Letter: Beem's argument flawed
Edgar Allen Beem says that by howling the Constitution does not give Congress the right to mandate health-insurance coverage, certain people "reveal their ignorance." It seems that Mr. Beem may not have read far enough in the Constitution to come across this passage.
"No capitation, or other direct tax, shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration ..."
The above passage most certainly makes a $750 fee on anyone who chooses not to purchase health insurance unconstitutional. Further, it's a pretty big stretch to argue that "regulation" of commerce among the states would grant authority to force people to purchase something.
Regulation, to me, seems to assume that the commerce in question is pre-existing.
Beem also says that the founding principles of this country were not individual liberties, but collective aspirations.
I think that these things can, and should, go hand in hand. There is no reason why the liberties of any one person have to come at the cost of the well-being of the country as a whole. This is, obviously, a situation in which both sides of the argument have taken very strong stands. There is no benefit to this, as it eliminates the possibility of any mutual understanding or dialogue. Without these things, we will never have solutions that truly work for everyone.
Understand that I do not think our previous system was ideal, or even acceptable; I simply feel that the solution we've created is equally unacceptable.