We've sold our birthright of Liberty for Federal Entitlements. So many of
the people now believe that the national government should have power over our
daily lives that they willingly accept the government's right to force us
to engage in a commercial activity under penalty of law. There may be no going
back. Sycophantic "true believers" in the media are so enamored of Obama
and his imperial presidency that they fail to do their job as protectors of
freedom when the president legislates from the Oval Office, varying how he
enacts laws according to how he thinks it will affect his approval numbers and
the 2014 Congressional election.Hang on folks. We're in for a
Don, Aren't you forgetting about the preamble to the constitution that
authorizes the Federal Government to "promote the general welfare"?
That is just what the ACA and other social legislation attempts to do. And
United States Supreme Court, which last time I looked, was the final arbiter of
what is or what is not constitutional, has declared the law to be within
constitutional bounds.Your fear of Federal intervention is
unwarranted. And I suspect a reaction to decades of political denigration of the
Federal Government by those that need a weak central government in order to
carry out their personal and often nefarious agendas without government
interference. In short, just how did Wall Street get to be Wall Street?
Too bad the Supreme Court doesn't know about this thing called the
Federalist Papers . . .
Can you just imagine Utah with no federal (societal) regulations?
Think its bad now, wait until the employer mandates hit us next year!
The 2 words "General Welfare" in the preamble have been used by
Progressives from the beginning of that movement to bolster the pretense that
the founding fathers wanted the Federal Government to be able to control ANY
parts of our lives they WANT to control (and just say "it's for your
own good").But it's stated very clearly in the Constitution
what type of things they CAN/SHOULD control... and what type of things they
CAN'T/SHOULDN'T control. I don't know why these two words seem
to overrule everything else very clearly stated in the Constitution.I don't even think the term "General Welfare" means what the
Progressives THINK it means!But all that aside... I don't think
ObamaCare is going to ruin our lives. But I DO think it's intended to be
just the first gradual step towards the Government taking over the healthcare
industry in the United States. And with how inept and UN-managable something as
large and POLITICALLY Motivated as the Federal Government is... that would NOT
be a good direction long-term for many Americans. But I understand that it
would be an improvement for many others.
Average health care spending (insurance plus out of pocket costs) per person was
$8,508 in the U.S. in 2011. The next highest spending country was Norway at
$5,669—one third less. Other countries pay half of what we pay or less.
The comparable figures are $4,522 for Canada, $4,495 in Germany, $4,118 in
France, $3,925 in Sweden, $3,800 in Australia, $3,405 in the U.K. and $3,182 in
New Zealand. Also the death rate for people who have conditions
amenable to treatment is 96/100,000 in the U.S. in France, the country with the
best stats, it is 55/100,000. I am OK with President Obama trying to
improve these figures even though there have been obvious mistakes made along
the way. Social Security, Medicare, and Medicare Part D all got off to rough
starts. They were all fixed and now all of them function smoothly, as will the
@ Roland. You should consider moving to Cuba, N. Korea or Iran. They have lots
of government intervention! Just think how very happy you could be there with
the government controlling your life!
Roland Kayser,Re: "I am OK with President Obama trying to
improve these figures"...How is Obama improving these figures?
His program did ZERO to change the cost (just who pays for it... ie promising it
won't be you).Deflecting the cost to somebody else doesn't
change the actual cost. It's smoke and mirrors to may you FEEL like
he's actually changing what we spend on healthcare.Whatever we
were paying before... I think it's safe to assume we will continue to pay
under this system. Sure you may be able to get the insurance company to pay it
(but who pays them? Hint - Premiums)...Or you may hope the
Government will pay it for you (but where do they get EVERY DOLLAR they spend on
healthcare... hit - taxes)...But the ACA does not actually change
how much each American pays for healthcare. It may change your out-of-pocket
expense... but somebody else has to cover the rest (insurance or the
The constitution does allow for the "general welfare", not individual
welfare. Big difference.
A good argument can be made that health care is interstate commerce and thus
falls under the purview of Congress. Virtually all medical supplies move across
state lines. Medical teams frequently travel, and so do patients, for medical
care. I myself recently went to another state for a procedure because the
expertise was there.
