Larsen Financial is a full-service investment center that has all the products and services of the major brokerages, but without the high costs.

Learn more.

Obamacare Aims to “Control the People?”

  • Obamacare Aims to “Control the People?”

  • 28 March 2010 by 0 Comments

Obamacare Aims to “Control the People?”

By Richard Larsen

Published – Idaho State Journal, 03/28/10


Those who assume that Americans are going to sit idly by while their lives become micromanaged by a corpulent federal government bureaucracy don’t understand the American spirit. Born of freedom and steeped in common sense solutions, citizens across the land are coming, albeit lately, to a realization of what the health-care reform bill was all about .

Congressman John Dingell, Democrat from Michigan and former House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman had a Freudian-slip moment earlier this week when he spoke about the legislation. He said, “It takes a long time to do the necessary administrative steps that have to be taken to put the legislation together to control the people.”

Yes, you read that correctly. “To control the people.” I can’t imagine a more effective means of granting a government total control over the lives of its people than by yielding control of our health to a bureaucracy. Since they will have control over treatments and care, they will have ultimate control of life and death decisions, life styles, and diet. This certainly puts a new light on the First Lady’s new “Let’s Move” campaign to eliminate childhood obesity “in a generation.” If people have a choice to eat and conduct their lives as they choose, that’s not going to happen. But if it’s forced by government life-style and diet standards, Dingell nailed it: they “control the people.” That wasn’t in the bill passed last week, but like the president said, this is “a beginning.”

According to a new CBS News poll conducted earlier this week, 62% of Americans want Republicans to keep fighting the just-signed health legislation even now that it has been passed and signed. A scant 17% of Americans believe the new law will benefit them. This is astounding since the main-stream media has been pounding the drums for the Washington leadership incessantly for the past couple of years.  A CNN poll last month indicated just 23% of respondents liked the bill.

It probably didn’t help that none of the promises were kept while grinding the legislative sausage. There were no C-Span cameras set up to allow us to watch the process, and it was signed just two days after passage by the House, rather than the five days promised. So much for the transparency promised by the president.

We know that the health reform monstrosity was not about insuring the uninsured. That could have been accomplished as an extension of Medicare for a fraction of the $1 trillion per year price tag of the just-passed bill. And it obviously wasn’t done to control health-care costs. Whenever the government has attempted to control costs by price-fixing or rationing it has backfired. Remember wage and price control, the promises of Medicare to control costs of health care delivery for seniors? Even the Congressional Budget Office concedes governmental price control never works. The CBO explains that, “Price controls always break down after a short time because there are too many prices that, by their nature, cannot be controlled for any length of time.” Venezuela provides a superb current example on the inefficacy of price controls as well.

There were some in congress, including Dennis Kucinich, who didn’t want to sign onto Obamacare because it didn’t go far enough in eliminating private sector health insurance in favor of a government monopoly. How were those votes swayed in support of the president’s plan? They were assured that the current package is a “foundation” that would lead to a public option and elimination of private insurance, according to the Washington Post earlier this week. The president has admitted many times that it would take 10-15 years for socialized medicine to “control the people,” using Dingell’s terms.

I can’t help but believe that most of the nation believes that the Constitution was intended as a framework whereby individual freedom and liberty were assured against the encroachment of a burgeoning government. That’s why there were basically three explicit powers granted the federal government: national security, minting of currency, and regulation of interstate commerce.

But to some, the Constitution isn’t worth the parchment it was written on for it stands as an unwanted obstacle to what they feel the government should be able to do, whether constitutionally legal or not. As we’ve seen this week, the majority in Washington falls into that camp.

For some time now, many of us have been worried that we are beginning to see the unraveling of the fabric of our national values – the Constitution seems to be hanging by a thread. It is for this reason that we must do all we can to help in the fight against any proposal that delegitimizes our Constitutional rights. This constitutionally illegitimate healthcare plan is at the top of that list.


AP award winning columnist Richard Larsen is President of Larsen Financial, a brokerage and financial planning firm in Pocatello, and is a graduate of Idaho State University with a BA in Political Science and History and former member of the Idaho State Journal Editorial Board.  He can be reached at


About the

More than anything, I want my readers to think. We're told what to think by the education establishment, which is then parroted by politicians from the left, and then reinforced by the mainstream media. Steeped in classical liberalism, my ideological roots are based in the Constitution and our founding documents. Armed with facts, data, and correct principles, today's conservatives can see through the liberal haze and bring clarity to any political discussion.

Related Posts