The problem with (U.S.) goverment healthcare

[Richard G]

The number one problem with most of the health care proposals in Congress right now, are they're unconstitutional.

Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution lays out the powers of Congress. Its a short list, and if you read it, you will see they are not granted authority to mandate, or run a health care beuracracy.

Further, the 10th amendment reserves powers not granted to Congress (this list) for the States. So it is possible that individual States can legistlate state run health plans/insurance, and some have already done so.

Heres the list:

Article 1, Section.8.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by Richard G

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;

[TriskettheKid]

I'd suggest rereading Section 8.

You seem to have passed over the relevant phrase.

ETA:

Damn you, WildCat! Beat me to it.

[daredelvis]

Originally Posted by WildCat

Originally Posted by TriskettheKid

I'd suggest rereading Section 8.

You seem to have passed over the relevant phrase.

ETA:

Damn you, WildCat! Beat me to it.

That's because that part was not in the email that the OP was cut and past from.

Daredelvis

[Magyar]

this IS the most retarded argument against health care - well maybe the "socialist" one is just as bad, but anyway Maybe we could have a pole The most retarded argument against health care wins a case of the claps and a book of "Secrets remedies the govt doesn't want you to know"


1) As WildCat so aptly pointed out in his quote the constitution says FAR more about health care than anything in the Patriot act EVER?

but 2 and perhaps far more important. Claiming that something is unconstitutional because it isn't mentioned in the constitution is just LAME. While we know that fundies want us to believe that the authors were all believers inferring that somehow it was inspired by the big sky daddy, tit's funny how so many reight wingers tendency to fall back on this argument is nearly as bad.

Lets face it IF we are going to rely and use the constitution SOLELY as a document that is stuck in the 200+ year old world of the founding fathers then lets tear the damned thing up and use it for toilet paper because it has far more value that way in today's world.


What makes the US constitution WORTH more than just an old relic IS that it is a living document and the founder MENT it to be PRECISELY that because they recognized that they could not foresee every possibility. When you make claims like this you are doing a HUGE disservice to it and the memory of those who created it and died for it.

[Richard G]

Well, "general welfare" of the U.S. is a far cry from removing every hemorrhoid from every Americans derriere, a very specific, and individual problem.

Here is 10th Amendment:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Health care/insurance, or whatever one calls it is clearly not delegated to the United States (Congress) by the lands highest law. Congress is not authorized to excercise power, save what it is delegated by the document that grants it its power.

[TriskettheKid]

Originally Posted by Richard G

Well, "general welfare" of the U.S. is a far cry from removing every hemorrhoid from every Americans derriere, a very specific, and individual problem.

Here is 10th Amendment:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Health care/insurance, or whatever one calls it is clearly not delegated to the United States (Congress) by the lands highest law. Congress is not authorized to excercise power, save what it is delegated by the document that grants it its power.

Oh, a Civics lesson! Wonderful!

And to think of all that money I wasted in university learning about this stuff. Damn my BA in History!

10th Amendment doesn't apply, as it is a power enumerated in Article I, Section 8, paragraph 1.

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by Richard G

Well, "general welfare" of the U.S. is a far cry from removing every hemorrhoid from every Americans derriere, a very specific, and individual problem.

Here is 10th Amendment:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Health care/insurance, or whatever one calls it is clearly not delegated to the United States (Congress) by the lands highest law. Congress is not authorized to excercise power, save what it is delegated by the document that grants it its power.

You might want to familiarize yourself with Helvering v. Davis.

[linusrichard]

Originally Posted by WildCat

You might want to familiarize yourself with Helvering v. Davis.

An excerpt:

Quote:

Congress may spend money in aid of the 'general welfare.' There have been great statesmen in our history who have stood for other views. We will not resurrect the contest. It is now settled by decision. The conception of the spending power advocated by Hamilton and strongly reinforced by Story has prevailed over that of Madison, which has not been lacking in adherents. Yet difficulties are left when the power is conceded. The line must still be drawn between one welfare and another, between particular and general. Where this shall be placed cannot be known through a formula in advance of the event. There is a middle ground or certainly a penumbra in which discretion is at large. The discretion, however, is not confided to the courts. The discretion belongs to Congress, unless the choice is clearly wrong, a display of arbitrary power, not an exercise of judgment. This is now familiar law. 'When such a contention comes here we naturally require a showing that by no reasonable possibility can the challenged legislation fall within the wide range of discretion permitted to the Congress.' Nor is the concept of the general welfare static. Needs that were narrow or parochial a century ago may be interwoven in our day with the well-being of the nation. What is critical or urgent changes with the times.

