CDZ A New and Improved Constitution for the USA

[dblack]

Government has an obligation under the Constitution to "provide for" the "General Welfare" of We the People. Providing affordable healthcare is not a right of the people themselves but it is a duty of the government OF the people and FOR the people to ensure their welfare.

The lack of consensus around that presumption is the reason for this thread.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

It seems the true intent of this thread is to whine about the ACA, having less to do with a 'new constitution.'

 

[Derideo_Te]

Government has an obligation under the Constitution to "provide for" the "General Welfare" of We the People. Providing affordable healthcare is not a right of the people themselves but it is a duty of the government OF the people and FOR the people to ensure their welfare.

The lack of consensus around that presumption is the reason for this thread.

The wording of the Constitution empowers Congress to spend taxpayer money on the General Welfare of We the People. Therefore it is constitutional for the Federal government to provide subsidies in order that healthcare is affordable to everyone.

If you have a problem with this concept for healthcare then you must have a problem with subsidies to farmers too. In fact you must have a problem with subsidies to nuclear plants, football stadiums, aircraft manufactures, pharmaceutical companies, oil corporations, Google, Walmart, etc, etc. Oh, and you will need to eliminate Medicare and Medicaid since they fall under the same General Welfare Tax Clause concept as does Social Security.

Either it applies to all of them or none of them. Good luck with trying to take away any of those programs. The American people and the Supreme Court have approved of them and want them to remain in place.

The Libertarian naysayers are in the minority when it comes to what constitutes General Welfare. You don't get to pick and choose which you like and which you don't.

 

[Derideo_Te]

It seems the true intent of this thread is to whine about the ACA, having less to do with a 'new constitution.'

Agreed. The vilification of the ACA is the driving force behind the Libertarians. They are using it as a wedge issue to drive voters to the polls. The Koch bros want to impose their Libertarian Utopia on America. However they are going to have to broaden their appeal since the demographic changes are working against them.

 

[Olde Europe]

The wording of the Constitution empowers Congress to spend taxpayer money on the General Welfare of We the People. Therefore it is constitutional for the Federal government to provide subsidies in order that healthcare is affordable to everyone.

If you have a problem with this concept for healthcare then you must have a problem with subsidies to farmers too. In fact you must have a problem with subsidies to nuclear plants, football stadiums, aircraft manufactures, pharmaceutical companies, oil corporations, Google, Walmart, etc, etc.

Either it applies to all of them or none of them.

Ah, well... I'd rather argue for a somewhat narrower definition of "general welfare", like, things with a more direct relationship with humans' pursuit of happiness. Moreover, I'd suspect that Foxfyre would tell you in no uncertain terms that she'd oppose every subsidy you might care to mention, reducing the General welfare to protection of life, property, and a safe environment for commerce. Given how unclear the term "General welfare" really is, reasonable people might reasonably disagree on its meaning.

In that healthcare even for those who cannot on their own afford it protects those who can from the uncontrolled spread of contagious diseases, there's a clear enough link for me to the General welfare. Subsidies for Walmart, not so much.

 

[dblack]

Government has an obligation under the Constitution to "provide for" the "General Welfare" of We the People. Providing affordable healthcare is not a right of the people themselves but it is a duty of the government OF the people and FOR the people to ensure their welfare.

The lack of consensus around that presumption is the reason for this thread.

The wording of the Constitution empowers Congress to spend taxpayer money on the General Welfare of We the People. Therefore it is constitutional for the Federal government to provide subsidies in order that healthcare is affordable to everyone.

The topic of this thread isn't the interpretation of the current constitution.

If you have a problem with this concept for healthcare then you must have a problem with subsidies to farmers too. In fact you must have a problem with subsidies to nuclear plants, football stadiums, aircraft manufactures, pharmaceutical companies, oil corporations, Google, Walmart, etc, etc. Oh, and you will need to eliminate Medicare and Medicaid since they fall under the same General Welfare Tax Clause concept as does Social Security.

Either it applies to all of them or none of them.

