Published: Friday, Nov. 15 2013 12:00 a.m. MST
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.
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments