The News Courier encourages letters to the editor. Submissions should be no more than 400 words and should include a name, address and telephone number for verification. Submissions that do not meet requirements are subject to editing. Send letters by noon on Thursdays to P.O. Box 670, Athens, AL, 35613, or email to email@example.com.
Federal government no ‘bogeyman’
The federal government is not the bogeyman, the Loch Ness monster, or yeti. There must be some national oversight regarding issues such as the environment, energy, health care, and other issues.
What would be the alternative — each state, or better yet, each locality, developing its own regulations surrounding such important and potentially life-threatening issues? Why should the death rate be higher in Alabama than, say, in Massachusetts?
The people I am acquainted with who are against a national uniform health care policy already have health insurance. I also know many people who have health insurance who are for a national policy regarding health care, by the way.
Oh, but some say what the real issue is, is whether or not the feds can mandate the purchase of said insurance … it is mandated in this state that we have to purchase car insurance, though. So that is a state’s right to determine — to protect people’s property — but human lives are a different story.
As far as I know, in the state of Alabama, a person can receive Medicaid or Medicare from the age of 0-18 or if they are 65 or older — all those people in between can only get health care coverage through their employers or if they are declared disabled — which can be a lengthy process taking a couple of years — the horrible unspoken truth is that some of these people will die first, which in my estimation is social Darwinism.
The purpose behind the U.S. Constitution, in part, was to strive to be a safeguard against domestic (self-interested) factions. James Madison, an author of our Constitution, stated, in Federalist Paper No. 10 that, “…the most common and durable source of factions has been the various and unequal distribution of property…” and that “men of factious tempers, of local prejudices, or of sinister designs, may, by intrigue, by corruption, or by other means, first obtain the suffrages, and then betray the interests, of the people. The question resulting is, whether small or extensive republics are more favorable to the election of proper guardians of the public weal; and it is clearly decided in favor of the latter…”
There are some issues that are too important, dangerous, or deadly to be considered solely state’s rights issues.