Scott Brown’s victory in the Massachusetts Senate race may prevent some damage caused by the Democrats’ health care “reform.” That is the bill that passes (I assume one will) won’t be as bad as it would be otherwise. But John LaPlante puts things in perspective:
…It’s a sad day in which the health care services available to anyone are subjected to the political winds. One man–Scott Brown–could make a difference. That’s not good. Then again, it’s not good when 536 people–the U.S. Senate, U.S. House, and president–make the difference in what kinds of health services 300 million people have. …
Government can have a role in enforcing contracts that patients make with insurance companies or doctors. … the decisions of a few people, who use the mechanisms for power for personal benefit–whether that’s to advance an ideological vision or to line their pockets–do violence to the dignity and welfare of us all.
In a better world, political power would be so decentralized that the election of candidate A or candidate B in one state–or 50–would make no difference.
This has gotten me to think about the 17th Amendment, which ended the practice of state legislatures electing U.S. Senators and replaced it with a popular election. The Wikipedia entry has a few citations of those who want to repeal this, and Ross Kaminsky cites this article in National Review by Bruce Bartlett. Bartlett writes:
The Constitution originally provided that senators would be chosen by state legislatures. The purpose was to provide the states — as states — an institutional role in the federal government. In effect, senators were to function as ambassadors from the states, which were expected to retain a large degree of sovereignty even after ratification of the Constitution, thereby ensuring that their rights would be protected in a federal system.
Read the whole article here.
