I suspect one of the reasons a majority of people are opposed to health care reform as currently proposed by the federal government, specifically H.R. 3200, is the fact that it grants too much authority to them over the most personal matters, those best left to individuals, families or at worst the states.
Obama said during a February 2008 debate, "When I first arrived in the Senate that first year, we had a situation surrounding Terri Schiavo," Obama said. "And I remember how we adjourned with a unanimous agreement that eventually allowed Congress to interject itself into that decision-making process of the families. It wasn't something I was comfortable with, but it was not something that I stood on the floor and stopped," he said. "And I think that was a mistake, and I think the American people understood that that was a mistake. And as a constitutional law professor, I knew better," Obama continued.
Obama also said during an April 2007 debate that he should have fought to cut off Schiavo's food and water earlier. "And I think I should have stayed in the Senate and fought more for making sure that Schiavo's parents were not allowed to pursue arguments in federal court."
As gut-wrenching as that whole situation was to me at the time and as much as I still shake my head in disbelief that government at all levels failed to protect this innocent life, I bring it up again only to make this point: Obama was opposed to federal government intervention in a health care situation worthy of it, when a citizen was denied due process by Florida's state courts who ordered the removal of food and water, but he is now in favor of federal government intervention in a health care situation where the Constitution grants them no right whatsoever so to do.
Are the President and Congress people of their word? They took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. Central to this is doing only what it allows and refraining from what it does not allow. Behold some of the very recent, relatively small programs taken on by the federal government, such as stimulus checks and cash for clunkers, that have, to be kind, been mismanaged. What makes them think they can manage our $2+ trillion health care system, even with its current imperfections, any better than we the people? They have yet to earn my confidence.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Mike,
ReplyDeleteYou make reference to the Terri Shavio case. This is an example of someone who was in a situation that would have been quite different, had she made out a "Advanced Directive".
None of us really know when we might face a life or death event. Children have cancer and reactions to medications or bee stings. Car accidents hurt people every day. End of life decisions are something that can be made several times throughout ones lifetime. Our age and physical health are always changing.
Those who have decided to cry: "Death Panels"! (and construct other deceptive language) only to scare people from listening and thinking; are doing a disservice to each of our families. I have helped many a couple or family file an "Advance Directive". We had one for my dad, as he had the defibulator in his chest turned off. It would no longer have saved his life if it had been needed after his heart was too weak. These are very important and real challenges.
To encourage individuals in making these decisions on their own, will keep from forcing the Doctors, Insurance Companies, as well as any government agency from doing it when they are no longer able.
P.S.
ReplyDeleteYou happened to drop the phrase "innocent life".
Would you define "innocent life" as opposed to "guilty life"? What made Terri Schiavo's life innocent? And if she was not an "innocent life" would your strong defense of her been different?