Congressman Herger calls Obama plan 'threat to democracy'

Republican Congressman Wally Herger held a health care town hall meeting Aug. 18 at Simpson University in Redding, where a partisan crowd of over 2,000 people loudly cheered Herger’s position that a public option was “unacceptable.”

Although Herger called several times for the audience to “respect each other’s opinions,” those opposed to president Obama’s health care were greeted with cheers while the few in favor were interrupted with catcalls. Herger did not hold back on his opinion of the health care plan and the administration’s appointment of “czars” to head various departments and task forces.

“Our democracy has never been threatened as much as it is today,” Herger said to a loud standing ovation.

Although there were not the kind of disruptions that have been reported at Democratic representative’s town hall meetings, an altercation in the back of the auditorium resulted in Redding police having to intervene and hustle two people out of the room. Police reported that a woman is alleged to have clawed a man’s face in repose to his having pushed her while arguing over the health care plan. The investigation continues.

After denouncing the Obama plan to wild cheering, Herger offered a few solutions of his own including opening up competition among private health care companies by forcing companies to sell policies nationwide rather than just within individual states, tort reform to bring down malpractice costs and “risk pools like automobile companies” for those with preexisting conditions who Herger conceded are unable to get coverage. He also suggested “bargaining groups and associations” could help bring down costs.

“Health care costs have soared,” Herger said. “But I will oppose a public option with everything I have.”

Speakers included several opposed to Obama holding up copies of the Constitution and asking Herger to show where it says Congress has the right to be involved in health care.

Herger said the federal government does have a limited role to play in health care noting, “We do lots of things that are not in the Constitution.” “There are things we can do with health care, as long as the government is not running it,” Herger said.

One speaker said he could trace his ancestors back to the Mayflower and said “they did not arrive holding their hands out for help.”

“Amen, God bless you,” Herger said with a broad smile. “There is a great American.”

The majority of citizens came to the microphone to denounce the health care plan as “socialist” and “a government takeover,” but a few, including several from Siskiyou County, spoke in favor of Obama’s plan. Mount Shastan Craig Vivas asked Herger if “health care is a right?” and if not, “Who should be denied?”

“Forty seven million people are without health care insurance in America,” Vivas said.

Herger responded by saying “everyone should have access to health care” without declaring it a “right.”

Vivas said in an interview that Herger “believes in the unfettered free market as the solution to all social problems. That is a fallacy he shares with many other Americans.”

An Redding obstetrician echoed Vivas’ right to health care question saying, “We need to debate the issue.”

“If we decide it is a right, however, we have to have fiscal solvency,” he said.

Mount Shasta physical therapist Neil Posson said the United States is “the only democracy in the world that does not have universal health care.” “We have average life expectancy compared to other countries and spend huge amounts of money,” Posson said.

Although opposed to the Obama plan, several speakers said that family members had been forced into bankruptcy because of medical bills “and that was with insurance.”

“There are many things we can do,” Herger responded without going into specifics.

Speakers brought up subjects far afield of heath care that included illegal immigration and the carbon cap and trade bill recently passed by Congress. Herger called the cap and trade law “environmental extremism.”

“Health care is not the only threat to our democracy,” Herger said. Herger noted that the last election resulted in the Democrats having a majority in both houses of Congress.

“They can vote in anything they want,” Herger said. “The only thing standing between you and them voting in anything they want is you.”

Speakers included several opposed to Obama holding up copies of the Constitution and asking Herger to show where it says Congress has the right to be involved in health care.

This reply illustrates the dilemma conservative politicians are in. Judging from Congressman Herger's other comments he seems to be a reasonable conservative. Yet the pure conservative response to the question is that Constitution does not authorize Congress to be involved in healthcare. The exact wording of the Constitution makes clear that Congress is limited to involvement in matters explicitly authorized were necessary and proper to carry out enumerated functions.