"The U.S. Constitution . . . does not grant the federal government the right
to deal in the lives of individuals."Um, where exactly in the
Constitution does it say or even imply this? Most of the document is about
establishing a federal government and separating its powers among the three
branches. If the federal government does not "deal in the lives of
individuals," then what exactly does it "deal in," Don?
Corporations? Oh, wait, they are people too. So, which of the enumerated powers
in the Constitution that even Mike Richards would accept do not have an impact
on individual lives? Please, I'm in suspense. Are the conservatives going
to so strictly define the Constitution now that all government actions can have
no effect on anybody's life?This is the sort of logic that is
convincing lots of people that the conservative purity purges have
short-circuited even a pretense to reason.
@Mountanman: Apparently you can see no difference between Norway and North
So, Does the Supreme Court of the United States rule by the; Federalist Papers, or the Constitution?BTW -- Try
reading that Federal Paper and think how it would've applied to Slavery.The southern Confedercy would supercede the 14th Amendment, and Abraham
Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamtion would still be nill and void.Imagine that bleeding heart liberal Abraham Lincoln.stripping away the
Master's property like that and setting them free...
@ Roland- do you know the third largest employer in the world is the British
health service behind the Chinese Army and Indian Railway? How's that going
to work out in a nation of 300 million people? I can't imagine the hubris
of anyone that thinks the health care arrangements of 300 million people can be
administrated and micromanaged by unelected bureaucrats in DC. Not to mention
the arrogance of anyone who has so little faith in the American people that they
don't trust them to make their own decisions and health care
arrangements. The fact is Medicare is lousy insurance. Medicaid is even
worse which is why the study in Oregon showed that health outcomes for the
uninsured was better than for people on Medicaid. But some still insist on
"equality of garbage" for everyone. The fact is that America is
not the other countries you used as examples. It's just not and it never
will be. Canada's system may work for Canada but that doesn't mean it
would work here.
Obamacare is doing just fine, it's only the federal website that's a
problem. States like KY, OR, NY that set up their own Obamacare exchanges have
had a lot of success.
red state prideCottonwood Heights, UT@ Roland- do you know the third
largest employer in the world is the British health service behind the Chinese
Army and Indian Railway? How's that going to work out in a nation of 300
million people? ========== If you don't know the
difference between the NHS and the ACA, there's no use explaining any
further.BTW -- you left out WalMart, which also happens to sell
cheap goods produced by Communists in China to pay for that huge Communist
Army.In 1776, that would have been considered Treason.
In 2001 Barack Obama described the Constitution as "a charter of negative
liberties" when caught on tape talking about redistribution of wealth and
race. That shows even HE realizes that the Constitution outlines the things the
Government can NOT do to it's citizens. It outlines the rights the PEOPLE
have (vs the rights the GOVERNMENT has).So if Obama understands
this... you would think modern progressives could accept that too.But then he went on to call it "Fundamentally flawed" from the
beginning (now how's that for a resounding endorsement of the Founding
Fathers work from a Democrat elitist who claims to support the Constitution
publicly but obviously doesn't like it very much).Then he
criticized the Warren Court for not being "radical enough"... saying,
"it wasn't that radical. It didnt break free from the essential
constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the
Constitution".So he thinks we need to BREAK FREE from the
constraints of the founding fathers and the Constitution.... that doesn't
sound like someone who SUPPORTS the Constitution. That's someone who
wants to supplant the Constitution.
re:redstatepride"the third largest employer in the world is the
British health service behind the Chinese Army and Indian Railway?"Wrong (of course).The largest world employers are:U.S. Dept of
Defense 3.2 millionPeople's Liberation Army China 2.3 millionWalmart 2.1 millionMacDonalds 1.9 millionUK National Health
Service 1.7 millionChina National Petroleum Corp 1.6 millionIndian
Railways 1.4 million
@ Open minded Mormon- how is it what Walmart does treasonous? Are they operating
outside of the law? What about Target, Costco, Macy's, Shopko, Kmart,
Smith's etc etc? Are they treasonous also? Am I a traitor because I own
stock in and shop at Walmart? Yes, I know the difference between the ACA
and the NHS. My comment was directed at Roland who is basically honest about the
health system he prefers (single payer) unlike Obama, Harry Reid, and Nancy
Pelosi. Of course they all want single payer. Why don't they have the guts
to say it? At least Conservatives are honest about what they want and don't
try to backdoor everything- e.g. unelected bureaucrats at the EPA shutting down
coal-fired power plants. If you knew anything about 1776 you'd know
that one of the big reasons we went to war with the British was that the British
wanted to force the colonists to buy sugar from the British East India company
at inflated prices. In other words " no free trade". As a conservative I
am in favor of free trade- unlike you I like free choice.