(emphasis added, citations omitted)

[KoihimeNakamura]

(Also, you forgot the elastic clause.

"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.")

[Dr Adequate]

Originally Posted by Richard G

The number one problem with most of the health care proposals in Congress right now, are they're unconstitutional.

Article 1, Section 8 ...

Oh, another Section Eighter.

While you're fighting against healthcare reform defending the Constitution, you might take a moment out to give Louisiana back to the French, because there's damn-all in the enumerated powers that permits the Louisiana Purchase.

Oh, and you'd better abolish the Air Force. Armies, yes, a Navy, fine, they're in the enumerated powers. But no Air Force. But before you get rid of them, maybe they'd better bomb all those pesky unconstitutional federal highways. Not enumerated, you see.

The Federal government must be restricted to the enumerated powers. Unless this is just a crappy ad hoc argument against healthcare reform based on a supposed principle that you yourself wouldn't give a bucket of warm spit for.

[Puppycow]

Originally Posted by WildCat

Wildcat wins the thread.

[Puppycow]

Originally Posted by Dr Adequate

Oh, another Section Eighter.

While you're fighting against healthcare reform defending the Constitution, you might take a moment out to give Louisiana back to the French, because there's damn-all in the enumerated powers that permits the Louisiana Purchase.

Oh, and you'd better abolish the Air Force. Armies, yes, a Navy, fine, they're in the enumerated powers. But no Air Force. But before you get rid of them, maybe they'd better bomb all those pesky unconstitutional federal highways. Not enumerated, you see.

The Federal government must be restricted to the enumerated powers. Unless this is just a crappy ad hoc argument against healthcare reform based on a supposed principle that you yourself wouldn't give a bucket of warm spit for.

Providing for the general welfare, however, is an enumerated power (and all the stuff you mentioned might arguably fall under that).

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Richard G

The number one problem with most of the health care proposals in Congress right now, are they're unconstitutional.

So first we get rid of medicare and that stupid patients bill of rights.

[dudalb]

It's the old "if the Constitution did not specifically allow it, the Federal Government can't do it " argument.
It's wack, frankly. Even most strict constructionists reject it as being crazy.
These are the same idiots who think that Air Force is unconstituional because the Constitution does not specifically allow it.

[Beerina]

Originally Posted by TriskettheKid

I'd suggest rereading Section 8.

You seem to have passed over the relevant phrase.

ETA:

Damn you, WildCat! Beat me to it.

Sophistry, and has been for 80 years. An all-encompassing power to delve into every aspect of human life was never intended whatsoever by "the general welfare".

Nobody would sit there with a straight face and claim if the outcome was known, they'd not have altered the phrase when they wrote it.

See, the Constitution was actually against massive, intrusive government. Even in cases with demagoguery swaying the masses. That's why they put in a thing called "ammendments".

You have to convince a supermajority that a major change is good. A temporary 51% blip isn't that, but is exactly what people fear -- a blip that locks down this or that idiotic law for essentially all eternity.

I reject the notion that "for the general welfare" implies Congress has the right to create a Single Payer System, or god knows what it's transformed into as a proposal at this point, thanks to the resistance. I'm pretty sure any government-provided optional plan is DOA, thank god, and they're toying around with just some generic "you're required to get it" concept ala Massachusetts.


And on a more serious note, IIRC, there is some older SC ruling about health care that has yet to be addressed. Anything too massive might just get the heave-ho right out of the bat once it's challenged. Unfortunately, my memory is light in the details. In any case, there's that hurdle to go over, which may not be trivial.

Thankfully.

[ksbluesfan]

Income taxes are unconstitutional too! Stop paying your taxes!

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by Beerina

Sophistry, and has been for 80 years. An all-encompassing power to delve into every aspect of human life was never intended whatsoever by "the general welfare".