But we all know that the Supreme Court has rationalized the extraconstitutional adventures of Congress in virtually every aspect of our lives including the size of our toilet flush and the wattage of our bulbs and it is not about to declare federal involvement in healthcare unconstitutional. The Congressman knows that. He also knows that there is insufficient public sentiment for getting Congress out of the health care system. Most of the people at these town halls protesting the Obama care are there not to signal their support for the 18th century constitutional conception of federalism-desirable as that may be-but to protect their entitlement called Medicare. They actually want Congressional involvement in healthcare as long as they're getting the gravy. The rest are there to protest increased taxes-so they don't have to pay for the gravy.

What is a poor conservative congressman to do? We live in this extra-constitutional world, he knows it, but he can do nothing about it, he cannot even comment on it or he will be labeled a fringe extremist. One need only review the evident bias in this article in support of Obama care to understand the congressman's dilemma. He will be destroyed by the press if he opens himself to charges of constitutional extremism.

The congressman's dilemma is also a practical political consideration. If the congressman goes too far in asserting the original intent of the Constitution, he will come close to taking away Medicare and there will not be 10% of the support of the room that he enjoys today. He will be alone battling both sides of the political spectrum.

Thus, this whole affair can be seen as a Kafkaesque allegory of the American constitutional conundrum.

The truth is, for most of the most important affairs that go on in America we have no Constitution. So our politics become more and more bizarre. Witness this discussion whether healthcare is a "right?" Evidently under today's Constitution one has a " right" if you can get a president or Congress or a combination of the two to say you do. There is simply no resort to the Constitution to consider whether such a right exists.

So here again our poor conservative congressman has got to dance around reality. He does not want to declare a "right" of healthcare so he says that no one should be denied access. He is doing the best he can. In effect he saying that, no one should be denied access, Congress evidently has a role to play:

I do not understand the constitutional distinction between Congress "running it" (the public option) and Congress otherwise regulating it. The distinction is one purely drawn in the congressman's head. He certainly comes closer to the constitutional mandate, but why is his version better than the version offered by his Socialist heckler in the room? Once we depart from the Constitution, one man's opinion is just as valid as the next.

But the reality, of course, is that we have departed from the Constitution and we did that after the court packing scheme. We have now moved on to examining the "emanations and permutations" of the Constitution to confect "rights" to abortion. So, it is not surprising that we have moved the discussion from whether Congress has the constitutional power to regulate health care to whether there is a constitutional "right" to health care just as there is a constitutional "right" to abortion.

So the Congressman is fighting a rearguard action. He draws the line of resistance where he sees political support which in this case is a line against the public option. As soon as the left can assemble enough interest groups who will see themselves benefiting from some health care arrangement, the line will have to be redrawn farther back.

It is unfair to blame our embattled Congressman, he is constitutionally isolated and beleaguered. We have a government system much like the British system without a written constitution. That might have worked well for them so long as they had a homogeneous society with an unwritten code to which people actually adhered. I wonder how they will fare when their society becomes more than 50% non-British, comprised of the people who use Civil Code is called sharia? But as we have seen here in America, a written constitution is not a complete defense.

I think the these issues should be thought about in the context of Obama's disintegrating poll numbers. Republicans are now the beneficiaries of a reaction to Obama's overreaching. In effect, the Republicans somehow are in the position of supporting those people who oppose Obama's health care plan because they want to protect their Medicare. In other words, Republicans are defending an entitlement against a threat perceived by seniors from another entitlement.

Let us understand as conservatives that ultimately the Republican position is anomalous. I do not understand how you could be in support of Medicare and opposed to Obama care on constitutional grounds. You might be able to be in support of Medicare and opposed to Obama care because you could contrive some public policy distinctions about Medicare being more efficient because Obama care would carry all the deficiencies of a government run public option. But this is not a constitutional argument. It is a public policy position, not a constitutional position. Pure conservatives will see it as an argument of expediency.

The closer Republicans adhere to a pure constitutional position on health care, the more they will lose Medicare recipients. And the press will help us lose them. Until we do move to a pure constitutional position, we will be reduced to staking out defense lines arbitrarily at levels of opportunity or plausibility. Eventually, the Democrats will get their act together and Republicans will be in their old position of saying, "we approve of the idea of all this spending, just not so much of it."

And then we conservatives will complain that the Rinos have taken over the party.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.