No Excuse for Health “Care” Reform
Critics say that there is often a hidden agenda behind political reform; no more so when it involves the federal government intruding in areas that the Constitution reserves to the states and to the people. The excuse given for federalizing health insurance is as fake as Al Gore’s global warming scare.
As Karl Rove points out in a Wall Street Journal article (”Obama and the Perfect Political Storm ”, Sept. 3):
Nearly nine out of 10 Americans say they have coverage—and large majorities of them are happy with it. Of the 46 million uninsured, 9.7 million are not U.S. citizens; 17.6 million have annual incomes of more than $50,000; and 14 million already qualify for Medicaid or other programs. That leaves less than five million people truly uncovered out of a population of 307 million.
Truly?
There is a breed of analyst that depend too heavily on available statistics. If there’s no explanation for the 5 million in the table at hand, then one must assume that defines “the problem.” Not that I doubt there are uninsured people, and 5 million seems like a reasonable number. What about recent college graduates who slipped off their parents’ insurance before accepting their first jobs? That’s only an example. But 5 million is so small compared to 307 (1.6%) that it is within a statistical margin of error.
It’s best to admit when information is limited and you don’t have all the answers, particularly in political debate. The Democrats want to federalize health insurance. That’s a really, really big deal. It is totally irresponsible to assume any unexplained statistic supports political change.
For decades, we have been experiencing a shift in the relationship between government and the people. In the past – based on the Constitution – government needed strong justification to intrude. We have passed the stage where it could merely be said that strong justification is no longer required. We have entered a stage in which people are considering the need for alternative power structures to hold it back.
So, picking on the little slips that assume justification for government intrusion, particularly federal intrusion in areas not allowed by the Constitution, do not seem too picky. The assumptions should favor Constitutional rule. If there’s any need for federal reform, it should aim to reduce the federal role; leaving states and the people free to fix any problems that might actually exist.
| More from Roger F. Gay
Stumble It!
September 5th, 2009 at 6:01 am
[...] intruding in areas that the Constitution reserves to the states and to the people.Source: MND | MensNewsDaily.com Bookmark / [...]