Yep. That's why people objected to those programs initially, because they worried that the underlying principle would be used in later years to justify broad-based "caretaker government". They were derided for alarmist, "slippery slope" concerns. But they were right.

Good luck with trying to take away any of those programs.

Thanks! But I think it's more a matter of time than luck. People are getting sick of this shit, and they're starting to see that he slippery slope wasn't a joke.

 

[Olde Europe]

It seems the true intent of this thread is to whine about the ACA, having less to do with a 'new constitution.'

Agreed. The vilification of the ACA is the driving force behind the Libertarians. They are using it as a wedge issue to drive voters to the polls. The Koch bros want to impose their Libertarian Utopia on America. However they are going to have to broaden their appeal since the demographic changes are working against them.

There is something to all of that. So, why not make the ACA the prime example why the current Constitution should be kept, or amended to clarify the extent of General welfare Congress be empowered to support?

 

[dblack]

It seems the true intent of this thread is to whine about the ACA, having less to do with a 'new constitution.'

Agreed. The vilification of the ACA is the driving force behind the Libertarians. They are using it as a wedge issue to drive voters to the polls. The Koch bros want to impose their Libertarian Utopia on America. However they are going to have to broaden their appeal since the demographic changes are working against them.

There is something to all of that. So, why not make the ACA the prime example why the current Constitution should be kept, or amended to clarify the extent of General welfare Congress be empowered to support?

Exactly. If you're sure people want government to be responsible for health care, and you're not looking forward to using it as a precedent to broaden government power in general, why not honestly amend the Constitution to explicitly support such a program? That would clearly empower government to do what you want, without weakening the power of the Constitution to limit government.

 

[Derideo_Te]

The topic of this thread isn't the interpretation of the current constitution.

Ironic given how many times it has been referenced by the Libertarian Utopians in this thread.

 

[Olde Europe]

Exactly. If you're sure people want government to be responsible for health care, and you're not looking forward to using it as a precedent to broaden government power in general, why not honestly amend the Constitution to explicitly support such a program? That would clearly empower government to do what you want, without weakening the power of the Constitution to limit government.

As I stated before, for the time being I am content if things are being left as they are, since any change effected in the current political climate would worsen things. That may change once the pre-eminent political problem of these days, that is, the insanity of the GOP, is cured. I'd even go so far as to praise the genius of the Founders that they have used terms, such as "General welfare", that could move and develop with the times and with the changes in the population's needs and wants, so that the Constitution won't constrict and hamper societal development.

__________________________________________

The topic of this thread isn't the interpretation of the current constitution.

Nonsense. Of course, the interpretation, and the effects, of the current Constitution is exactly what drives the OP's efforts to write a new one. In that the advocacy is analogous to the one provided in the Federalist Papers, with frequent references to the Articles of Confederation, detailing the need for change.

 

[dblack]

The topic of this thread isn't the interpretation of the current constitution.

Ironic given how many times it has been referenced by the Libertarian Utopians in this thread.

Perhaps. If the discussion is how to interpret the current Constitution, I definitely have opinions on the matter. But it's pointless to cite contested interpretations of the existing constitution. We're discussing a new one.

 

[Derideo_Te]

The wording of the Constitution empowers Congress to spend taxpayer money on the General Welfare of We the People. Therefore it is constitutional for the Federal government to provide subsidies in order that healthcare is affordable to everyone.

If you have a problem with this concept for healthcare then you must have a problem with subsidies to farmers too. In fact you must have a problem with subsidies to nuclear plants, football stadiums, aircraft manufactures, pharmaceutical companies, oil corporations, Google, Walmart, etc, etc.

Either it applies to all of them or none of them.

Ah, well... I'd rather argue for a somewhat narrower definition of "general welfare", like, things with a more direct relationship with humans' pursuit of happiness. Moreover, I'd suspect that Foxfyre would tell you in no uncertain terms that she'd oppose every subsidy you might care to mention, reducing the General welfare to protection of life, property, and a safe environment for commerce. Given how unclear the term "General welfare" really is, reasonable people might reasonably disagree on its meaning.

