Healthcare

Like all political issues there are two sides of any political discussion. In nearly every one of these conversations there seem to be two diametrically opposed sides with no middle ground. I completed a diverstity class for my BS recently. My professor responded to me when I said the problem was that there is no middle ground that the problem was no one wanted to "discuss any possible middle ground." As I thought about it I didn't really understand what he meant.

My previous post illustrates this concept so very distinctly for me. As I read the e-mail that I had received I was struck by the relevance to the discussion currently ongoing about Healthcare. In fact I was initially worried that this e-mail might in fact be a taunt for that discussion. You can take the core subject of this e-mail in either light depending upon your outlook on politics. For me I take it from both views - the middle ground if you will.

The Insurance companies need to be held accountable for the concept that profit is more important than people. But I also do NOT want my government in the business of providing (in ANY measure) health care. Personally I do NOT see that as a dichotomy of thoughts. This country needs some help; and we do need to reign in some of the social injustice But we do NOT need our tax dollars and our elected officials put into a position of making life and death decisions over the populace.

That is NOT a function of government. I challenge anyone, anywhere to show me where in the Constitution it says the government is responsible for the social welfare of the populace? They are responsible for interstate commerce, international trade and soverign protection. ANY function outside that concept is unconstitutional.

Now the argument for insurance company regulation falls into the interstate commerce. But when you read the constitution - it is the REGULATION of interstate commerce - not the participation in it.

For me the concept of PARTICIPATION is what is getting scary.