Column:
Health care proposal the end of states' rights
Published Feb. 5, 2010
With the election of Scott Brown, R-Mass., to the U.S. Senate, it is clear the American people oppose President Barack Obama's attempt at health care reform. Despite this election, Obama is still encouraging Congress to pass his health care bill.
This is just one example of how states' rights have been diminishing over the years. This is exactly opposite what our founding fathers wanted. In the Tenth Amendment, rights not explicitly given to the federal government are left to individual states.
With Obama's health care plan, I can't help but ask where these rights are represented. The federal government is trying to force every American citizen to buy health care. This is evident in an ABC interview with Obama from November, where he said penalties for not having health insurance were "appropriate."
Washington claims it can force people to buy health care under their right to regulate commerce, but not all Americans want health care. Some don't feel it's important; others take good enough care of themselves so they don't need it.
So now people who choose not to buy health care coverage will be forced to comply by the federal government or risk a penalty. This is wrong. The government should not have the right to dictate mandatory health coverage.
If we allow the federal government to force us to buy health care, it will continue to abuse this power until it dictates our lives.
First, the government forces us to buy health care. Then it's life insurance. Finally, it starts telling us what types of clothes to buy. Once we give the federal government the power to intrude in our lives, when will it stop?
After allowing big brother in, he becomes nearly impossible to remove. By permanently forcing health care on us, we will be stuck with this coverage, no matter how terrible it is.
Thankfully, we do have elected officials who are standing up for our rights. State Sen. Jim Lembke, R-St. Louis, who has been called the "Sovereignty King," has introduced a resolution re-declaring Missouri's 10th Amendment rights.
The symbolic legislation from the St. Louis Republican is expected to face tough opposition from Democrats who want the federal government, especially Obama, to run their lives. But the federal government is violating the 10th Amendment, and they need to be reminded they can't intrude on states' rights.
If socialized medicine is what the far left wants, it would be better if each state chose the system it prefers. This way, people still have the freedom of choice. If they want to participate in government-run health care, then they can move to a state that has socialized medicine.
If citizens want the opportunity to choose the type and quality of health care, they can move to a state without this system. By giving states back their rights, we will have more choices and a more diverse America, which is what our forefathers intended.
Freedom is the right to make your own choices in life, as long as those choices do not hurt others. If the government forces us to buy health care, it takes away our choice and limits freedom.
America is the home of the free, but we cannot achieve that freedom by taking away rights.
Clay Carter is a sophomore finance major and an intern for state Sen. Jim Lembke, R-St. Louis. He can be reached at ccp6c@mail.missouri.edu
Comments (9)
2:45 a.m., Feb. 5, 2010
rothstein said:
Find instant medical insurance for your family from http://bit.ly/atGzeD
3:09 a.m., Feb. 5, 2010
robert adams said:
this health care is not about care it's about making people do the right thing i know lots of people who wont buy insurance but will run to the emerency room all the time and dont pay they tell me they dont need it the will just go to the emerency room for free and drive up my cost
3:12 a.m., Feb. 5, 2010
Ross Archer said:
"...not all Americans want health care. Some don't feel it's important; others take good enough care of themselves so they don't need it." Well, this is 100% false. Any person might encounter a life-threatening emergency or chronic disease, no matter how carefully they take care of themselves. We all get sick and die, and there is nobody who does not need coverage for health care unless they just don't care if they die. This is the simple fact of the matter, and not open to reasonable debate.
5:44 a.m., Feb. 5, 2010
Dan1967 said:
The 10th amendment does not say "rights explicitly given to the federal government" as you say in your article. Here is the 10th amendment "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." The Conservative U.S. Supreme Court Judges often times rule against the people (the individual) and for the State. A "State" is a form of government control. The 14th amendment limits the power of the States. Requiring everyone to have health care insurance is more freedom, not less freedom. When people have health care insurance they will have more freedom because they won't have as many diseases and illnesses, and they will have more financial freedom. People will have freedom from stress because they will know that they don't have to decide between paying for a roof over their head and their medication. The Democrats are the party that values individual freedom, not the Republicans.
6:50 a.m., Feb. 5, 2010
Lioness said:
Right on. The states can make these decisions. The Constitution was designed to protect the rights of states and citizens. Where it is week, we need amendments so that the Federal Government does not trample on all our freedoms.
