Deseret News | Don't opt out of providing health care for families

Reader comments
Bob Bernick Jr.: Don't opt out of providing health care for families

Lew Jeppson | 12:20 a.m. Oct. 30, 2009

I believe representatives like Wimmer who threaten to "opt out" Utah the first chance they get are severely underestimating the popularity of the public option among our electorate. There are a whole lot living on the edge due to job loss and consequent health insurance loss. In this case need will trump ideology, and guys like Wimmer may actually see the light when threatened with defeat the next election. Thanks, Mr Bernick, for laying it on the line.

I can tell you I'll do everything in my power to defeat anyone who represents me, in Davis County, who opposes the public option.

Mom in MO | 5:09 a.m. Oct. 30, 2009

If the poor can't afford a $300 health insurance policy ( I assume that is a monthly premium, and yes, it is a burden), how much money can you afford to give them? How much of your income is going to be taxed to pay for your neighbors' medical needs? So much that YOU can't afford a $300 monthly premium, either.

playoffs | 7:33 a.m. Oct. 30, 2009

Poor logic. Just because our national redistribution program is in full swing and our local politicians have taken advantage of government largess, means we should also buy in on yet another tax funded behemoth? Sure!

Comments continue below

Anonymous | 7:39 a.m. Oct. 30, 2009

Bernick, you are so right on this. Why in the world would you opt-out. Give your citizens some choices. Put their interests above partisan wrangling.

Anonymous | 7:50 a.m. Oct. 30, 2009

Since when is it your neighbors job to buy your health care?

Jack | 8:04 a.m. Oct. 30, 2009

Maybe they opt out because they don't like the strings (handcuffs) that will be attached in taking the money. Maybe they opt out because they because they believe Capitalism will provide a better solution than Socialism.

Mr. Jeppson. Thank you for believing that a person has a right to their neighbors money. I need new windows and roof. Please send me a check for $15K, then I will believe you put your money where your mouth is.

No opt out | 8:10 a.m. Oct. 30, 2009

There is no opt out. It is just a facile political trick. The state can't opt out of paying for it.

Wealth Redistribution | 9:12 a.m. Oct. 30, 2009

Over the past many years we've seen CEO income increase dramatically in comparison to the average employee such that they now make 400 times what their employees make. Between 1979 and 2000 the top 1% saw their income increase 176%. Increasing inequality is a threat to our democracy. Already, those who can afford to hire lobbyists get to help write legislation. Additionally, demand drives the economy. If people don't have money to buy goods and services, eventually businesses will suffer.
Thirdly, wealth is being used to create more wealth--but not more jobs. Our entire economic system nearly collapsed as a result of this "wealth" creation ie hedge funds, derivatives etc. Will we continue to defend these trends until we resemble Mexico?

Anonymous 2 | 9:20 a.m. Oct. 30, 2009

To Mom in MO - $300/month for health insurance would be a DREAM. We are in good health and pay $1100/month for a 3 person family --> IHC.

This is why we need a public option. I already pay 28% of my income in taxes; why not have it go for insurance?

Wrex | 9:34 a.m. Oct. 30, 2009

Any legislator who votes in favor of "opting out" will likely be "opted out" in the next election.

They will feel the wrath of an extremely angry citizenry.

Oh Please | 10:01 a.m. Oct. 30, 2009

Bob, you already know the answer to your question. Utah will opt out because Utah is run by Obama haters. Grandma called it "cutting off your nose to spite your face."

@oh please | 10:48 a.m. Oct. 30, 2009

Obama haters? We don't hate Obama, just his marxist policies and friends meddling with our futures.

Mike Richards | 10:58 a.m. Oct. 30, 2009

I expected more from someone who writes about government and politics. Is Mr. Bernick so unfamiliar with the Constitution that he would give authority to the Federal Government where no such authority exists? Surely he has read Article 1, Section 8 where the powers of Congress are enumerated. Surely he has read Amendment 10 which leaves to the States and to the People all authority and all responsibility to deal with any non-enumerated item.

