...a word for which blood was shed and for which wars were fought...but, it seems we face, yet another, battle for "independence" as the Federal Government "courageously" voted for health reform legislation this past weekend. I'm not here to debate the bulleted points of the 2,000 page document but to let your voices be heard if you object to any "government option" that would basically allow the Government to make your choices for healthcare. If Social Security and Medicare aren't proof that "government-sponsored" programs have proven to be far from successful, then why do we allow MORE government interference in our choices for healthcare? Sorry, but, I like to make my own choices, and, not along "party lines"...
What do you think?
7 comments:
In general I agree that govt run programs are not run very efficiently, and i do worry that govt run healthcare will be more of the same- but things have gotten so bad in that industry that I just don't see any other option- the govt must intercede when greedy ppl/corporations take advantage of the less fortunate, less educated among us, for the good of society
social security began because too many ppl were starving on the streets when they got old- labor laws began b/c too many employers were abusing workers physically and financially- government regulation of financial markets began after the crash of '29 when investors bought on margin at a rate which inflated prices to levels that couldn't be sustained
the point is without govt regulation of critical life necessities, those with the power and control of these necessities will think nothing of limiting their access to others and deceiving others to make themselves rich
the free market must be allowed to run virtually unchecked to allow growth and prosperity- i dont have to buy a car if i dont want to or if i cant afford one, and the porshe dealer is allowed to sell it for any price he wants- but when it comes to the ability to get well when u r sick, i have no choice but to pay the asking price as high as it may be- the insurance companies know this, and so they get away with the bankbreaking premiums and laugh all the way to the bank as a majority of ppl suffer and struggle to pay meet their demands
this just isnt right- i see greed of insurance companies in the same light as forcing children to sell newspapers for pennies a day and as having factory workers operate in dangerous environments- inefficient as they might be, the govt has to step in for the greater good of society like they did time and time again in the progressive era- if they do a bad job we can always use the ballotbox to elect ppl to run the program more efficiently
To be honest I just want a solution so people can stop stressing over it. Why can't the government just come up with some simple solution? If they took over health care completely and made it some form of national tax there wouldn't be all these problems with feeling like your being ripped off by the company so they can make money. If the government ran health care completely and we don't like what's going on at the time we can just like Mr. Marcus said, "we can always use the ballotbox to elect ppl to run the program more efficiently."
Good points, gentlemen...I don't see the role of Gov't, however, to police the free market, regardless of the "greed, etc." that shuts out those seeking 'care...but, must the Gov't always intercede on behalf of its people when capitalism/free market systems run slipshod over the consumer - remember, the key word is "consumer". Just as you stated, Dan M, we can "vote out" Companies X, Y, or Z by buying elsewhere. Is it the role of the Feds to take care of all of the free market problems? the other debate is whether healthcare is a right, guaranteed by the Constitution - gotta check that one out...I'll get back to you guys later...excellent discussion!
............
"Speaker Nancy Pelosi has issued a press release in which she purports to rebut those of us who have expressed doubts about the constitutionality of some health care reform plans.
Pelosi (or her ghostwriter) claims:
“The 10th amendment to the U.S. Constitution states that the powers not delegated to the federal government by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states… or to the people. But the Constitution gives Congress broad power to regulate activities that have an effect on interstate commerce. Congress has used this authority to regulate many aspects of American life, from labor relations to education to health care to agricultural production. Since virtually every aspect of the heath care system has an effect on interstate commerce, the power of Congress to regulate health care is essentially unlimited. (bolded in original).
"First, it fails to mention a concern expressed by many constitutional scholars, including those on the Left: Substantive due process.
“Substantive due process” is the doctrine by which the Supreme Court strikes down laws it deems unacceptably interfere with personal privacy or autonomy. Health care laws that, for example, limit one’s ability to fund and control one’s own health care could well run afoul of substantive due process rules.
The key words here are PERSONAL PRIVACY/AUTONOMY...by a stretch, maybe not, if one is forced to forgo either PERSONAL PRIVACY or AUTONOMY in choosing one's heath-care provider, then such legislation is "unconstitutional"...one cannot be forced to accept healthcare from the Fed. Govt...Hmmm...
interesting argument- id like to compare the legality of healthcare reform to the legality of other progressive era type reforms done on a national level- how were those legal at the time? how could govt force ppl to pay into social security for instance??- after all its not really a tax its supposed to be a kind of forced communal savings right??
You're right. And, we've compromised with social security as well...so, when will we wake up from our complacency and realize our autonomy and free choices have been "stolen" by the silent thief in the night" - except, we've kept the door open!
Excellent points, DM!
Post a Comment