news-record.com

Skip to the site menu
Skip to search

OPINION

Passing health reform was right thing to do

Wednesday, November 11, 2009
(Updated 3:00 am)

I am so glad the U.S. House of Representatives passed the health reform bill.

I am in that so-called senior citizen category, but regardless of age, I would have voted for passage of the legislation because its just the right thing, the most humane thing to do. Millions upon millions of Americans are without the most basic form of health insurance.
I regret very much that so many of our lawmakers are making such a mess out of something that is so needed, so necessary.

They ought to know better.

I know some like Rep. Virginia Foxx, R-N.C., and Howard Coble, R-N.C., know better. Some day, somehow, somewhere they will have to atone for this abject foolishness.

J. R. Smith
Kernersville
 

Comments

View Comments

This letter has been closed to new comments. Comments are accepted on select letters to the editor between the hours of 7 AM and 5 PM, EDT, Monday through Friday.

Inappropriate content? Please report abuse.

brian444

November 11, 2009 - 3:53 am EST

Because IT'S the right thing to do?

danagain

November 11, 2009 - 6:28 am EST

My thought exactly brian. Never mind that we cannot afford this new entitlement as our govt. has drowned this country in unsustainable debt. Giving Neo and every American a new Tahoe is the right thing to do also.

Cool your heels JR, this has a long way to go in the Senate and will get amended. Not to mention the Senate has it's lengthy vacation ahead.

Sawdust

November 11, 2009 - 12:28 pm EST

Whar frustrates me is that none of the so-called conservatives challenge the libs on the constitutional authority for the feds to take over the medical care of the nation. It isn't there. I know the Constitution is just an amusing, outdated document for leftists, but I would hope that it would mean something to someone who matters.

J D R

November 11, 2009 - 2:17 pm EST

Well I'm not a "lib", Sawdust, but your statement simply isn't true ... OK .. the words "medical care of the nation" are not in there .. but neither is the word "Church" ... and the "Army" is specifically limited to two years.

However ... the words "promote the general welfare" are right at the top [welfare as in health, happiness, or prosperity; well-being] and inside are the words "Power To lay and collect Taxes [to] provide for the ... general Welfare (worth repeating: Welfare as in health .. ) of the United States."

I'm just saying its not a good argument.

Brekka

November 11, 2009 - 3:04 pm EST

Remember that general welfare includes: sending us to jail because we can't afford government health insurance, the fact the HR 3962 will discontinue Medicare Advantage program, the language end-of-life counseling is still in the bill.

J D R

November 11, 2009 - 4:02 pm EST

since 30% of healthcare monies are spent on the last year of life, I for one am OK with both end-of-life counseling and soylent green.

Brekka

November 12, 2009 - 8:01 am EST

well, I'm not willing to watch my parents suffer. Someday, you will be over 65 and wish you didn't say what you just said.

J D R

November 12, 2009 - 3:45 pm EST

.. no I won't, Brekka. There's an expression - "Everyone wants to goto heaven but no one wants to die."

But I am not afraid of death, nor worried about "going to Heaven" . I mean all that sincerely

JGALT

November 11, 2009 - 3:37 pm EST

I think Section 8 is applicable as an argument against this healthcare legislation as the legislation does not "promote the general welfare of the United States". Congress is authorized to lay and "collect taxes...to pay the debts"... The fiscal irresponsibility of this administration and Congress, does not promote the general welfare. The track record of unfunded liabilities for entitlement programs in additon to incurring new and enormous debt for new entitlement programs is not promoting the general welfare. When solutions such as tort reform and compelling competition across state lines for health insurance companies are known and ignored-- this Congress and this administration are illigitimate.

When unprecedented deficits are incurred to promote cronyism instead of addressing a national economic crisis, it does not promote the general welfare and it violates the constitution and the Congressional oaths of office "...I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of this office..." Obama won an election-- he was not elected to do this.

