CDZ A New and Improved Constitution for the USA

[C_Clayton_Jones]

For those who insist on thinking this thread is somehow about the ACA being based on the heritage model and who have said that several times now, I wish they would educate themselves on that. Here's a couple of good places to start:

Obama says Heritage Foundation is source of health exchange idea PolitiFact

Is the ACA the GOP health care plan from 1993 PunditFact

HINT: The fact that there are some similarities in the two plans in no way suggests that the ACA was BASED on GOP proposals and/or the Heritage plan--if it had been, we would be in a hell of a lot less mess than we are. Nobody at Heritage would have condoned the wholesale socialist dictates of an ACA as it exists. And nobody in the GOP voted for it.

And my emphasis with this thread is at least in part to express my deepest conviction that if we are to retain any semblance of liberty in this country, we must find a way to ensure that no legislation like the ACA can ever be passed again.

And yet both links just provided by the OP agree that the ACA is based upon the Heritage plan.

Oh, and the Heritage plan included the tax penalty for non participation and there are no "wholesale socialist dictates" in the ACA either.

And how fucked up is that? We vote for Democrats and get a corporatist, Republican health care law. I don't know how supporters of this shit can sleep at night.

The Democratic preferred single payer option was obstructed by the Republicans so the compromise was the Heritage plan. Then the Republicans reneged on the compromise too. The ACA is still better than what was happening before it was implemented.

True.

And there's no reason why republicans can't contribute to make the ACA better, particularly since it's their plan to begin with.

Otherwise, the notion that there's some sort of 'market solution' is naïve an unfounded; indeed, it's the nature of market forces to establish a consistent price for goods and services within a given market – if a low income working family of four can't afford health insurance for $1500 a month, they're not going to be able to afford health insurance for $1300 a month after 'shopping around.'

It's also wrong and reprehensible to say that low income working families 'deserve' to be without health insurance because they 'failed' to earned enough money to afford health insurance; that's not who we are as a people, we're better than that.

 

[JWBooth]

Probably most USMB members have some familiarity with at least some of the U.S. Constitution and most have strong opinions about what the Constitution does and does not protect/provide/accomplish.

It might be an interesting discussion to have our own little Constitutional convention here and discuss what we would want to retain and what we would change of the original Constitution if the people decided to write a new one.

For instance, the Preamble of the Original Constitution is this:

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.​

The problem with the wording, however descriptive and elegant, is that we might have trouble in agreeing on what a 'more perfect union' is, what components of justice the federal government should be involved in, or what constitutes 'domestic tranquility'. Certainly there are broad disputes as to what is included in the 'general welfare' and strong opposing views on what 'blessings of liberty' actually are.

My proposal for a preamble for a new constitution would be something more like this:

We the people, in order to ensure peaceful cooperation and commerce between the various states, provide for the common defense, promote justice and the general welfare without prejudice or favoritism, and secure the unalienable rights and blessings of liberty for every citizen, do ordain and establish this Constitution of the United States of America.​

What would you want a new Constitution for the United State of America to accomplish that the old one does not seem to do?

The ink wasn't dry on the current constitution before it was being ignored, interpreted to mean things it doesn't say, and otherwise manipulated. Why would a new one be any different?

 

[gipper]

For those who insist on thinking this thread is somehow about the ACA being based on the heritage model and who have said that several times now, I wish they would educate themselves on that. Here's a couple of good places to start:

Obama says Heritage Foundation is source of health exchange idea PolitiFact

Is the ACA the GOP health care plan from 1993 PunditFact

HINT: The fact that there are some similarities in the two plans in no way suggests that the ACA was BASED on GOP proposals and/or the Heritage plan--if it had been, we would be in a hell of a lot less mess than we are. Nobody at Heritage would have condoned the wholesale socialist dictates of an ACA as it exists. And nobody in the GOP voted for it.

And my emphasis with this thread is at least in part to express my deepest conviction that if we are to retain any semblance of liberty in this country, we must find a way to ensure that no legislation like the ACA can ever be passed again.

And yet both links just provided by the OP agree that the ACA is based upon the Heritage plan.

Oh, and the Heritage plan included the tax penalty for non participation and there are no "wholesale socialist dictates" in the ACA either.

And how fucked up is that? We vote for Democrats and get a corporatist, Republican health care law. I don't know how supporters of this shit can sleep at night.

The Democratic preferred single payer option was obstructed by the Republicans so the compromise was the Heritage plan. Then the Republicans reneged on the compromise too. The ACA is still better than what was happening before it was implemented.

True.

