Merriam-Webster defines “Emergency” as “an unforeseen combination of circumstances or the resulting state that calls for immediate action”
MDJ guest columnist Kevin Foley wrote on Friday that, “the uninsured in America who happen to get sick have to go to emergency rooms where they receive the most expensive healthcare there is.” Why must they now be treated in the emergency rooms if they have “become sick”?
“MANDATE” is the key word. The care that must now be provided, “for free” in emergency rooms was mandated by the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act in 1986 and now Foley wants yet another mandate to fix problems caused by that mandate. I don’t want any more mandates and I would like to undo the unconstitutional ones we have already allowed to be placed upon us.
As they deliberate the constitutionality of Obamacare, he wants the Supreme Court to “avoid any appearance of partisanship” while his hero; our ever-so-pompous president, publicly warns the court regarding his unprecedented and extraordinary opinion of the limitations of their powers.
Does anyone really think this president, or any of that flock of idiots for sale in Washington is worried about their own health care, which is “free” for the rest of their lives?
Foley crows that “Anyone in Bhutan can see a doctor and be treated for free”, conveniently ignoring Bhutan’s doctor-patient ratio of 1:10,000. The USA has a DP ratio of 1:390. (Cuba has a DP of 1:170. Does Foley want to move?)
If I need medical help and cannot or will not pay for it, then he wants someone to be forced to give it to me. He whines that we are “ignoring the simple fact that access to healthcare is a human right.”
Here is a very simple fact; No one has any right to anything forcibly taken from someone else.
I think he has misunderstood “Land of the Free”
Kenneth D. Parrott
Acworth
Follow us on Twitter!
That said, I have no doubt the 5 far right ideologists on the Supreme Court bench will do the best thing for the far right as they did on Citizens United and Gore v Bush before.
"It is fair and accurate to describe Prof. Fried as a former Reagan official and former member of the GOP legal establishment. But it is deeply misleading to suggest that he speaks today for some element of mainstream thought on the Right, or to tout his views on Obamacare without presenting to readers his support for Obama, his effective divorce from the modern GOP, and the extreme nature of his views on the government’s ability to make you buy broccoli."
You failed to read my response carefully. The comment you attribute to me was actually made by Charles Fried who knows something about Constitutional law.
Finally, there were no railroads when the Commerce Clause was written into the Constitution.
1. a sum of money demanded by a government for its support or for specific facilities or services, levied upon incomes, property, sales, etc.
2. a burdensome charge, obligation, duty, or demand.
tax- verb:
a.to demand a tax from (a person, business, etc.).
b.to demand a tax in consideration of the possession or occurrence of (income, goods, sales, etc.), usually in proportion to the value of money involved.
A tax is also known as a levy.
lev·y
noun-
-an imposing or collecting, as of a tax, by authority or force.
take - noun:
to get into one's hands, possession, control, etc., by force or artifice
So a tax is a levy. A levy is imposing a tax by authority or force. To take, among many definitions is to get into possession by force or artifice.
In spite of all that, our government is not taking???
Another great--"It all depends on what the definition of "is", is...
If you would not pay taxes, and look at this as a "taking," then what makes you think that you are entitled to military protection, and the variety of government services which we as citizens enjoy? I personally wish you'd move elsewhere, since you hate your country so much.
Charles Fried, President Reagan's solicitor general, a professor at Harvard law school and advisor to the university's Federalist Society, was interviewed about the commerce clause recently and here's what he said:
"First of all, the limiting principle point kind of begs the question. It assumes there's got to be some kind of articulable limiting principle and that's in the Constitution somewhere. What Chief Justice John Marshall said in 1824 is that if something is within the power of Congress, Congress may exercise that power to its fullest extent. So the question is really whether this is in the power of Congress.
Now, is it within the power of Congress? Well, the power of Congress is to regulate interstate commerce. Is healthcare commerce among the states? Nobody except maybe Clarence Thomas doubts that. So healthcare is interstate commerce. Is this a regulation of it? Yes. End of story."
So it's, really not our "pompous" president or progressive commentators like me you object to. It's our representative form of government you don't like.
Your opening remark about my conservative misperception that "The government isn't taking anything from me" is so very telling. How exactly does the government get my money via taxes unless they are taking it? If I had a choice, rest assured, I would certainly not be giving it to them.
Your "Nobody except Clarence Thomas" remark regarding “interstate commerce” also, in my opinion really portrays you very accurately and in very much the same light as the pompous president. The interstate commerce act, originally aimed at railroads, has been used and abused to further expand federal authority which in turn will, I am sure, certainly please some, especially if it can help increase their profit margin.
If I am sick in Georgia, odds are that I will be treated by a doctor in Georgia. Somehow you and other likeminded “progressives” seem to have followed the yellow brick road of the cash flow, rather than the actual point of service, to justify your position that medical treatments are indeed qualified to be designated as “inter-state”
I do like representative government, but only if it represents first and foremost, the interests of the citizenry rather than corporations, and it follows the guidelines laid out by our Founding Fathers. Your mindset seems to be; if the government can get away with it, then they certainly have a right to do it. That is not exactly my understanding of the Constitution but, I am sure you will agree, perhaps I do not understand the Constitution.
I agree with your letter.
No one has a right to anything except the freedom to make all they can of themselves and the pursuit of happiness.
Good intentions of good people have resulted in an attitude of entitlement,among some,that is beyond unfair to American citizens.
I read the letters to the editor regularly. Mr. Foley's letters, in my opinion, display acceptance of the ideas of Froma Harrop. Two Fromas is a little much to handle.
Bill Millette
Acworth Ga