Representative Federalism, HHS,
And “For A Diversion”
Representative Federalism, HHS, And “For A Diversion”
Background. Grim And UnConstitutional. Then, A Couple Of Typical Diversions, Other Ideas.
Kevin A. Sensenig | September 4, 2012 | Updated July 17, 2013
Background
I would suggest that the premise of the Constitution is two-fold: 1) an informal or formal religious or philosophical stance; and 2) representative federalism.
Then there is the aspect of "emptiness" of the Constitution, with certain parameters and rights set forth. Note that the structure and function of the United States is specified — not the individual, the people. Nor the states, beyond the indicated legislatures. With the two-fold premise, it becomes a "bit more clear" what types of law Congress is responsible for.
Grim
ObamaCare as Vehicle, for mandates to the states and the individual, "further detail left to HHS".
1. Obama campaign ad — “Ohioans Want to Know Where Romney and Ryan Stand on Fair Pay, Medicare, and Women's Health”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jm6nF5Icet4
2. Women's preventive services, according to HHS
http://www.hrsa.gov/womensguidelines/
Archived: Women's Preventive Services: Required Health Plan Coverage Guidelines.pdf
3. Preventive services covered under ObamaCare
Archived: "Preventive Services Covered Under the Affordable Care Act | HealthCare.gov.pdf".
I'm not sure where the Men's health page is, for comparison, so that I could first-hand identify with the recommendation. (Actually, I’d rather not have a “This Is You And Whatever Matters To You” Wellness Check.) But it seems to me that the perspective of the individuals writing these regulations is rather grim. That is, rather than to focus on gardens and pasta and squash and beans and oranges and herbs and spices, and physicians' advice, freely consulted, there are 2 apparent features: 1) many obscure diseases to be concerned with, and to keep in mind, each difficult to treat; 2) significant amount of documentation of the "patient" (obscure word), from time of birth on (see item 3 above, "Medical history for all children throughout development". See also "Developmental screening for children under age 3, and surveillance throughout childhood"). Here, you're probably already at the point of directives from HHS on non-physicians collecting "formal" information on mother and infant through to adolescence, and mandatory testing and screening. If not yet, later to keep costs under control and to prevent "illnesses".
That's my take, anyway.
A couple of questionnaires for you! A few more for your son and daughter in high school!
I’d rather study literature.
Constitutional — Not
There may be ObamaCare mandate of product specification and qualification, customer information source, customer purchase access point, customer service access point, company access to the market via exchanges, and price controls.
"I think ObamaCare may be unConstitutional.”
Other, More Beneficial Ideas
Religion, philosophy, working understanding. This section is available here as a standalone paper.