And there's no reason why republicans can't contribute to make the ACA better, particularly since it's their plan to begin with.

Otherwise, the notion that there's some sort of 'market solution' is naïve an unfounded; indeed, it's the nature of market forces to establish a consistent price for goods and services within a given market – if a low income working family of four can't afford health insurance for $1500 a month, they're not going to be able to afford health insurance for $1300 a month after 'shopping around.'

It's also wrong and reprehensible to say that low income working families 'deserve' to be without health insurance because they 'failed' to earned enough money to afford health insurance; that's not who we are as a people, we're better than that.

Who said low income people deserve to be without health insurance?

 

[Olde Europe]

The ink wasn't dry on the current constitution before it was being ignored, interpreted to mean things it doesn't say, and otherwise manipulated.

Now that's interesting. Could you give us a clearer sense of what you mean by, say, providing two or three examples thereof? Thanks in advance!

.............................................................................

Who said low income people deserve to be without health insurance?

I'd say, those who, during the last two decades, opposed and obstructed any and all efforts to extend health insurance to those without the means to afford it on their own, in effect said, and still say, exactly that.

.............................................................................

Yep. Under such conditions it's "entirely sensible" to dictate any and all personal health habits that might result in additional health care costs. That's exactly why making government responsible for our health care is so insidious. Is that really where we want to go?

How did urging schools to provide healthy food at the school cafeteria morph into an attempt "to dictate any and all personal health habits"?

.............................................................................

Hopefully all thinking people will have laws to prevent witch burning and child prostitution, but this is not the prerogative of the federal government if we wish for liberty to be the goal. I believe a free people will choose to not allow willful pollution of everybody else's air, water, and soil at will, but unless such crosses state lines, that is the business of the people to enforce and should not be the prerogative of the federal government.

So you'd base your proposed Constitution on the hope that people will always do what's reasonable, and that they won't wreak havoc over other persons' livelihoods if it serves their bottom line? When history should inform you that neither is the case, and your study of the Founders' writings should have informed you that relying on that isn't the best of ideas.

 

[gipper]

The ink wasn't dry on the current constitution before it was being ignored, interpreted to mean things it doesn't say, and otherwise manipulated.

Now that's interesting. Could you give us a clearer sense of what you mean by, say, providing two or three examples thereof? Thanks in advance!

.............................................................................

Who said low income people deserve to be without health insurance?

I'd say, those who, during the last two decades, opposed and obstructed any and all efforts to extend health insurance to those without the means to afford it on their own, in effect said, and still say, exactly that.

.............................................................................

Yep. Under such conditions it's "entirely sensible" to dictate any and all personal health habits that might result in additional health care costs. That's exactly why making government responsible for our health care is so insidious. Is that really where we want to go?

How did urging schools to provide healthy food at the school cafeteria morph into an attempt "to dictate any and all personal health habits"?

.............................................................................

Hopefully all thinking people will have laws to prevent witch burning and child prostitution, but this is not the prerogative of the federal government if we wish for liberty to be the goal. I believe a free people will choose to not allow willful pollution of everybody else's air, water, and soil at will, but unless such crosses state lines, that is the business of the people to enforce and should not be the prerogative of the federal government.

So you'd base your proposed Constitution on the hope that people will always do what's reasonable, and that they won't wreak havoc over other persons' livelihoods if it serves their bottom line? When history should inform you that neither is the case, and your study of the Founders' writings should have informed you that relying on that isn't the best of ideas.

In effect, what you are saying is the central government of the USA should provide free health care insurance to all low income people. And....anyone who opposes such a plan must wish to prevent the poor from obtaining health care insurance.

This is illogical.

 

[Derideo_Te]

It's also wrong and reprehensible to say that low income working families 'deserve' to be without health insurance because they 'failed' to earned enough money to afford health insurance; that's not who we are as a people, we're better than that.

At least the vast majority who don't embrace "free market" Libertarianism are better than that.

The problem with the "market forces" approach was that it was based upon a "for profit" model that the Wall Street Casino bosses wanted to milk for every penny. That meant that HMO's had to cut costs and what easier way than to deny expensive procedures based for purely arbitrary excuses like "spending caps" or "pre-existing conditions".

The harm being done to the economy by bankruptcies due to medical bills was hurting credit card companies and their profits were down so they were raising interest rates approaching usury. Even the mob would have been proud of those rates.

When you think about Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness all of them depend upon health. In my opinion there is an inherent "right" to healthcare implied by those terms.