Re: Twin Lights"Too bad the Supreme Court doesn't know
about this thing called the Federalist Papers . . ."Too bad the
Federalist Papers are simply opinions written by some people. They are not
representative of all the Founding Father's opinions. Other Founding
Fathers had different opinions. Too bad they are not official governement
documents either. Re: Mountanman"@ Roland. You
should consider moving to Cuba, N. Korea or Iran. They have lots of government
intervention! Just think how very happy you could be there with the government
controlling your life!"Why would Roland move to any of those
countries? He already lives in Utah, which does very well with their government
intervention controlling citizens' lives.
@red state pride12:20 p.m. Nov. 15, 2013@ Open minded Mormon-
how is it what Walmart does treasonous? [The FoundingFathers slapped
huge tariffs on foreign made goods -- they were smart enough to realize it was
the only way to stay a free and independant Nation.]My comment was
directed at Roland who...prefers (single payer)Of course they all want
single payer. [as do I - that explains us contributing to that 59%
who don't want Obamacare.]At least Conservatives are honest
about what they want and don't try to backdoor everything- [You
mean like when Sen. Mike Lee said he'd shutdwon the Government, and then he
said he didn't?]If you knew anything about 1776 you'd
know...[Benjamin Franklin went to England repreesenting the British
citizens in the Amwerican Colonies. He was berated, mocked, and ridiculed by the
"Lords" in Parliment, as being subhuman, told they were not British at
all. Franklin later wrote - "I went in as loyal citizen of Great Britan, I
went out an American." He returned and signed the Declartion of
Independance.]- unlike you I like free choice.[So, you now
support pro-choice, marijuana, and gay marriage?]
Truthseeker,I think it's kinda bogus to compare Governments and
Corporations as if they are the same (in your list of employers). Government
employers and corporate employers are obviously not an apple-apple comparison.
If it were... you could easily say the US Government was the biggest
employer.The DOD and the Red Army don't belong in the same list
as McDonalds and Walmart. Do you really think the Red Army or the DOD report
all their spending like a corporation on the stock exchange? Not hardly.If you combined all healthcare companies, clinics, hospitals, doctors,
nurses, etc, and all the insurance companies in the United States, and grouped
them into one big corporation (which is what the British health service is)...
It would be pretty big. I don't know if DOD or Red Army big... but
it's big.This may be fun to bicker about which is the biggest
employer... but it really has nothing to do with the topic.Regardless of whether the British health service is #3 or not... is it really
the role of a Constitutional Republic (like the US Government) to be running a
humungous Healthcare Company?
Don Olsen said in his letter:"The U.S. Constitution ... does not
grant the federal government the right to deal in the lives of
individuals."Get real Don.I avoided being DRAFTED
into the U S Army in 1973 by JOINING the U S Army Reserve. I, as an individual,
decided to have a little say in my life and fate. Being 1-A, and 22 years of
age at the time, my "federal government" had plans for my next 2 years.
I call that "deal"ing "in the lives of individuals".What do you think Don? Did the draft "deal in the lives of
Correction:The year was 1963. Sort of pre-Vietnam. Almost all of
my drill instructors had already been there as of the spring of 1964 at Fort
Ord, California. B-2-3.
Cavetroll,Sorry. I guess my sarcasm light was not on.My
point was that folks wax on and on and ON about the Constitution or the
Federalist Papers like they just discovered them in a box somewhere and are the
first to read them.The truth is there are folks on both sides of
nearly every issue who are quite familiar with these documents. That
familiarity does not provide us with a neat resolution to the issues we grapple
with.But, I do think the Federalist Papers are helpful for
understanding the founders' original intent. Not that that should be our
only guide, but it is helpful.Better?
