Need for health care does not justify right to services
Stewart Jay and Congress are missing a golden opportunity to really shape up America. [“New health-reform law is definitely constitutional,” Opinion, April 4.]
Using the power of controlling interstate commerce, Congress should mandate that all people pay for a gym membership and diet program —Weight Watchers, Jenny Craig, etc. —but no free plans or plain, old walking. Self-help and self-responsibility are the antithesis of socialism. Of course, with proper proof, you will get a credit on your taxes. Without proof, you will be fined.
But think how healthy people will be; medical needs, problems and expenses will drop so insurance will cost less. It is a win-win situation for everyone.
Just because people need health care, it does not mean they have a right to it. It is amazing how our national religion is evolution and survival of the fittest, yet in our social arena, some politicians advocate freedom means you have the right to twist your neighbor’s arm to make him pay your bills.
I pay some social taxes because I am not heartless —and because they benefit me too — but merely prepaying everyone’s medical bills through mandatory insurance does nothing to hold down costs.
— Byron Gilbert, Seattle
What Congress ‘wants’ not always constitutional
UW Law Professor Stewart Jay’s commentary concerning health-reform law constitutionality raises some interesting “questions.” How does he conclude that forcing people to buy health insurance from a private company is no different from requiring people to pay taxes for Social Security or Medicare?
He justifies requiring buying the insurance because “Congress wants people to have insurance when obtaining care in order to hold down costs for all.” If Congress really wanted to hold down medical costs, it should enact laws that force “obese” people to join Weight Watchers or the local gym. The reality is what Congress “wants” is not always constitutional.
— Bill Hirt, Bellevue