J D R

November 11, 2009 - 4:08 pm EST

partisan, galt. At least you could have said: "The fiscal irresponsibility of EVERY administration except for Jimmy Carter .. and I'm not kidding ... "

Agreed unfunded liabilities / entitlement programs are a problem, but let's at least be fair.

I'm good with tort reform - except 1) limits on strictly medical tort is only a partial solution. If you're gonna do it, do it universally .. affect all bogus court action, and 2) actually I think limiting it at all is the wrong approach. Simply reverting to the Tax code of 1964 will solve that problem & a whole bunch more.

" .. competition across state lines .. " I guess. It seems too hyped to live up to the promise.

"When unprecedented deficits are incurred to promote cronyism instead of addressing a national economic crisis .. " You still talking about Bush43?

JGALT

November 11, 2009 - 4:18 pm EST

Obama is the President. He owns his unprecedented choices. We see what he's doing and what he stands for. It makes no difference who did what before.

J D R

November 11, 2009 - 4:38 pm EST

"It makes no difference who did what before."

Let's see if I follow this logic .. had on January 20th we held zero national debt and were operating a balanced budget ... with everything else holding (like GDP etc.) and THEN Obama spent the $2 Trillion or so he has spent so far .. mostly "stimulous" which is fairly universally agreed as necessary .. folks would be as rabidly concerned as they now act?

Sawdust

November 11, 2009 - 9:00 pm EST

And James Madison, who probably had as much knowledge about the Constitution as you seem to think you have, said that the general welfare clause referred ONLY to those powers specifically listed in the Constitution. Otherwise, any expenditure of public money or expansion of government power could be filed under the "general welfare", rendering the document completely useless. Which it pretty much is these days, to politicians of both major parties.

rahrah

November 12, 2009 - 2:26 am EST

Maybe Old J.MAD shoulda written that in there....

J D R

November 12, 2009 - 4:02 am EST

"Madison .. said that the general welfare clause referred ONLY to those powers specifically listed in the Constitution. Otherwise, any expenditure of public money or expansion of government power could be filed under the 'general welfare', rendering the document completely useless."

The Fed papers are difficult to read and hard to understand, but I don't see your interpretation. Help Me out, Mr. Sawdust

Fed Paper #41:

"Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity, which, as we are reduced to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection or on the authors of the Constitution, we must take the liberty of supposing, had not its origin with the latter."

http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fed41.htm

I read while limiting the powers, he was also providing a bit of wiggle room .. as citing every little thing "would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases"

J D R

November 12, 2009 - 6:52 am EST

#26"

" ..that greater energy of government is essential to the welfare and prosperity of the community. "

#45:

"We have heard of the impious doctrine in the Old World, that the people were made for kings, not kings for the people. ... the real welfare of the great body of the people, is the supreme object to be pursued; and that no form of government whatever has any other value than as it may be fitted for the attainment of this object."

J D R

November 12, 2009 - 6:55 am EST

.... none of which is to imply that the Constitution DEMANDS a federal take-over of the health care .. but I also see nothing that excludes it .. and also note all the words & paragraphs & entore letters AGAINST a standing Army. Was there an Amendment allowing the standing army?

JGALT

November 12, 2009 - 7:27 am EST

There was much concern expressed re: separation of powers, checks and balances. The Federalist Papers warned against unpopular policy and tyranny of a majority. We now have policy that does not command a majority and has strong opposition. Madison, Hamilton and Jay would be heating up the tar and getting the feathers ready for Pilosi and Reid.

dcolin

November 12, 2009 - 10:59 pm EST

Ah
Sawdust the Junior College Scholar explains the constitution.

dcolin

November 11, 2009 - 4:03 pm EST

"constitutional authority for the feds to take over the medical care of the nation."

Sawdust.
Do you really believe this?

Honestly.

Sawdust

November 11, 2009 - 11:29 pm EST

If you believe the feds have Constitutional authority to take over health care, cite the Article and Section, please. As jdr would say, thanks in advance. And don't pull that "general welfare" b. s. that jdr tried, it doesn't fly.