The question is not about health-care; it is about Federal authority and Federal intervention into our lives. If health-care is needed, it MUST be handled on a non-Federal level, otherwise, those who legislate any Federal law providing for Federal authority for health-care have violated their oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Invisible Hand | 10:59 a.m. Oct. 30, 2009

Public health insurance run by Uncle Sam is the worst idea ever. However, opting out is a close second. It's not like we can opt out of subsidizing it. If we're going to send tax money to Washington to pay for this rubbish, then why should we deny ourselves any meager benefits that it provides?

Congress is going to destroy the dollar with their deficits, but we shouldn't cut off our nose to spite our face just because we don't like it. We need to fight this government takeover, but opting out after the fact is silly.

CHOICE | 11:23 a.m. Oct. 30, 2009

The nice thing about living in UTAH is I don't have to think.

If the REPUBLICAN PARTY is the PARTY OF NO, so am I.

I know the REPUBLICAN PARTY will do all my thinking for me.

All I have to do to continue this relationship is to vote my conscience (for the "R").

GOT IT.

Yes | 12:13 p.m. Oct. 30, 2009

Then there's the Democratic Party - the party of YES - Yes, WE WILL - take your money and spend it more wisely than you!

@Lew & Oh Please | 12:32 p.m. Oct. 30, 2009

Hey, you've got what you wanted. Redistribution of wealth. Now ain't it great. Except the movers and shakers, and employers and capitalists are going to it out for your little game. Not so much to go around when you cut of the head of the golden goose, is there?

Suburbs of SLC | 12:42 p.m. Oct. 30, 2009

Let's pay for the program, and then receive none of its benefits. Now, I know many of you love your ideology more than you love the pragmatism of helping others. But I also know you love money even more than you love your ideology. So I don't think we'll see a Utah opt-out.

That's the one nice thing about relying on the Utah Republican Party. They can preach about states rights and the constitution (a document created with the SOLE purpose of creating a more powerful federal government than existed under the Articles of Confederation, and which includes, ironically enough in the Article and Section cited by Mike Richards, the right of Congress to provide for the general Welfare of the nation) but when it comes to money, they'll just take what they get.

Mike Richards | 1:02 p.m. Oct. 30, 2009

@ 12:42,m

Have you even read the ONE SENTENCE that makes up Section 8? Do you have any understanding of what it means? Can you take a few words from that sentence and separate it from the whole sentence?

Ignorant and foolish people have tried to subdivide the Constitution to suit their needs and their wants and their desires. They care nothing about America or for the citizens that make up the populace of America.

All they want is power and authority to do what THEY WANT TO DO regardless of whether it is legal, regardless of whether it is Constitutional, regardless of whether it is the mind and will of the rest of the citizens of this nation.

They would dictate to us what the Constitution forbids. They would impose on us their will to reign and rule illegally. They would count on our ignorance of the Constitution as they push their agenda on America.

No one who can read a complete sentence can ever think that Congress has the right to meddle in our personal welfare. It is NOT an enumerated right. It is NOT a duty of Congress. Federal health-care is illegal.

Anonymous | 1:14 p.m. Oct. 30, 2009

It's the Republicans that have taken your money, you just haven't received the bill yet for Brother George and the debts he and Repug congress left for us. Too bad that Obama had to inherit such a disgusting mess! We could have seen some real progress.

Suburbs of SLC | 1:34 p.m. Oct. 30, 2009

There is not enough room to post the entirety of section 8 here.

The most relevant clause (clause 1) reads: "The Congress shall have power To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"

Other clauses of note include Clause 3: "To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;"

and Clause 18: "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

Whether Congress has a right to force American citizens to buy is unclear; I would not be surprised if, after the legislation passes, this goes to the Supreme Court, and I do not know, nor can anyone really know, how they would rule.

But regarding the public option, when Clinton attempted health reform, he cited Sunshine Anthracite Coal Co. v. Adkins (1940) as justification. You can decide its merits.

Mike Richards | 3:16 p.m. Oct. 30, 2009

@ 1:34,

Did you take the time to read what you wrote? Did you take the time to read the actual words? Did you take the time to think before you sat at your computer and gave your "opinion" of what the Constitution SAYS?

What does "foregoing Powers" mean to you? What "foregoing Powers"? Where are they listed? Why, they're right there. They're right in front of your eyes. They are ENUMERATED. They are listed. They are written down for YOU and every other American to read. Those are the ENUMERATED powers! Congress cannot, at will, rule on anything that it wishes. It is CONSTRAINED by the contract that YOU have with the Federal government. The Federal government is YOUR servant. You do not serve the Federal government. YOU control the limits, the boundaries, and the authority of the Federal government.