@open minded mormon I'm pro-choice as long as the unborn baby also
gets a choice whether to live or die. I believe the decisions you present me
with should be left up to states and not forced down the throats of everyone in
a nation of 300 million people. I am personally opposed to legalized marijuana
but I think the citizens of the different states should decide that for
themselves. I have no problem with CO and Wa legalizing marijuana use. I am
personally opposed to gay marriage but if the people of Vermont for example
wants gay marriage more power to them. But as a good liberal you can't
tolerate people who don't think like you. You and your kind want to force
everyone into the same lousy health care system and to force everyone to accept
unlimited abortions, gay marriage etc It's true that those who preach
tolerance the loudest are always the most intolerant.
@Red State PrideSpeaking to you as one of the liberals you mentioned, let
me point out that gay marriage and marijuana are very different issues than
"forcing everyone into the same lousy healthcare system" What is your
solution to having the highest cost of coverage in the world? Every single
person in this country will eventually utilize the healthcare system, and
healthcare is expensive, and an unexpected illness could cost you thousands to
millions of dollars, ie, a broken leg treated at the ER without insurance is
going to be 5 grand, if you get severely burned or a flesh eating disease or
need a transplant you can rack up millions of dollars in medical expenses in a
couple months. And without insurance everyone else gets stuck with the bill. How
do you deal with this problem without everyone being covered? Whether it's
a free market solution like the ACA, a single payer, ie Medicare for all, or
universal healthcare(like the NHS in England) If you don't like those
options what do you do beside means testing before covering patients? Because
the old system isn't working for anyone.
"promote the general welfare""Your fear of Federal
intervention is unwarranted."Remember when a fire was used to
demonize a group of people (the communists) and the resultant fascist state that
arose. Words like these were used. Do I think we are headed the same
direction? Not sure, but I do see a dependent class that will accept anything
in exchange for a loaf of bread (Obama phone?). The conditions are being set
for the same kind of movement that gave rise to one of the most brutal regimes
in history. I pray that we are not headed in that direction but the
potentials are there.The solution is to maintain the idea of
negative rights for the government. John Roberts encroached on that fine line
with his ruling on the ACA. Sad.Now we have a president modifying
the law of the land without congressional approval (anybody remember the
"enabling act of 1933"?)I am not a revolutionary...I just
remember my history.
Therefore, health care should be a federal (inter-state) affair, available to
and paid for by all regardless of location, and free of interference from
states, employers or churches.
Let's see. The ACA was passed by the House and Senate. It was signed into
law by the President. Its constitutionality was challenged, and reviewed by the
Supreme Court. It was found constitution, in a decision written by the Chief
Justice. So, yeah, it's Constitutional, entirely and completely. Now, can we talk about something interesting?
@Mike in Cedar City: "... Aren't you forgetting about the preamble to
the constitution that authorizes the Federal Government to 'promote the
general welfare?'"Therein lies the problem. Obamacare is
'specific' welfare. 'General' welfare covers things like
assuring clean air/water (EPA), secure banks (FDIC), safe air travel (FAA),
regulated communications (FCC), secure borders (DHS), etc.@Roland
Kayser: "Average health care spending (insurance plus out of pocket costs)
per person was $8,508 in the U.S. in 2011...."The US is high
because of affluence. Americans have more money to spend on healthcare compared
to, say, New Zealand Maoris.@2 bits: "How is Obama improving
these figures?"Easy... he will decide who gets care...
especially when it comes to the elderly who've passed useful time of life
(called death panels). We know because Obama has already told these folks to...
'go home and pain a painkiller.' This will save billions since
oldsters require substantially more care.@Irony Guy: "A good
argument can be made that health care is interstate commerce and thus falls
under the purview of Congress."Congress is to
'regulate' not 'own' commerce. And only
@E Sam:"The ACA was passed by the House and Senate."... With absolutely zero, nil, nada Republican support or vote."Its constitutionality was challenged, and reviewed by the Supreme Court.
It was found constitution..."The court ruled only that the
'penalty' could be assessed and collected under constitutional taxing
authority as a 'tax.' The court held that the law could not be upheld
under the Commerce Clause, which was the government's primary argument in
its support. The court said, 'The Federal Government does not have the
power to order people to buy health insurance.'"Now, can we
talk about something interesting?"Yeah, let's talk about
immigration law... which Obama has not only completely ignored enforcement but
violated it by giving amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants.
