Should the U.S. government be involved in medical care? No. The U.S. Constitution does not permit the federal government to control activities in this area, although some may claim the "general welfare" clause as permission.
The care of individuals within the states is not the responsibility of the federal government. That responsibility lies with the states and even more properly with the communities and the families.The main federal responsibilities are in the areas of defense and interstate and international affairs.
For most of this century, there has been an ever-increasing tendency to let the federal government take care of everything. Under President Clinton, this trend is accelerating.
The news media seem to favor government intervention into people's lives. The public generally believes what it sees and hears. Without seeing the constitutional viewpoint, the public, therefore, asks the government for help, not realizing what deep trouble they are getting this country into.
Look at how poorly the city of Washington, D.C., is run. It is supposed to be under the control of Congress. Yet it is one of the most crime-ridden cities in the nation. Do we want our Congress to control our health programs that cover the whole country when they cannot even control one city?
Also, look at the cost of Social Security. When it was originated, personal taxes to fund it were less than 1 percent. Now, it is over 7 percent and the government says it still does not have enough funds to pay the lifetime contributors without taking funds from income taxes.
Why? Because our Congress takes the Social Security funds and spends them on non-Social Security projects. If a businessman were to do such fund manipulation, he would be sent to jail.
We, the public, need to realize Congress has gone way out of bounds and needs to stay within the limits set by the Constitution. We must let Congress know we don't want government help and handle our personal and local problems and needs by ourselves.
Don L. Olson