Yeah, what did Alexander Hamilton know about the intent of the Founding Fathers!

[TriskettheKid]

The Constitution was AGAINST a strong central government?

This is news to me. As well as the Framers. Hamilton, Madison, and Jay may have something to say about that....

Hang on....they did.

[dudalb]

Originally Posted by WildCat

Yeah, what did Alexander Hamilton know about the intent of the Founding Fathers!

Thing is, the Founding Fathers did not agree on a lot of things among themsleves. Read about the Jefferson/Hamilton feud sometime.

[TriskettheKid]

Originally Posted by dudalb

Thing is, the Founding Fathers did not agree on a lot of things among themsleves. Read about the Jefferson/Hamilton feud sometime.

While that is quite true, this has more to do with the Framers.

Jefferson did support the Constitution (indeed, he was in touch with Madison through his original draft of the Virginia Plan, and, if memory serves, when Madison wrote the Bill of Rights).

There is little doubt, though, that after the dreadful Articles of Confederation, a good deal of the Framers understood that a stronger central government was needed.

As for the specific Hamilton/Jefferson feud, that didn't begin until Washington was President, in the 1790's, and it was over fiscal policy (specifically how debts should be paid in regards to the war). The feud was, literally, over whether it was better for debts to be shared (Hamilton's view), or for each state to be responsible for their own debts (Jefferson's view).

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by dudalb

Thing is, the Founding Fathers did not agree on a lot of things among themsleves. Read about the Jefferson/Hamilton feud sometime.

Oh, I know Madison in particular disagreed with Hamilton on the scope of the "general welfare" clause. I was just pointing out to Beerina that interpreting it broadly is hardly a recent phenomena.

[oldhat]

Originally Posted by Beerina

I reject the notion that "for the general welfare" implies Congress has the right to create a Single Payer System.

It already has. It's called Medicare.

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by oldhat

It already has. It's called Medicare.

Medicare is not single-payer.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by WildCat

Medicare is not single-payer.

So who else pays? Sure they have contracted it out as corperate wellfare to the insurance companies, so that they can have 5 times the overhead of the goverment administering the program. That is the efficiency of the private market that is.

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

So who else pays?

You have to pay premiums to Medicare, and there are also co-pays. In fact there is an entire industry selling Medicare supplemental insurance, to cover you for the costs Medicare doesn't pay.

[oldhat]

Originally Posted by WildCat

Medicare is not single-payer.

Yes it is.

http://www.pnhp.org/news/2007/septem...th_care_pr.php
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicar...ited_States%29

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by WildCat

You have to pay premiums to Medicare, and there are also co-pays. In fact there is an entire industry selling Medicare supplemental insurance, to cover you for the costs Medicare doesn't pay.

Ah so you just don't know the definition of single payer.

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by oldhat

Yes it is.

http://www.pnhp.org/news/2007/septem...th_care_pr.php

That's a quote from a doctor who apparently doesn't know what it means. Here's a definition from that same source:

Quote:

In the case of health care, a single-payer system would be setup such that one entity—a government run organization—would collect all health care fees, and pay out all health care costs.

Medicare does not pay all costs, there are co-pays.

Quote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicar...ited_States%29

If you had actually read this link you'd have seen this:

Quote:

Neither Part A nor Part B pays for all of a covered person's medical costs. The program contains premiums, deductibles and coinsurance, which the covered individual must pay out-of-pocket.

This is not a single-payer system.

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

Ah so you just don't know the definition of single payer.

So your definition of single-payer is "multiple payers"?

[Brown]

As long as we're all playing "Constitutional Scholar," let's not forget about the Commerce Clause ("... To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States ...). Here's a link to a recent discussion of this clause.

[Snide]

Originally Posted by Brown

As long as we're all playing "Constitutional Scholar," let's not forget about the Commerce Clause ("... To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States ...). Here's a link to a recent discussion of this clause.

I thought of that, too. I'm not sure the SCOTUS would view the establishment a public option as regulating commerce, but virtually everything else seems to be today, so I guess why not?

[linusrichard]

Originally Posted by Beerina

Sophistry, and has been for 80 years. An all-encompassing power to delve into every aspect of human life was never intended whatsoever by "the general welfare".