YOU, as a citizen, have the duty to understand the Constitution so that Congress will be held in check by the people who OWN this country. YOU have no right to decide for yourself that the Constitution is anything other than what it is.

Please, before it is everlastingly too late, learn to read.

Megan Call | 4:39 p.m. Oct. 30, 2009

We, american citizens are already paying for our neighbors health care in one way or another. Medicare and medicaid are social programs that many citizens including Utahns are currently benefitting from. Our old and our poor are being helped. Traditional private insurance uses cost shifting to pay for our neighbors health care. Those with insurance will be billed more to cover those who don't have adequate insurance benefits. If the cost of an insured person goes too high, the insurer will drop that person so that the government (us) will have to pick up the bill. We thus pay for our neighbors health care.
Let us not forget the many, many Utah children who have been born to young LDS college parents who used government programs, Medicaid, Wic, etc. to raise and bear their families while attending school. I suppose many who were recipients of government help will be the first to oppose it for others.
A one payor system would be most efficient. A public option would keep the insurance companies more honest and would help break the monopoly they now hold.

An Observer | 4:57 p.m. Oct. 30, 2009

There is Great Danger in expecting the government to provide for you.

It will always lead to tryanny and servitude.

Suburbs of SLC | 5:31 p.m. Oct. 30, 2009

@Mike Richards

What are you raving about? The foregoing powers refer to the right of Congress, listed in clause 1, to collect taxes to provide for the defense and welfare of our nation. And I cited a Supreme Court case to back my opinions up, I didn't just make them up.

Please cite, specifically, where I am deciding for myself what the constitution is separate from what it is. It is a document created for the express purpose of establishing a powerful federal government after the Articles of Confederation, which created a very weak federal government without enough power to oversee the states, proved to be a failure. That is fact.

Doug G | 5:38 p.m. Oct. 30, 2009

I don't expect the government to provide for me. In some cases, however, we can provide for each other. It works for education. And I think health care, like education, is one of the must haves that make our society work.

A Breeder | 7:18 p.m. Oct. 30, 2009

I find it odd that someone who sounds so educated can miss one of the most basic facts of the “healthcare reform” issue. Well I must admit he’s not alone it seem that a lot of schooled people miss the same facts.

Let me explain: There is nothing in the Constitution for healthcare to be a Federal Government issue.

Please no “general welfare” arguments, they fail when the authors of the Constitution are introduced. To them “general welfare” consisted of only those obligations specified in the constitution itself.

Therefore, our elected officials, sworn to uphold & defend the Constitution, should never have addressed this; once presented should have denied any time or credibility to it. That is if they want to honor the oath of office to which they swore allegiance.

A Breeder (cont.) | 7:18 p.m. Oct. 30, 2009

If anyone wants healthcare as a Federal/government issue all they need to do is amend the Constitution to include it as a constitutionally mandated obligation. Until such time, Senator, Representative, President, & Justice need to refer these issues to the People or the States.

Thus per the current Constitution, our elected officials, sworn to uphold & defend the Constitution, should have never let this issue be addressed. Once presented should have dismissed it at as out of their scope/ “above [their] job description. That is if they want to honor the oath of office to which they swore allegiance.

A Breeder | 8:22 p.m. Oct. 30, 2009

Correction: It should read "out of [their] pay grade" not "out of [their]job description.

Thank you

Anonymous | 8:06 a.m. Oct. 31, 2009

Was Mike Richards around when the Bush Administration was unraveling his rights under the Constitution? Arrogant, self serving comments with conclusions that demand you agree with him.

Think | 6:22 a.m. Nov. 1, 2009

Pay for it now or pay for it later? You may have to spend your hard earned money on coffins for your children once they succumb to all the diseases carried by the Uninsured.
You are not the only one living on this planet!

John R | 9:18 a.m. Nov. 10, 2009

If health care passed as currently written in the House bill, and then Utah opted out, and placed lawsuit award restrictions and restrictions on the amount of these awards to the lawyers; while all the other states now had unlimited awards; wouldn't that be better for the health care system here in Utah?

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.