Quantcast
Opinion

Letter: Federal intervention

Comments

Return To Article
  • No One Of Consequence West Jordan, UT
    Nov. 15, 2013 1:09 a.m.

    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
    Nov. 15, 2013 6:32 a.m.

    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
    Nov. 15, 2013 7:11 a.m.

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

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    Nov. 15, 2013 7:57 a.m.

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

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    Nov. 15, 2013 8:13 a.m.

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

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Nov. 15, 2013 8:14 a.m.

    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
    Nov. 15, 2013 8:33 a.m.

    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
    Nov. 15, 2013 8:44 a.m.

    @ 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
    Nov. 15, 2013 9:05 a.m.

    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
    Nov. 15, 2013 9:07 a.m.

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

  • Irony Guy Bountiful, Utah
    Nov. 15, 2013 9:13 a.m.

    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
    Nov. 15, 2013 9:51 a.m.

    "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
    Nov. 15, 2013 9:54 a.m.

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

  • airnaut Everett, 00
    Nov. 15, 2013 10:10 a.m.

    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
    Nov. 15, 2013 10:38 a.m.

    @ 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
    Nov. 15, 2013 11:21 a.m.

    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
    Nov. 15, 2013 11:31 a.m.

    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
    Nov. 15, 2013 12:09 p.m.

    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
    Nov. 15, 2013 12:17 p.m.

    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
    Nov. 15, 2013 12:20 p.m.

    @ 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.

  • cavetroll SANDY, UT
    Nov. 15, 2013 12:56 p.m.

    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.

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    Nov. 15, 2013 1:01 p.m.

    @red state pride
    12:20 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?]

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Nov. 15, 2013 1:02 p.m.

    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?

  • William Gronberg Payson, UT
    Nov. 15, 2013 1:54 p.m.

    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 individuals"?

  • William Gronberg Payson, UT
    Nov. 15, 2013 2:04 p.m.

    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.

  • Twin Lights Louisville, KY
    Nov. 15, 2013 2:25 p.m.

    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?

  • red state pride Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Nov. 15, 2013 2:49 p.m.

    @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.

  • Noodlekaboodle Poplar Grove, UT
    Nov. 15, 2013 4:13 p.m.

    @Red State Pride
    Speaking 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.

  • Samson01 S. Jordan, UT
    Nov. 15, 2013 4:41 p.m.

    "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.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Nov. 15, 2013 5:28 p.m.

    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.

  • E Sam Provo, UT
    Nov. 15, 2013 9:14 p.m.

    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?

  • wrz Phoenix, AZ
    Nov. 15, 2013 10:13 p.m.

    @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 'interstate' kind.

  • Alfred Phoenix, AZ
    Nov. 16, 2013 12:24 a.m.

    @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.

  • Res Novae Ashburn, VA
    Nov. 16, 2013 6:12 a.m.

    @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.

  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Nov. 16, 2013 11:55 a.m.

    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?

  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Nov. 16, 2013 12:10 p.m.

    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.

  • Samson01 S. Jordan, UT
    Nov. 16, 2013 5:15 p.m.

    Re:Res Novae

    I 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 endanger us.

  • Res Novae Ashburn, VA
    Nov. 16, 2013 9:02 p.m.

    @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 needs.

  • Twin Lights Louisville, KY
    Nov. 16, 2013 10:25 p.m.

    Samson1,

    Please look up Godwin's Law.

  • mark Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 17, 2013 3:02 p.m.

    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.

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    Nov. 18, 2013 8:54 a.m.

    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...

  • bandersen Saint George, UT
    Nov. 19, 2013 9:20 a.m.

    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.

  • bandersen Saint George, UT
    Nov. 19, 2013 10:19 a.m.

    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.