9:18 p.m., Feb. 5, 2010
Brandon said:
Neither side truly values individual liberty. They both pick and choose what issues they favor liberty and which ones they favor gov't mandate or control on. Truth is, libertarians like me are much closer to the Founders' vision. And unfortunately, states' rights has essentially been dead at least since 1865 or '63 (Emancipation Proclamation). It didn't start with this bill or even Roe. The main problem with the Dems' bill is that it doesn't really do much to target real costs of procedures and treatments and drugs. It just mainly increases the level of insurance and moral hazard. People seem to forget that, while cosmetic surgery and Lasik are by no means cheap, they're A LOT cheaper than when they were first introduced thanks to competition in an open market. Health insurance doesn't cover those 2, so providers have to be responsive to consumer demands. It's not so with insurance. Since you're not paying much out of pocket at the hospital or doctor's office, there's no reason for real competition in the market. Most desirable would be Medical Savings Accounts for middle or upper-middle-class folks and maybe even some lower class who decide to start saving, coupled with a catastrophic insurance plan. Health insurance should be used for emergencies only, not routine procedures or treatments that cost far less. Insurance in every other market is for the worst-case scenario. Why not HC too?
8:38 p.m., Feb. 6, 2010
Paul Beaird said:
Thanks Clay, Yours is a clear voice that takes us to the basics. "The right thing" is not something anyone can MAKE another person do. It is not the right thing unless the thinking, choosing, valuing person understands and sees it is good and chooses it for himself. What is not the right thing is forcing people past their own thinking to take actions just because YOU think it is right. The point of the Declaration of Independence in saying that securing rights is the only purpose for instituting government is that the freedom of choice and action of each and every individual is respected by government acting against those who use force to make others behave the way THEY think is "the right thing". Socialized medicine is a disaster in both cost and lack of quality in those countries that have it, including Canada and Massachussetts. Forcing socialism on human beings, giving them no further choice into the future is what we should have learned about from the history of the 20th century. But, Progressive ideologues don' learn from reality. As Amerca's moral philosopher, Ayn Rand, described the power lusters, "they don't want to live; they want you to die."
9:50 a.m., March 12, 2010
Matt said:
In a similar deflection technique to the one used to make abortion a religious issue and not a fiscal one, Obamacare supporters once again have shunted the light from its correct focus, which is the efficacy of health care, to the one that draws attention from their distorted agenda, the cost of health care. I would gladly pay 50% of my income towards a single payer system (which this is not, BTW) however, that system MUST ABSOLUTELY PROVIDE ME WITH ANY HEALTH CARE I WANT AT ANY TIME I WANT; I should not have to pay emergency room rates on weekends. I should not have to pay for a stubbed toe. I should not have to pay for a piece of dust in my eye or heart replacement surgery. Only a FOOL would ever believe that America's broken system of inaccurate reporting, inconsistent rates, and random additional fees could ever be WORTH 50% of my or any citizen's income. The issue is NOT whether people can AFFORD health care. Americans ALREADY pay for all health care. Even FREE clinics are paid for by philanthropists, for example. Uninsured emergency room visits are paid for by higher premiums. The issue is that hospitals and insurance companies cannot tell you beforehand how much a physical will cost. They just want to know who your insurer is. What they really want to know is who is paying, because they don't charge for services, they charge for coverage type. Until Obamacare supporters realize it is a QUALITY issue and realize the fact that all health care is already paid for in the USA, the public will never get what they deserve, which is a single payer system that covers any and all ailments regardless of location or severity.
2:40 a.m., Feb. 5, 2010
Nou said:
Every state has a drinking age of 21. Its not because of federal mandate, but because if they don't the Feds won't give them money for the interstate highway systems that run through their state. There are other ways to force states to do what the feds think is best and most states will bend over backwards. Like it or not most states in the union rely on federal funds to do a lot of their day-to-day business. Also, if you do not like the idea that people will be forced to buy insurance, than why is the right so against a government run insurance provider as an alternative to private insurance? We need health care reform in this country. We spend more than any other country in the world already on health care and yet we have one of the lowest qualities of care in the western 1st world. This is a broken system and all the right feels like doing is acting like sticks in the mud and negating ANYTHING. We are already screwed, the US is basically in Chinas pocket, so lets try some stuff out before they call in our already lethal debt. Think of it as the US being seriously wounded. Both sides know, deep down, that there is nothing we can do to bring ourselves out of this mess. It is the downfall of our country, and we are in triage mode. We will come out of this eventually but we will be a much weaker, poorer nation, no matter which side is in power. What Obama and crew are doing is making sure we only have to amputate one of our legs and not both. The right feels like just being in denial and before they know it our whole torso is gangrenous and we will be in for some much more major sacrifices. So while our government bickers and argues about who is more politically able to do what they think needs to be done the rest of us are tucking our heads between our legs and bracing for impact. Good luck to you, and to me because we are both going to need it.