I'll have to remember that in case I run across anyone claiming that it was.

Quote:

Nobody would sit there with a straight face and claim if the outcome was known, they'd not have altered the phrase when they wrote it.

And I think the best evidence of what they meant is what they said.

Quote:

See, the Constitution was actually against massive, intrusive government. Even in cases with demagoguery swaying the masses. That's why they put in a thing called "ammendments".

Yet none of the amendments restricted the power the Constitution gave Congress to spend for the general welfare.

Quote:

You have to convince a supermajority that a major change is good. A temporary 51% blip isn't that, but is exactly what people fear -- a blip that locks down this or that idiotic law for essentially all eternity.

Except that the criterion isn't whether the change is "major" or "minor." Are the last three amendments really "major" changes? Was the 16th? Some argue that the 10th is a mere "truism." They all are amendments because they were not (or were not perceived to be) consistent with what the Constitution said before amendment. At the same time, "major" legislation can be passed by Congress if it is consistent with the Constitution.

Quote:

I reject the notion that "for the general welfare" implies Congress has the right to create a Single Payer System,

Okey.

Quote:

or god knows what it's transformed into as a proposal at this point, thanks to the resistance.

Was it ever going to be single-payer?

Quote:

I'm pretty sure any government-provided optional plan is DOA, thank god, and they're toying around with just some generic "you're required to get it" concept ala Massachusetts.

I think you've got it upside-down. The Constitution has a lot more limitation on the federal government's power to tell you what to do and what not to do than it does on the federal government's power to just go ahead and do something. I think either one would probably pass muster, but a law requiring all Americans to get insurance would likely be on somewhat less solid constitutional ground than a law buying insurance for all Americans.

[Puppycow]

More Section 8 Hilarity, this time in the pages of the Wall Street Journal!

Quote:

The elephant in the room is the Constitution. As every civics class once taught, the federal government is a government of limited, enumerated powers, with the states retaining broad regulatory authority. As James Madison explained in the Federalist Papers: "[i]n the first place it is to be remembered that the general government is not to be charged with the whole power of making and administering laws. Its jurisdiction is limited to certain enumerated objects." Congress, in other words, cannot regulate simply because it sees a problem to be fixed. Federal law must be grounded in one of the specific grants of authority found in the Constitution.

These are mostly found in Article I, Section 8, which among other things gives Congress the power to tax, borrow and spend money, raise and support armies, declare war, establish post offices and regulate commerce. It is the authority to regulate foreign and interstate commerce that—in one way or another—supports most of the elaborate federal regulatory system. If the federal government has any right to reform, revise or remake the American health-care system, it must be found in this all-important provision. This is especially true of any mandate that every American obtain health-care insurance or face a penalty.

They conveniently leave out the words "general welfare"! But they do say "among other things"!
What a crock.

[Peephole]

If it is unconstitutional, so what? Propose an amendment.

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by Peephole

If it is unconstitutional, so what? Propose an amendment.

It's not unconstitutional, and it is a long difficult process to amend the Constitution. 2/3 of both the House and Senate would need to vote to propose an amendment, or 2/3 of the State legislatures would have to vote to convene a Constitutional Convention. After that, 3/4 of the State legislatures would have to approve the amendment before it is added to the Constitution.

This isn't something you just pass as easily as a mere law.

[Beerina]

Originally Posted by WildCat

Yeah, what did Alexander Hamilton know about the intent of the Founding Fathers!

Alexander Hamilton thought the Federal Government was authorized to take over medical care, redistribute wealth according to votes, and seize private land to turn it over to private companies because they pay more taxes?

Huh. Learn something new every day. Can you give me your pamphlet on Hamilton and these ideas?

[Beerina]

Originally Posted by linusrichard

Originally Posted by Beerina

Sophistry, and has been for 80 years. An all-encompassing power to delve into every aspect of human life was never intended whatsoever by "the general welfare".

I'll have to remember that in case I run across anyone claiming that it was.

Nobody ever claims this -- they just claim a million "special cases" that are "really, really justified".

