Comments about ‘Romneycare, Obamacare’

In my view, this letter shows a lack of understanding of the 10th Amendment, the history of the Constitution (including the failure of the Articles of Confederation), and the Supremacy Clause. In addition, I am now firmly convinced we must have national health insurance. Even the health insurance reform legislation, for as much good as it does in resolving problems, is inadequate. Take, for example, what my daughter told me last night. Because of the legislation, her 20-something friend was added to his parents health insurance. A positive result, right? But because he lived two thousand miles away, he was "out-of-network" and his health care was unaffordable and an injury went untreated. Doing things state by state will never really work. We will have a patchwork of nonsense. America, can't we do better than this?

One fact that isn't considered in this letter -- the Health Care Act is permitted by the Commerce Clause, General Welfare Clause and Necessary and Proper Clause, all found in Article 1 Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution.

A complete airing of the Tenth Amendment would almost make a Romney nomination worthwhile.

"The 10th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution is perhaps the most violated and disregarded portion of the entire document. Items not specifically allowed the federal government, nor prohibited to the states, are left to the states".

-------

Fair enough, but the power of Congress to tax, to promote the general welfare, is granted in the US Constitution. [Article I, Section 8]. Therefore nationalized health insurance isn't unconstitutional.

cjb,

"the power of Congress to tax, to promote the general welfare, is granted in the US Constitution. [Article I, Section 8]. Therefore nationalized health insurance isn't unconstitutional."

General welfare means:

* low taxes
* freedom to choose your own insurance
* giving credence to the voice of the people.

It's not governments role to define general welfare and dictate policy, but the voice of the people.

Excellent comment. States have a right to do nearly anything the people want, but the Federal government is severely restricted by the 10th Amendment. Arguments here to the contrary are flimsy at best! Anecdotes are not arguments, nor are they a basis for sound policy.

"General welfare" means the well-being of the nation as a whole, as in the overall economy, trade practices, security, etc. The word "general" refers to the whole, as in the Mormon church's use of "general" authority. It has nothing to do with individuals' health or receiving charity.

This letter is just another example of pick and choose how you want to interpet the Constitution based on your personal beliefs. It's not unlike one picking and choosing what to believe in the Bible. What appears in one section seems to contradict another but in reality it is to give us latitude to adjust to the circumstances. I am also in favor of a national healthcare system that covers all. Maybe if we didn't have monopolies rationing and profiting from illness it would be different but I have yet to read anything in the Constitution that it is the right of corporations to rob us.

Look at how many posters have already given us their interpretation of Article 1, Section 8. They have picked apart that ONE SENTENCE and would have us believe that a dependent clause is independent of its context.

If they read Section 8, they would see that seventeen duties were authorized to promote the general welfare. Those seventeen duties were enumerated.

Health care is NOT interstate commerce.

The 10th Amendment perfectly allocates the responsibility of the States and of the people to handle all duties that are not enumerated by the Constitution to the Federal Government. Health care is NOT an enumerated duty. It clearly is a duty that is to be left to the State or to the people.

If the Federal Government had the duty to meet our wants, I would be paid the same as the President, have access to Air Force One, and have a guest room in the White House. Of course that is nonsense, but so many people act as if their needs and wants should be filled by the Federal Government, even though they know, if they can read, that the Constitution prohibits the Federal Government from being involved in our personal welfare.

""General welfare" means the well-being of the nation as a whole, as in the overall economy, trade practices, security, etc. The word "general" refers to the whole, as in the Mormon church's use of "general" authority. It has nothing to do with individuals' health or receiving charity."

Judging by how much money we waste on health care despite excluding millions from receiving health care, and how many people lose their homes due to health care expenses, I think it's safe to say that the previous health care system was destroying our nation's "whole" general welfare.

We need a system that doesn't exclude, BUT HEALS.
We need a system that treats human beings as LIFE, not as suckers to make profits from.
Stop treating hospitals as car dealerships and stop treating sick humans as wall street investments.

@Mike Richards, health care most certainly IS interstate commerce, regardless of your assertion. Recently a family member had to fly to Florida to get surgery only available there, but her "insurance company" wouldn't cover it because it was "out of state." The current situation is ridiculous. Countless people cross state lines every day to get health care, and that my friend is INTERSTATE commerce that should be regulated by the Federal Government.

So if I understand Republicans correctly... you cannot force a woman to buy health insurance, but you can force a woman to pay for a vaginal ultrasound before she has an abortion.