@Samson01, Raising the Reichstag fire in the context of current
American politics requires considerable substantiation, not vague accusatory
whispers and comments about remembering history. I remember history too, and
more importantly I remember the context of that history. I get that people
feel strongly about the current administration. But if you're going to put
that sort of parallel out there, back it up.
When we say that we have too many governments, we are not just talking about the
federal, state, county and every neighborhood has a government, we also must
include religion, race, sex, school and business and also mom and dad. We need many different governments because we need to be controlled in
so many ways. Ideally we would divide the controlling influence between the
governments allowing each to control a specific area of our lives. Trouble is,
when we give someone the right to control our life, they often use that control
to glom onto our wealth. The real trouble comes when several of the governments
want to control the same areas of activity. We should have a
national referendum to change our Constitution to eliminate the excessive
governments and give us a plan for living in our century and not that of 200
years ago. The existing governments will never allow themselves
to be eliminated voluntarily, so it must be done by the people, hopefully by
vote but if necessary, by any means available. As alluded to in the
Declaration of Independence. Do you want to be an American or
governed by some other entity?
Truthseeker. The largest, organizations in the world are religions.
They control more money, more people and more land than any other government or
business operation. And they are dictatorial in their government.
Re:Res NovaeI am glad you are not ignorant to the events I was
alluding to. So...I assume you read the rest of my post as well.
The events I refer to indicate a pattern. I was expressing my fears that some
of the elements exist in our country today. Unfortunatley a four post limit at
200 words at a time do not do justice to any topic.I am assuming by
the tone of your response that you disagree with me? You said "But if
you're going to put that sort of parallel out there, back it up."I did give two examples of where I felt there were parallel events that
suggested steps outside of the bounds of the proper role of our leaders. I
could name many more. Do you disagree that our president has operated outside
the bounds of his appointed role? I hope that you will not cite the actions of
Bush because I believe that he stepped outside the bounds of his role as well.
We need to bring each branch of government back into their appropriate roles to
preserve our constitution. There have been many precedences set recently that
@Samson01, No, the give and take of branches of government has been
a feature throughout American history. The Reichstag fire has nothing in common
with that history. There is nothing like it in American history, except in the
minds of those who think the CIA killed Kennedy and the World Trade Center was
part of a Bush plot. You certainly have offered up nothing comparable to it.
Perspective is necessary. Finding fascism in the acts of our
leaders is a serious charge requiring substantiation. Invoking the spectre of
the Third Reich is irresponsible and inimical to the civil discourse our nation
Samson1,Please look up Godwin's Law.
You are right, 2Bits, it is not the words General Welfare that are in the
Preamble that are the point, it is the words General Welfare that is in Article
I, section 8 that is the issue: "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; "".
. . provide for the common defense and general Welfare. . . "Now
we just have to define what "general Welfare" means. And how do you
think we do that? That's right, through SCOTUS. A procedure that is laid
out in the Constitution.
The problem with Samson01 equating the current American adminsitration to
Fascist Nazis only goes to show he doesn't really understand history.The 3rd Reich - led by the Nazi Party - was a severly right-wing
group.They were:Uber National, and ultra Patriotic to the
Fatherland, They dispised, labeled, rerated, and then concentrated,
and later mass murdered millions of their fellow citizens just for being; Jews, Communists, Liberals, illegal Immigrants, homeless and unemployed, homosexuals, drug addicts, and
other "vermin" to Society.They banned and outlawed;Abotions, pornography, and conflicting Political Parties or
Ideologies.The felt they needed to return Germany to former
"Glory Days".This is the group I fear and watch out for the
most here in America, and it doesn't take a Professor of History to
recognized who they are...
Mike in Cedar: Lenin would love to promote the "general welfare".
Anybody who wants to justify the federal government doing anything it wants
under the auspices of the "general welfare" clause must think of our
government as God, rather than man made. Read the whole constitution before
making such ignorant and unwarranted justifications for federal mischief.
Roland Kaiser: Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare running smoothly,
efficiently, and in financially sound in perpetuity? Who are you kidding? Turn
on the lights! Anyone that talks about the stability of those programs and how
much they have helped the poor is suspect in their thinking processes.