 

[Olde Europe]

In effect, what you are saying is the central government of the USA should provide free health care insurance to all low income people. And....anyone who opposes such a plan must wish to prevent the poor from obtaining health care insurance.

This is illogical.

What I am saying is that healthcare should be considered a universal right, and everyone should be required, according to their ability, to contribute towards making it happen. Anyone opposed to that is, in fact, saying that those who cannot on their own afford healthcare, do not deserve it.

And no, it isn't.

.........................................................................

When you think about Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness all of them depend upon health. In my opinion there is an inherent "right" to healthcare implied by those terms.

And here's good old Tommy J. in your support: "Without health there is no happiness."

 

[gipper]

In effect, what you are saying is the central government of the USA should provide free health care insurance to all low income people. And....anyone who opposes such a plan must wish to prevent the poor from obtaining health care insurance.

This is illogical.

What I am saying is that healthcare should be considered a universal right, and everyone should be required, according to their ability, to contribute towards making it happen. Anyone opposed to that is, in fact, saying that those who cannot on their own afford healthcare, do not deserve it.

And no, it isn't.

.........................................................................

When you think about Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness all of them depend upon health. In my opinion there is an inherent "right" to healthcare implied by those terms.

And here's good old Tommy J. in your support: "Without health there is no happiness."

One would think you would know by now, that using government force against the individual is almost never effective and often leads to terrible injustice, harm, and lots of corruption.

 

[Olde Europe]

One would think you would know by now, that using government force against the individual is almost never effective and often leads to terrible injustice, harm, and lots of corruption.

I would probably "know" that had I fallen for that most famous of Gipperisms about the Federal government being there to help. I didn't, and I haven't.

There's one thing you haters of the Federal government haven't quite explained satisfactorily: After all, more or less returning to the Articles of Confederation would re-empower the States, who would then exert their greatly enhanced powers upon the very individuals who are now, or so you seem to say, groaning under Federal rule. So, in effect, nothing would change, except for the fact that you'd lose the protection afforded by the Bill of Rights (according to Foxfyre's proposal of savagely curtailed Federal power, as, internally, the Federal government should be restricted to preventing war between the States), and you might have government power over the individual in several different flavours contingent on the political leanings of the respective State governments. In effect, very little, if anything, would change. So, why all the exertion?

 

[dblack]

Which part of what I posted did you have a problem understanding?

This part: "The"

Do you really think there's only one alternative?

I am a realist and a pragmatist. As long as there is a profit to be made and Citizens United allows those corporations to purchase the outcome of elections the most cost effective single payer option is a non starter. That just leaves us with the ACA and the horror that preceded it. What else do you have in the way of alternatives?

Well that's just boneheaded. There are endless alternatives to ACA. Even doing nothing would have been far, far better.

And yet you can't name any of them.

Listen, I don't expect you to have a backlog of my online posting for the last five years, or to have much interest in reading it. But if you did, you'd find me pontificating endlessly on exactly that topic. And you'd realize how ridiculous that statement is. And, no, I'm not going to provide with you with links for you to ignore, or reproduce my comments here. Feel free to use your googler.

"Doing nothing" was bankrupting hardworking Americans by the millions and you believe that "would have been far, far better".

First, do no harm

ACA amplifies and cements in place the most destructive aspects of our current health care fiasco.

 

[dblack]

The Democratic preferred single payer option was obstructed by the Republicans so the compromise was the Heritage plan. Then the Republicans reneged on the compromise too. The ACA is still better than what was happening before it was implemented.

Right. And this is our principal point of disagreement. It's not better. It's worse. It takes us deeper into a bottomless pit by injecting even more insurance into the health care market. It accelerates our descent.

 

[dblack]

And there's no reason why republicans can't contribute to make the ACA better, particularly since it's their plan to begin with.

With the recognition that your definition of better is the opposite of mine, I have no doubt republicans will jump on board.

 

[dblack]

What I am saying is that healthcare should be considered a universal right, and everyone should be required, according to their ability, to contribute towards making it happen. Anyone opposed to that is, in fact, saying that those who cannot on their own afford healthcare, do not deserve it.

Why just healthcare? Shouldn't all of life's necessities be included?

 

[Derideo_Te]

Which part of what I posted did you have a problem understanding?

This part: "The"

Do you really think there's only one alternative?

I am a realist and a pragmatist. As long as there is a profit to be made and Citizens United allows those corporations to purchase the outcome of elections the most cost effective single payer option is a non starter. That just leaves us with the ACA and the horror that preceded it. What else do you have in the way of alternatives?

Well that's just boneheaded. There are endless alternatives to ACA. Even doing nothing would have been far, far better.

