College Media Network - Search the largest news resource for college students by college students Jobs and internships for students -

Questionable methods for health care bill

Lawsuit against government reform deserves attention

By Liz Carlston

|

Published: Thursday, January 14, 2010

Updated: Thursday, January 14, 2010

Health care coverage in America is expensive. Insurance companies operate unregulated, and coverage is often inaccessible to the people who really need it, according to Nancy Pelosi. With this fuzzy belief to guide them, the federal government is debating what the changes should be.

Just before Christmas, the Senate passed an admittedly imperfect health care reform bill that President Barack Obama hailed as historic, even though much of the financial burden will be dumped onto the states. Ardent listeners of Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck are calling the $871 billion Democratic health care bill catastrophic for Americans, as the high costs will compromise future generations.

Beyond the cost and the uncertainty of actual health care reform, the bill is particularly distasteful because of the way it was passed in Congress. In fact, Utah is prepared to join 10 other states in a lawsuit against the federal government. The attorneys general said there are constitutional questions and parts of the bill that smell of corruption.

According to the CNN/Opinion Research Corporation, the health care reform bill is viewed unfavorably by 56 percent of Americans. House and Senate Democrats didn’t let that get in the way of their determination to ignore the voice of the people and force the bill through with majority votes.

Liberals had to abandon a government-run public option. Deals were made with moderates such as the “Nebraska Compromise” in which Nebraska was exempt from paying anywhere from $45 to $100 million in Medicaid bills in exchange for Sen. Ben Nelson’s vote. Louisiana got a similar deal in additional federal funding. It makes you question the integrity of our leaders when these kinds of deals are made.

The constitutional questions surrounding the bill revolve around the mandate for states to enforce the laws and the requirement that every American has to buy health insurance. This line of thinking follows the law that every driver must have auto insurance, though there seems to be missing qualifiers for the health debate, not to mention thousands of uninsured drivers.

Although many Americans believe the bill will effect immediate change—such as insurers bewginning to accept customers with pre-existing conditions—the reality is, most of the benefits won’t come for another several years. This covers hidden costs and erroneously shows a balanced budget. In our great democracy, ideas and proposals should be scrutinized by the public and voted on in the open. Transparency was a campaign promise by the Obama administration, but recent actions show that day-to-day dealings have been anything but open.

Utah and the 10 other conservative states should be commended for challenging the bill’s threat to constitutional freedoms and the corrupt way it was forced to a vote.

letters@chronicle.utah.edu
 

Recommended: Articles that may interest you

8 comments

John
Fri Feb 12 2010 15:50
D ouchebag,

Good try, but further is used to describe metaphorical distance; farther describes literal distance. Unless you were trying to insinuate that the Democrats are now physically situated somewhere that's far away from the U.S constitution--i.e not Washington--you'd use further. Look it up. You claim to be in law school, yet you spend a considerable amount of time time spewing paranoia and arguing pedantic semantics with undergrads on the Chrony's website. Don't you have better s**t to do man? Do you not realize how retarded this entire argument is?

P.S

Sorry Sarah P. It was satire!

Jeff
Wed Feb 10 2010 17:33
John,
farther and further, really? Distance in an abstract sense of the word can be used appropriately in determining location on a spectrum of ideology. I stand by my previous statements in other situations, and indeed they are gems that your mother would approve of. Perhaps Liz should be more careful in her use of grammar since she publishes for the school newspaper. Perhaps you should learn to control your temper, since it doesn't add any force to your claim, it only makes you sound like a child. Any sense that you feel that I am talking down to you is your own fault.
John
Mon Feb 8 2010 20:51
D ouchebag,

Actually, since "away" is already implied, you could have simply said, "pull itself further and further from constitutionally sound policy." Perhaps, "drift further and further from constitutionally sound policy." Yes, that last one sounds much better. Let me know if you would like me to help you further* your studies in grammar.

P.S

I'm aware of the irony in these posts.

John
Mon Feb 8 2010 20:39
The grammatical point you make is erroneous. If you look at that quote in the context of the entire article, it's obvious that Liz doesn't feel insurance companies "operate unregulated." Once again, Jeff's fallback is to attempt to talk down to people. However, I'm not sure you should try to lecture me on grammar when less than 2 minutes of browsing articles on this site produced this gem, "The conservatives haven't moved ideologically for years, its the left that continues to pull itself farther and farther away from constitutionally sound policy." --Jeff from Doug Jenning's Palin article. Farther denotes physical advancement in distance; further denotes advancement to a greater degree. What you should have said here is, "pull itself further and further away." I'm sure that my mother would call you a prick if she read your conceited rants. Actually, I'd be willing to bet she'd describe you as "A delusional, loquacious charlatan; a true dick."

P.S
F**k you

Jeff
Mon Feb 8 2010 00:43
John
Actually, my reading comprehension is quite remarkable. If you would study some basic grammar rules, you would know what happens in a sentence when you use a comma followed by "and." By that combination, the first part of the sentence stands alone. Location of commas is critical in my field of study. Does your mother know you say "prick?"
John
Sat Feb 6 2010 17:35
"Insurance companies operate unregulated, and coverage is often inaccessible to the people who really need it, according to Nancy Pelosi. With this fuzzy belief to guide them . . ."

Jeff, your lack of reading comprehension is remarkable. Are you really that stupid? Really? Really? Really? Liz cites, "according to Nancy Pelosi"--someone she disagrees with entirely in her column--and describes the concept that "insurance companies operate unregulated" as a "fuzzy belief." If you would have read the entire article you could avoid such egregious mistakes. You are in agreement with Liz you pretentious prick. Can you really not see that?

Jeff
Fri Feb 5 2010 05:23
"insurance companies operate unregulated?" Liz, are you really that stupid? Really? Really? Really? I think you should look up how many federal regulations there are on health insurance as of today and compare that number with fifty years ago, you are in for a rude awakening.
Rob
Thu Jan 14 2010 17:35
The government can mandate coverage, but it can only harm quality of treatment.






log out