Comments about ‘Letter: Federal intervention’

Return to article »

Published: Friday, Nov. 15 2013 12:00 a.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
No One Of Consequence
West Jordan, UT

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 bumpy ride.

Mike in Cedar City
Cedar City, Utah

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?

Twin Lights
Louisville, KY

Too bad the Supreme Court doesn't know about this thing called the Federalist Papers . . .

pragmatistferlife
salt lake city, utah

Can you just imagine Utah with no federal (societal) regulations?

Mountanman
Hayden, ID

Think its bad now, wait until the employer mandates hit us next year!

2 bits
Cottonwood Heights, UT

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.

Roland Kayser
Cottonwood Heights, UT

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 ACA.

Mountanman
Hayden, ID

@ 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!

2 bits
Cottonwood Heights, UT

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 Government).

KDave
Moab, UT

The constitution does allow for the "general welfare", not individual welfare. Big difference.

Irony Guy
Bountiful, Utah

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.

Kent C. DeForrest
Provo, UT

"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.

Roland Kayser
Cottonwood Heights, UT

@Mountanman: Apparently you can see no difference between Norway and North Korea.

airnaut
Everett, 00

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...

red state pride
Cottonwood 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? 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.

atl134
Salt Lake City, UT

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.

Open Minded Mormon
Everett, 00

red state pride
Cottonwood 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.

2 bits
Cottonwood Heights, UT

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.

Truthseeker
SLO, CA

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 million
People's Liberation Army China 2.3 million
Walmart 2.1 million
MacDonalds 1.9 million
UK National Health Service 1.7 million
China National Petroleum Corp 1.6 million
Indian Railways 1.4 million

red state pride
Cottonwood Heights, UT

@ 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.

to comment

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