Federalism vs. States' Rights

Having failed to "protect" people from healthcare at the federal level, we now see that the states will join the fray as allies of the privileged.  Once again, the role of the state and federal governments seems to be to protect our citizens against being served by the very people we have elected to have our back.  Instead, it seems that we are given the backside.  Most recently several states are now filing a lawsuit over healthcare as a way to protect the rights of their citizens.  When Jefferson and Adams where engaged in their historic debate over rights of states vs. the federal government, what they could not have foreseen was a system where it did not matter.  Each made their case that there were rights that needed to be protected, and that a federal government would intrinsically behave differently than a state government.  Instead, what we have is an alliance of the privileged at both the state and federal levels who are interested in making sure government does not serve anyone with their healthcare needs.  


It is this ideological twist that is crucial.  Rather than thinking in the best interest of those who they serve, the crucial goal is to undercut healthcare for those who need at most at whatever cost and whatever level possible.  Again, those in opposition, Republican and Democrat alike, suggest that the key here is to be in opposition, to make sure that no changes are made, to prevent the rise of socialism; and at the same time suggesting that efforts to provide for others are proof of a lack of bi-partisanship.  The end goal, is not to serve others, not even their needy constituents, but it is to shut the system down.  


This proves that it there is nothing intrinsic to federalism vs. statism that protects a people.  Instead, what is needed is a counter-dialogue to this ideology that works against looking at each other as human beings that deserve to have basic healthcare needs met.  It is not socialism, since all major religions argue for this, basic philosophy argues for it.  Rather, the argument needs to be made that it is only a rigid ideology, unthinking and uncaring with regard to others among us, that lead us to the conclusion that we need not provide for the least among us who lack basic healthcare for themselves and their families.  


It is important to note also that this counter-dialogic argument needs to be sustained-it cannot be short-term or abandoned by those who thing that the battle has been won with the passage of a healthcare bill.