Healthcare Reform Is Not Government Takeover

To The Editor:
An April 6 letter again asserts erroneously, and without substantiation, that healthcare reform is both socialized medicine and a government takeover.
Readers of our letters know that Article 1, Section 8, paragraph 1 of the Constitution grants federal government the power to provide for the general welfare. The author of the April 6 letter claims that the succeeding paragraphs are “enabling” paragraphs that define what is meant by general welfare – and since they do not mention health care, he concludes that the federal government may have no role in our health care system.
As pointed out previously, many words – food safety; child pornography; and cyber assault, for example – do not appear in the succeeding paragraphs. Does that mean that the federal government is powerless to protect citizens from contaminated food? Or to protect children from the evils of child pornography? Or to defend the country against a cyber attack? Of course not.
In any case, a careful examination of Section 8 proves the claim wrong. Notice that each paragraph is separated from the others by a semicolon, signifying that each stands on its own, independently of the others. The first paragraph is equal to, not defined by, the others. The last paragraph is critical in refuting the enabling paragraphs claim. It empowers Congress to pass laws executing the “foregoing powers.” It does not specify that the right to pass such laws is restricted to the powers mentioned in paragraphs 2 through 17; “foregoing powers” includes the general welfare power in paragraph one, separate and apart from the others. This paragraph makes it crystal clear that the general welfare power is not constrained in any way by “enabling paragraphs.”
As for Republican strategist Frank Luntz’s “government takeover” label: Quoting from his 2009 memo to GOP leaders, “You’ll notice that we recommend the phrase ‘government takeover’….” The reader will notice that Luntz is not stating that health care reform is in fact a government takeover, only that it be labeled as such, the purpose being to mislead and confuse the public.
“Nanny government” is another misleading label that conservatives love to bandy about. With regard to health care reform, it is also silly and specious. Among the beneficial provisions of the law: it prohibits health insurance companies from canceling policies if insured become seriously ill. Among the goals are to enable more people to have health insurance, and to enable those now uninsured or underinsured to obtain basic, preventative health services rather than utilizing more expensive emergency services when unattended health problems become severe – services that we insured pay more for through higher premiums, fees, and charges. The ultimate goal is a healthier populace, and therefore a stronger country. If that’s what a nanny government does, then by all means let’s have more nanny government.
It is obviously necessary to reiterate what socialized medicine and government takeover mean. In either case, the government owns and/or completely controls the system or industry in question. Again consider the food industry as an example. Government regulations protect Americans from poisoned or tainted foods. Does that mean that we have a socialized food industry, or a government takeover of the food industry? The answer is obvious. Likewise, government regulation of the health care or health insurance industry does not constitute socialized medicine or a government takeover. Furthermore, under the reform law suppliers of health care services will continue to be members of the private sector, as they are now.
Reasonable people recognize the facts and accept them. The fact is that healthcare reform is neither socialized medicine nor a government takeover.
JAMES DAVIS
Avalon