Quantcast

Comments about ‘Letters: Federal intrusion’

Return to article »

Published: Wednesday, Sept. 25 2013 12:00 a.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Roland Kayser
Cottonwood Heights, UT

If Medicare is constitutional, Obamacare is constitutional. The Supreme Court says both are. That's good enough for me, and for the vast majority of Americans.

one vote
Salt Lake City, UT

The attempt to spin the founders as creating a constitution that would never allow for health care for everyone is getting mythical. Did the pioneers come to Utah to escape the Affordable Care Act?

Ultra Bob
Cottonwood Heights, UT

The first part of the Constitution was the effort of the proponents of the American nation to prove up on the promises they made in the Declaration of Independence.

The second part, the Bill of Rights, came from the negotiation with the colony governments who wanted their own freedom from outside intervention. The purpose of the Bill of Rights was to allow the colony governments to rule their citizens according to their own religion and desires.
The colonies wanted to renege on the promises of the Declaration of Independence.

I think that as people begin to realize the actual manner in which the Constitution was put together, they may be more hesitant to blindly pledge their support. The Constitution that I learned about in school is not the same as now interpreted by conservatives.

SEY
Sandy, UT

The Constitution is merely a nuisance anymore. The Supreme Courts throughout the past many decades have found mystical rights in it that ordinary people would never have extracted. They wear robes, but maybe they should be wearing wizards' hats, too. In truth, the court has become a virtual rubber stamp for popular legislation, regardless of whether or not it conflicts with the Constitution the way us ordinary people understand it.

Ultra Bob
Cottonwood Heights, UT

As Americans we need a government of the people for the people; not a mess of squabbling, privately owned colony governments sometimes referred to as states.

We need to eliminate state governments and a whole bunch of tiny neighborhood governments

SEY
Sandy, UT

So there you have it. Ultra Bob's only problem with Big Government is that it's not big enough or intrusive enough. Patience, Bob, patience. We're getting there, sure as anything. The Supreme Court is on your side.

JoeCapitalist2
Orem, UT

Now that government has taken the next step in providing a "basic human right" in mandating health insurance on everyone whether they want it or not, what is next?

Everyone should have a "basic human right" to food, clothing, shelter, and employment too. Shall we next pass legislation in which the government provides everyone a house, the latest fashion designs, the equivalent to school lunch for everyone, and a government job?

Where does it end? Please liberals, tell me something that the government should NOT provide.

Noodlekaboodle
Poplar Grove, UT

@JoeCapitalist
I'm a liberal, I don't need the government selling me booze. But that's a different argument. My question to you is do you know we are paying for peoples healthcare right now? Because hospitals can't turn sick people away many of them are treated in the ER, and most don't pay. But it's not like hospitals provide this care for free, they just raise the rates for insurance companies, who also don't stop making money, so they pass the cost on to you. Conservatives don't like the ACA but don't have an alternative. The healthcare system is broken, going back to what we had before won't work either. So get on the train or come up with a better idea yourselves. But you can't, because the ACA is classic conservative free market economics. In my opinion we should go to a swiss system, where a basic healthcare plan is provided by the government, but supplemental plans are easily available in the free market. So pretty much Medicare for all.

SEY
Sandy, UT

The current health system is broken because it is an outgrowth of government intervention during World War II when wage and price controls were in effect. We haven't had any kind of free market in health care since that time. The choice between government-provided care and the current system is one between awful and horrendous.

Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah

How many would complain if their mortgage lender changed the mortgage contract unilaterally? How many would complain if the contractor, who was building them a new home, decided to double the price without their approval?

We have contracts so that all parties know what is expected of them. The federal government is only one level of government. We have restricted the authority of that level, preferring to have other levels of government handle other needs. We have authorized the federal government to protect the States from invasion. At least six of the seventeen enumerated duties that we have allocated to the federal government deal with the military. We've given the federal government limited authority to regulate interstate commerce so that large states cannot prey upon small states. There are a few other duties that we have authorized the federal government to perform. All other duties are to be handled by the States or by the people.

That is orderly. That is understandable. That keeps coniving politicians from buying votes. That keeps irresponsible citizens from passing their personal welfare to others.

No good comes from ignoring contracts. The Constitution protects us.