J D R

November 12, 2009 - 7:01 am EST

I didn't "pull that", Sawdust .. I merely said using only things that are expressly listedin the Constitution - the exact word argument - is not a good argument.

J D R

November 12, 2009 - 4:03 am EST

"Madison .. said that the general welfare clause referred ONLY to those powers specifically listed in the Constitution. Otherwise, any expenditure of public money or expansion of government power could be filed under the 'general welfare', rendering the document completely useless."

The Fed papers are difficult to read and hard to understand, but I don't see your interpretation. Help Me out, Mr. Sawdust

Fed Paper #41:

"Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity, which, as we are reduced to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection or on the authors of the Constitution, we must take the liberty of supposing, had not its origin with the latter."

http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fed41.htm

I read while limiting the powers, he was also providing a bit of wiggle room .. as citing every little thing "would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases"

==

Elsewhere:

welfare

"No matches found"
http://www.marksquotes.com/Founding-Fathers/Madison/
http://www.constitution.org/jm/jm_quotes.htm
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/j/james_madison_4.html (all four pages)
http://americanhistory.about.com/cs/jamesmadison/a/quotemadison.htm

dcolin

November 12, 2009 - 5:12 pm EST

I don't have to site anything.

If they can't the Supreme Court will.

Surely you know that

"Article and Section, please"

Sawdust

Thats Bureaucrat talk.
I thought you were above that.

xeno10

November 11, 2009 - 4:08 am EST

J. R. Smith of Kernersville, "We, the People" should demand that Howard Coble and Virginia Foxx and other Congress members (House and Senate) who vote against health care reform give-up their own government-paid health care! Give it up for themselves and their families! And let them vie for themselves in the private sector that they so adore! Seriously.

Sawdust

November 11, 2009 - 9:33 am EST

How about those who voted for it? They're the ones who should be made to suffer under the laws they pass for the rest of us poor suckers to obey. THEY don't have any intention of giving up their plans, which should be a clue even to someone as clueless as xeno.

Every single day, millions of patients and millions of doctors make millions of decisions about medical care. To believe that a federal government bureaucracy can somehow do it better and cheaper is delusional. They have proven time and again that they are not competent to do so, yet you fools continue to put your faith in the competence and integrity of the government.

tonymo

November 11, 2009 - 12:27 pm EST

Hey xeon 10, you idiot, you got it exactly backwards. Those fools who VOTED FOR this disaster should be required to participate. In fact, those hypocrites voted down an amendment to make them do just that!

Your ignorance is astounding. their inusrance IS PROVIDED BY PRIVATE INSURERS! Yo are affected by the double whammy of stupidity and ignorance!

J.M.W.

November 11, 2009 - 1:24 pm EST

Tonymo, Dont't let xeno know where your goat's tied. xeno is a diminutive, closet homo who sucks all the dignity out of a room with his contrariness. Like a gnat in front of its mother.

J D R

November 11, 2009 - 2:11 pm EST

Hey Tony Mo .. we liked your about face on the reasons behind the Financial Meltdown .. you remember where you recanted your months & Months of telling us it was Jimmy Carter and Barney Frank .. then recently you spent three long paragraphs explaining how you had seen a special on PBS and you finally came to your senses .. understanding it really was not rooted in pesky liebural idealogy ... .

Welcome Back to Sanity!

xeno10

November 11, 2009 - 11:52 pm EST

We can't cure "stupid," and you, tonymo, are sick with it! Seriously.

12next ›last »

eMail Updates

Learn More
Advertisement | Advertise with Us

Featured Ads

Search

Advertisement | Advertise with Us
Advertisement | Advertise with Us
Advertisement | Advertise with Us

News & Record Network Sites

User Tools

  • Mobile
  • Social
  • RSS
  • Share
  • Sign in to MyNR

Search