Supreme Court health care ruling unhealthy for our personal liberty
July 11, 2012 12:10PM
Updated: August 13, 2012 1:41PM
Supreme Court health care ruling unhealthy for our personal liberty
For over 60 years I have felt my freedom was secured by an incredibly well-conceived Constitution. It created three branches of government and a system of checks and balances as a way to provide an iron-clad guarantee that our rights provided in this Constitution could not be compromised.
But on June 28, that sacred covenant between the people and their government was broken when the not-so-Supreme Court decided in a 5-4 decision to forsake the people and their guaranteed rights by ruling in favor of Obamacare and an overreaching out-of-control government. So much for the concept of checks and balance as the antidote for abuse of government power.
Chief Justice John Roberts — who seemed more concerned about the prestige of his court as seen through the eyes of the socialists among us than he was about a government determined to usurp our freedom — ruled against the preservation of personal choice. At that brief moment in time when Roberts was determining how he would rule, he actually held the liberty of all Americans and all future generations in the palm of his hand, and he let it slip through his fingers.
I try to see the big picture as I contemplate what the future will be like for the American people because of this high court’s decision. I see this ruling opening many new doors for this mega government to become ever more intrusive. Sadly, because of this ruling, I predict the day will surely come when we shall all be living our lives at the pleasure of this government in a place where independence and self-determination will simply not be tolerated. I hope I’m wrong, of course, but I think the Supreme Court’s ruling on Obamacare marks the beginning of the end for the great American experiment.
Vincent A. Froberg
Elgin
If Republicans’ health care plan really is better, then just what is it?
For almost two years, Republican congressional leaders and conservative pundits claimed that the mandate feature of the Affordable Health Care Act was unconstitutional and that it would be struck down by the Supreme Court. It turned out they were wrong and that the mandate feature is indeed legal, thereby forcing Republicans to switch strategy on dealing with the Affordable Health Care Act.
Republicans are now saying that, immediately after taking control of government following the November elections, they will move quickly to repeal the Affordable Health Care Act and move slowly to replace it with a GOP health care plan.
Move slowly. Until the Affordable Health Care Act was finally passed, there was little if any movement by either party for decades in reforming the U.S. health care system. At present, the U.S. spends over $7,000 per capita on health care, while the average cost for all other industrialized countries is about $3,500 per capita.
Is our health care system twice as good as other countries, or do they have a more efficient system for delivering health care? If we gauge it on life expectancy and infant mortality, the answer is no; the U.S. trails most other industrialized countries in life expectancy, while ranking near the top in infant mortality.
We have a major election coming up in about four months, so why are Republicans reluctant to present their health care reform plan? Most Americans have a general idea of how the Affordable Health Care Act would work, so why do Republicans appear reluctant to let voters know how their plan differs from the Affordable Health Care Act? What would be the cost, would it expand coverage, and how would it deal with the millions who either refuse or cannot afford to purchase health care coverage?
Republicans talk about tort reform, allowing the purchase of health care coverage over state lines and creating exchanges that would reduce cost — but no comprehensive plan that would allow Americans to compare the features of the Affordable Health Care Act and the Republican/Romney health care reform proposal.
So until Republican lay out their plan, voters are left to wonder if electing Republicans who promise to repeal the Affordable Health Care Act and replace it with a Republican plan would be a wise move. It looks as if voters will be forced to choose between a health care reform plan they know and might not like, or the secretive Republican health care plan.
If voters decide to give control of Congress to Republicans and elect Romney president in November, it will be in part because they hope that the Republican health care reform plan will be better than the Affordable Health Care Act. It will be like buying a pig in a poke.
Victor Darst
West Dundee
U.S. Rep. Walsh a prime example of do-nothing congressman
U.S. Rep. Joe Walsh’s criticism of Tammy Duckworth, for touting her military service when she was gravely wounded, is further proof that he is a loud-mouth right-winger.
He votes “no” in the House with the other tea party radicals to obstruct Obama’s attempts to add jobs and reform immigration, and he is the prime example of why nothing gets done in Congress.
Tom Minnerick
Elgin