And yet you can't name any of them.

Listen, I don't expect you to have a backlog of my online posting for the last five years, or to have much interest in reading it. But if you did, you'd find me pontificating endlessly on exactly that topic. And you'd realize how ridiculous that statement is. And, no, I'm not going to provide with you with links for you to ignore, or reproduce my comments here. Feel free to use your googler.

"Doing nothing" was bankrupting hardworking Americans by the millions and you believe that "would have been far, far better".

First, do no harm

ACA amplifies and cements in place the most destructive aspects of our current health care fiasco.

Thank you for admitting that you cannot name a single alternative, let alone a viable one. Your concession on this point is duly noted.

 

[Derideo_Te]

The Democratic preferred single payer option was obstructed by the Republicans so the compromise was the Heritage plan. Then the Republicans reneged on the compromise too. The ACA is still better than what was happening before it was implemented.

Right. And this is our principal point of disagreement. It's not better. It's worse. It takes us deeper into a bottomless pit by injecting even more insurance into the health care market. It accelerates our descent.

Assumes facts not in evidence.

 

[Derideo_Te]

What I am saying is that healthcare should be considered a universal right, and everyone should be required, according to their ability, to contribute towards making it happen. Anyone opposed to that is, in fact, saying that those who cannot on their own afford healthcare, do not deserve it.

Why just healthcare? Shouldn't all of life's necessities be included?

Reductio ad absurdum!

 

[dblack]

What I am saying is that healthcare should be considered a universal right, and everyone should be required, according to their ability, to contribute towards making it happen. Anyone opposed to that is, in fact, saying that those who cannot on their own afford healthcare, do not deserve it.

Why just healthcare? Shouldn't all of life's necessities be included?

Reductio ad absurdum!

So you agree that treating needs as rights is absurd?

 

[dblack]

This part: "The"

Do you really think there's only one alternative?

I am a realist and a pragmatist. As long as there is a profit to be made and Citizens United allows those corporations to purchase the outcome of elections the most cost effective single payer option is a non starter. That just leaves us with the ACA and the horror that preceded it. What else do you have in the way of alternatives?

Well that's just boneheaded. There are endless alternatives to ACA. Even doing nothing would have been far, far better.

And yet you can't name any of them.

Listen, I don't expect you to have a backlog of my online posting for the last five years, or to have much interest in reading it. But if you did, you'd find me pontificating endlessly on exactly that topic. And you'd realize how ridiculous that statement is. And, no, I'm not going to provide with you with links for you to ignore, or reproduce my comments here. Feel free to use your googler.

"Doing nothing" was bankrupting hardworking Americans by the millions and you believe that "would have been far, far better".

First, do no harm

ACA amplifies and cements in place the most destructive aspects of our current health care fiasco.

Thank you for admitting that you cannot name a single alternative, let alone a viable one. You concession on this point is duly noted.

Black is white. You are the winner! Congrats.

 

[Derideo_Te]

What I am saying is that healthcare should be considered a universal right, and everyone should be required, according to their ability, to contribute towards making it happen. Anyone opposed to that is, in fact, saying that those who cannot on their own afford healthcare, do not deserve it.

Why just healthcare? Shouldn't all of life's necessities be included?

Reductio ad absurdum!

So you agree that treating needs as rights is absurd?

No, I am pointing out that your position is absurd. That you cannot differentiate between every day needs and exceptional needs is your problem, not mine.

 

[Derideo_Te]

I am a realist and a pragmatist. As long as there is a profit to be made and Citizens United allows those corporations to purchase the outcome of elections the most cost effective single payer option is a non starter. That just leaves us with the ACA and the horror that preceded it. What else do you have in the way of alternatives?

Well that's just boneheaded. There are endless alternatives to ACA. Even doing nothing would have been far, far better.

And yet you can't name any of them.

Listen, I don't expect you to have a backlog of my online posting for the last five years, or to have much interest in reading it. But if you did, you'd find me pontificating endlessly on exactly that topic. And you'd realize how ridiculous that statement is. And, no, I'm not going to provide with you with links for you to ignore, or reproduce my comments here. Feel free to use your googler.

"Doing nothing" was bankrupting hardworking Americans by the millions and you believe that "would have been far, far better".

First, do no harm

ACA amplifies and cements in place the most destructive aspects of our current health care fiasco.

Thank you for admitting that you cannot name a single alternative, let alone a viable one. You concession on this point is duly noted.

Black is white. You are the winner! Congrats.

Nothing stopping you from posting those "alternatives" you were bragging about.