Mike Richards, health care is not interstate commerce? Surely you jest! Most insurance companies deal in multi-state environments. Insurance approvals are made by administrators in other states. It does on and on. It astounds me that you would say it is not interstate commerce. And we live in a highly mobile world. The concept of giving pre-emptive rights to states on most issues is ludicrous. States rights is really about doing nothing to solve the issues we face as a people.

I would argue that if "Obamacare" is unconstitutional, so is Romney care. The Tenth Amendment does not give the States unlimited power. It states the powers are left to the people, who are the ultimate sovereign.

People often forget the Ninth amendment. That just because a right isn't listed in the Constitution does not mean it is not a right the people hold. Government's job is to protect life, liberty and property or persuit of hapiness, depedning if read Locke or Jefferson. Healthcare certainly falls under protecting life.

People fail to realize that the 10th Amendment deals with only those powers that are left over after the powers granted in the Constitution and the rights protected in the other Amendments including the unenumerated rights protected by the 9th Amendment are taken out. It's not the end-all and be-all that some people believe.

Insurance, including health insurance, is indeed interstate commerce. Just consider where the insurance companies' headquarters are located and where underwriting decisions are made (not in Utah). To argue that it is not interstate commerce ignores the nature of insurance companies and how they work.

"General welfare" means a LOT more than the limited role people want to argue. And yes, it does include promoting and protecting the good health of the citizens of the country. Or do people want to argue that the general welfare of a country of healthy people is a lot better than a country of unhealthy people. Among other reasons, healthy people are more productive, which makes the country more prosperous. The United States can do much better with a unified health care system, which would promote the general welfare of the country.

re: Esquire,

No, I am not "jesting". I am a former insurance agent. I understand the laws that govern selling insurance policies. As a former insurance agent licensed to sell policies in Utah, I was not allowed to sell policies to anyone living outside Utah. Each insurance company is licensed by the State to sell policies inside that State. That company may sell policies in many States, but it is licensed by each State to sell the policies approved by that State only to citizens of that State.

There is no Interstate Commerce.

If you take the time to study the issue, you will understand that the insurance industry has limited itself to avoid Interstate Commerce to avoid Federal control. That industry learned from the abuses to business that started with FDR that the Federal Government would dictate terms and conditions if given the chance.

Because polices are not sold across State boundaries, Interstate Commerce is not an issue.

re: Darrel,
The 10th Amendment cannot dictate to States what duties each State fulfils. Each State has its own Constitution. The duties authorized to the State are decided by the people, not by the Federal Government.

The 9th Amendment actually emphasizes that the people, not the government, hold all rights that the people have not delegated to government. The people hold ALL rights. The government holds ONLY those rights delegated to it by the people.

Read the Preamble carefully and thoughtfully. Do not add words to the Constitution; it can stand on its own:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Mike Richards,
Really? Health care isn't interstate commerce? Seriously? Uh, does money exchange hands? Across state lines? To say it's unconstitutional is hilarious.

Romney will never repeal healthcare reform because his ego will not allow him to destroy something he wrote. This makes anybody who votes for him, very foolish.

Look at the lengths posters are going to, to allow the Federal Government to break the law. They are telling us that personal welfare is guaranteed by the Constitution. Have they read the Constitution. Have the thought about what it REALLY says? How have they reached the conclusion that personal welfare is a "right" delegated to the Federal Government?

Where is that "right" enumerated in the Constitution? Defense, in one form or another, is listed six times in Article 1, Section 8 as a duty of the Federal Government. Health care is not listed in those seventeen duties. Health care or personal welfare is NOT enumerated anywhere in the Constitution. The 10th Amendment leaves health care to the States or to the People.

And, how many posters are twisting and thrashing the meaning of Interstate Commerce to suit their own interpretation of Insurance Companies. I'll bet that not one of them is an insurance agent and that not one of them has read the laws that restrict how an Insurance Company issues policies in the State of Utah, or in any other State. Yet, they pretend to be experts on the Insurance Industry. Their misleading and misrepresentative claims show us that their "opinion" has no merit. That also shows us that anything that they say is suspect.

General welfare works to the benefit of all. Legislation that works against the majority of citizens in order to benefit a minority is not general welfare. This is where Obamacare fails the test.

worf is correct. The people will ultimately decide whether government has overreached. If the will of the people is respected, Obamacare will not stand.