Kent C. DeForrest
Provo, UT

Interpreting the Constitution is an adventure in real-life politics and real-life issues, not the imaginary world inhabited by some who insist on a strict interpretation (which is still an interpretation) of the grand old document. We all disagree with some Supreme Court decisions, but why should that surprise us? I happen to be glad that both Medicare and the ACA have been declared constitutional. I am not so happy about the Supreme Court's declaration that corporations "are people too," to put it in Mitt's unfortunate words. The ramifications of that old decision has had a greater impact on American society than practically any Court edict, ever. It's one we really ought to revisit.

Lew Scannon
Provo, UT

SEY,

Allowing the free market to run rampant in health care would be a disaster of the greatest proportion. As has been pointed out repeatedly by sane individuals, the market simply is not suited to deal with health care. It would exclude tens of millions of people from getting care they desperately need; it would price some services out of almost everyone's reach; and it would offer dangerously low-quality care to those who can't afford Cadillac care. Oh, wait, isn't that what we have already? Why? Not because government is involved, but because the market is too involved. The only health-care systems that work reasonably well are those that are tightly controlled or run by government. Have you ever wondered why there is no system in the entire world that operates on free-market principles? It ain't because the free market works too well.

Ultra Bob
Cottonwood Heights, UT

SEY.

You will be governed by big government. If you weaken our federal government by silly limitations from 250 years ago, your next big government might be Chinese or Mexican or Catholic or Walmart or etc.

JoeCapitalist2.

There are no golden rules that limit what people can ask their government to do. People can ask their government to do anything the people want so long as the people can pay for it and it is possible to accomplish.

The reason private enterprise is against government is because government has the job to control private enterprise. Small governments are easily controlled by the giants of the world. The American federal government is the last best chance for people to have freedoms and rights. It can only secure those things if it is bigger than the other giants.

Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah

There is a method that solves the problem for everybody. That method is to amend the Constitution when the people desire to give more authority to the federal government. That process keeps the government honest and it keeps the people from making unauthorized demands on the federal government.

If 75% of the States want the Federal level of government to handle healthcare, then they can petition Congress to start the process. That's not what happened. One man wanted to change health care. He bribed and bullied Democrats to accept his program. The Republicans refused to go along with him, knowing they were not authorized to meddle in personal welfare. After buying off Louisiana and making concessions to Nebraska and fiddling with the rules, ObamaCare was passed after 59% of the people told Obama that they didn't want ObamaCare to pass. He cared not at all about the will of the people. The Democrats who passed that bill cared not at all about the people.

Abiding by the Constitution would have kept Obama in check. Now, he will hurt the most needy by shutting down the government to save his "ObamaCare".

And we're a civilized country when law is ignored?

Irony Guy
Bountiful, Utah

The enumeration of powers, according to Hamilton, was intended to emphasize the fed's authority in certain areas. But the elastic clause along with Article 1.8's stem clause "provide for the general welfare" means that the Fed gov't had sweeping powers from the beginning, as even George Washington recognized. This constitutional argument is getting silly.

atl134
Salt Lake City, UT

John Adams had socialized healthcare for a sector of naval workers, 215 years ago.

J Thompson
SPRINGVILLE, UT

And the debate goes on between those who think that their personal welfare should be included in the general welfare clause. They obviously don't know where their driveway ends and where the public road begins or where their house's sewer line ends and the public hookup begins or who should pay for their groceries or their rent or their cell phones or their doctor visits.

Do liberals really want their personal responsibility to be handled by people in other states? Have they abandoned all personal liability so that they can get "what they deserve" from some "rich guy" that Obama told them to fleece because that "rich guy" worked harder and profited more than they did while they whined and moaned about how they needed help wiping their noses?

SEY
Sandy, UT

Lew Scannon: do the best solutions always prevail in the economy? Does the mere presence of a program indicate its excellence or the non-presence of a competing program prove its inferiority? The real reason you haven't seen a genuine free market health solution is because the large corporations and government agencies would become disempowered, and they'll have none of that! Ron Paul has promoted some very workable solutions that I'm sure you're not aware of in which Big Pharma, the AMA and government are not the primary beneficiaries, but consumers are.

Maudine
SLC, UT

Abraham Lincoln relied on the general welfare clause to emancipate the slaves.

Open Minded Mormon
Everett, 00

"The intent was that power be confined to well defined limits, among three branches, to ensure individual freedom in perpetuity."

==========

Both the House and the Senate passed ACA.
The President of the united States signed the ACA.
The Supreme Court of the united States has upheld the ACA.

What 3 branches of the Government did we miss?

Why are you trampling the Constitution?

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments