by the Federal government which go beyond its Constitutional power.

Evey and Sobel would support her efforts.

“This law will force tremendous unfunded mandates on the state that would lead us down the same economic path as California and dramatically increase the number of government dependents,” said Darryl Holloman, Libertarian candidate for Congressional in District 3.

Holloman said if elected he would work to repeal the bill using every means possible, including defunding administration and enforcement.

Whatever action the Federal government takes regarding health care “should be based on simple, grade school level problem solving skills and limited to the powers given to our Congress by the Constitution,” Holloman said.

He said that the root of the problem is that health care and insurance have been considered entitlements, driving up demand, while government price controls and regulation have driven up the costs associated with medical practice, restricting supply.

Holloman proposes several ways to let the free market to reform the health care system, including ending state insurance monopolies, reduce medical license requirements and ending government intervention in education and making allowing private companies to do drug testing.


May 20 2010?

If I recall, May 20th seems to be a significant date for North Carolina. Again, if I'm not mistaken, both our neighbors to the north and south are parties to this suit. It is eerily familiar to the same sort of set-up that occurred in 1861. If North Carolina does choose to join this suit/cause with the other 14 States, hopefully it will turn out better this time.

health care reform

I already predict that a new health care bill will be entose to different opinions in different state of the country. President Barack Obama together with his Vice President Joe Biden signed already the health care bill that will be fully implemented on 2014. I’m wondering on how long it will take to wait for the Republicans calling- to repeal and replace it?

Nice writing, but ...

Your judgment that almost every other civilized nation in the world must be operating on shaky moral ground suggests a level of self-righteousness that I find hard to swallow.

Regarding legal and financial matters, we shall see. The former amounts to nothing more than the interpretation-du-jour. Whoever stacks the court in any given decade wins. The latter is a choice. Right now, we as a nation are paying far too much for too little.

Maybe you guys should start your own blog?

Start Another Blog?

James wrote, "Maybe you guys should start your own blog?"

Are registered Democrats not welcome on BlueNC?
Has our Party suddenly adopted repression of free speech?
Or is it simply that James prefers to monopolize the thought of this blog?
There is no need to get defensive, emotional or ugly when engaging in the arena of ideas, my friend.
Again, neither James, nor anyone else, have the power to determine what are the approved pre-thought thoughts for our Democratic Party.
No one, that I'm aware of, has appointed you the "official" labeler of BlueNC.

Pardon my touchiness, I was

Pardon my touchiness, I was not speaking to you, but to Libertypoint.

But since you asked, this is not a Democratic party blog in any way, shape or form. BlueNC is a private company. I am the sole owner and sole funder.


You can find more about BlueNC here.

Again, you're not thinking

This diary is not only promoting ideas, it's promoting Libertarian candidates.

Aside from the fact that this is a privately owned and managed blog, which Libertarians will tell you gives James the right to do what he pleases, it's also a Progressive-oriented blog. People come here in relatively large numbers because of the Progressive ideas published here, and some folks with diametrically opposing views come here simply to take advantage of the volume of readership that was painstakingly developed by James.

There is a limit to that, just as their is a limit to the number of times someone can play the "But I'm a Democrat!" card after spewing tons of Republican or Libertarian rhetoric.

Thinking Merely a Work in Progress

My title has more to do with what I aspire to be rather than any sort of reality as evidenced by my posts. If the blog is oriented as you describe then it exactly where I shall hang my hat. As far as "spewing rhetoric", I don't belive the ideas of freedom are the exclusive domain of Republicans and Libertarians. I have yet to meet a Democrat that prefers slavery over liberty. Aren't Democrats Americans too? Heated ideological partisanship is generally nothing more than a tool, weilded extremely effectively by professional politicians, against those that are unable to think for themselves, in the hopes of maintaining their own power and privilege.

Thank You

Well then, let me be the first to say "thank you" for allowing me to grace your pages.
I suppose I misunderstood the title of the blog as generally being a "liberal" blue blog.

You're welcome

Again, I apologize for my foul mood today. I generally behave with more civility than you've witnessed this morning and I'm sorry for my simmering temper.


I suspect we are in the category of "liberal blue blogs," but my personal relationship with the Democratic party has been touch and go. I was unaffiliated for the past two years, only recently reregistering as a Democrat.

I have tilted toward the Libertarian wing of the Democratic party my whole life, and the process of finding a tolerable balance has been grueling. I'm still not there.

You are most welcome here, and I sincerely mean that. You are well-meaning and insightful, and your ideas give us (not the royal we) much to think about. I hope you'll stick around.