It's quite telling that in the recent SC case that threw out the federal "no gun zones around schools" law that the pro-commerce clause (partner in crime to the general welfare clause) similarly seemed to have no limits. When challenged to provide an example of reaching too far, the pro-expansive justices could not provide one.

Hence the sophistry.

Quote:

Quote:

Nobody would sit there with a straight face and claim if the outcome was known, they'd not have altered the phrase when they wrote it.

And I think the best evidence of what they meant is what they said.

Again, sophistry, given it's clearly being re-interpreted in ways that were not intended.

Quote:

Quote:

See, the Constitution was actually against massive, intrusive government. Even in cases with demagoguery swaying the masses. That's why they put in a thing called "ammendments".

Yet none of the amendments restricted the power the Constitution gave Congress to spend for the general welfare.

Again, sophistry.

The Founding Fathers debated on to whether to have a Bill of Rights at all. The debate was between one side, who thought government's inevitable creeping accumulation of power would lead people to claim, well, it ain't mentioned here, so it doesn't exist.

Opposed were those who said, well, if we mention certain rights, then they will come a day when the same creeping government will claim those, and only those, exist.

Both sides turned out to be right.

Quote:

Quote:

You have to convince a supermajority that a major change is good. A temporary 51% blip isn't that, but is exactly what people fear -- a blip that locks down this or that idiotic law for essentially all eternity.

Except that the criterion isn't whether the change is "major" or "minor." Are the last three amendments really "major" changes?

Ok, ya got me. Some ammendments, such as the 27th which forbid Congress from changing its own pay rate during it's own session, are actually a further restriction.

But to say, well, "times have changed", and therefore we don't have to change the constitution to allow a takeover of medicine, rather than going through all the deliberately built-in laborious hard work to amend the Constitution is what's wrong here.

Quote:

Quote:

I reject the notion that "for the general welfare" implies Congress has the right to create a Single Payer System,

Okey.

Quote:

or god knows what it's transformed into as a proposal at this point, thanks to the resistance.

Was it ever going to be single-payer?

Without resistance, yes. You fight the battle with Those Who Would Lord Over You on free speech on distasteful grounds like porno and outrageous art, precisely so it doesn't get anywhere near the areas that really matter.

Quote:

Quote:

I'm pretty sure any government-provided optional plan is DOA, thank god, and they're toying around with just some generic "you're required to get it" concept ala Massachusetts.

I think you've got it upside-down. The Constitution has a lot more limitation on the federal government's power to tell you what to do and what not to do than it does on the federal government's power to just go ahead and do something.

In practice, sadly, you're right. But in theory, the Constitution says, "Here, there's this thing called government. We the People create it and authorize it to do things. Here are the things it's allowed to do, and none others.

It's a huge philosophical difference with more historical Parliamentary systems that just said, well, governments just exist, so we'll deal with it by saying it can't do a few particular things, but in general, unless told otherwise, it can do anything it wants.

Huge difference.

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by Beerina

Alexander Hamilton thought the Federal Government was authorized to take over medical care, redistribute wealth according to votes, and seize private land to turn it over to private companies because they pay more taxes?

Since none of those things are happening under the General Welfare clause except in your fevered imagination I won't need to comment.

Quote:

Huh. Learn something new every day. Can you give me your pamphlet on Hamilton and these ideas?

It appears the only place you "learn" new things from is loony wackadoodle Libertarian "Constitutional scholars" like Michael Badnarik.

Why don't you come back with an actual argument instead of paranoid loony libertarian claptrap?-

[Beerina]

Originally Posted by WildCat

Since none of those things are happening under the General Welfare clause except in your fevered imagination I won't need to comment.

Good. I'm glad I'm imagining all the hype and we-must-take-over-health-care nonsense is just my imaginings.

Quote:

It appears the only place you "learn" new things from is loony wackadoodle Libertarian "Constitutional scholars" like Michael Badnarik.

Why don't you come back with an actual argument instead of paranoid loony libertarian claptrap?-

I have no idea who that guy even is. I have no idea what your'e talking about. Please deal with what I say instead of implying Satan is secretly guiding my thoughts, as a Christian thinks of an atheist.


People around here fancy themselves Advanced Thinkers, so they do not like being compared to a fundamentalist Christian in that way. And in every board on Randi except politics, they'd be right.