In that healthcare even for those who cannot on their own afford it protects those who can from the uncontrolled spread of contagious diseases, there's a clear enough link for me to the General welfare. Subsidies for Walmart, not so much.

We agree that the Welfare clause has been abused to provide subsidies where none should be provided. The primary goal of the constitution is to provide for We the People and not for private sector corporations that should prosper or fail on their own merits. The case for subsidizing farmers made sense since it was in the vital interests of the nation at that time but that is long past and should be terminated. Same applies to nuclear plants, Boeing, etc.

The Federal government does have a role when the national interests can be clearly cited. Propping up the auto industry meant retaining 3 million jobs and that was cheaper than providing them with unemployment and trying to find 3 million new jobs. That crisis has passed and the funding was repaid to the government.

So if healthcare were to drop in price to the point where everyone could have a tricorder in their own home then there wouldn't be a need for this healthcare subsidy either. But until that time there is a cogent argument to be made for a healthy workforce in this nation as you have alluded to in your own posts.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

It seems the true intent of this thread is to whine about the ACA, having less to do with a 'new constitution.'

Agreed. The vilification of the ACA is the driving force behind the Libertarians. They are using it as a wedge issue to drive voters to the polls. The Koch bros want to impose their Libertarian Utopia on America. However they are going to have to broaden their appeal since the demographic changes are working against them.

That the ACA is Constitutional is likely of no consequence to libertarians and others on the extreme right:

“Congress’s use of the Taxing Clause to encourage buying something is[...]not new. Tax incentives already promote, for example, purchasing homes and professional educations. See 26 U. S. C. §§163(h), 25A. Sustaining the mandate as a tax depends only on whether Congress has properly exercised its taxing power to encourage purchasing health insurance, not whether it can. Upholding the individual mandate under the Taxing Clause thus does not recognize any new federal power. It determines that Congress has used an existing one.”

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT BUSINESS v. SEBELIUS SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES LII Legal Information Institute

Of course libertarians and others on the extreme right will maintain that this decision was 'wrong,' just like every other Supreme Court decision – up to and including Marbury, rendering the libertarian/far right 'argument' ridiculous and untenable.

 

[dblack]

Exactly. If you're sure people want government to be responsible for health care, and you're not looking forward to using it as a precedent to broaden government power in general, why not honestly amend the Constitution to explicitly support such a program? That would clearly empower government to do what you want, without weakening the power of the Constitution to limit government.

As I stated before, for the time being I am content if things are being left as they are, since any change effected in the current political climate would worsen things. That may change once the pre-eminent political problem of these days, that is, the insanity of the GOP, is cured. I'd even go so far as to praise the genius of the Founders that they have used terms, such as "General welfare", that could move and develop with the times and with the changes in the population's needs and wants, so that the Constitution won't constrict and hamper societal development.

__________________________________________

The topic of this thread isn't the interpretation of the current constitution.

Nonsense. Of course, the interpretation, and the effects, of the current Constitution is exactly what drives the OP's efforts to write a new one. In that the advocacy is analogous to the one provided in the Federalist Papers, with frequent references to the Articles of Confederation, detailing the need for change.

It's not nonsense. I was responding to a claim that the Constitution empowers government broad power to provide for the general welfare of citizens. We're talking about what powers we'd want to see granted to government by a new constitution. Rehashing disputes over interpretation of the existing verbiage is pointless.

 

[Olde Europe]

We agree that the Welfare clause has been abused to provide subsidies where none should be provided. The primary goal of the constitution is to provide for We the People and not for private sector corporations that should prosper or fail on their own merits. The case for subsidizing farmers made sense since it was in the vital interests of the nation at that time but that is long past and should be terminated. Same applies to nuclear plants, Boeing, etc.

I am with you on all of this, but would go for a modified approach to farming and subsidies. As things currently stand, that is, the bulk of subsidies going to agro-industrial conglomerates, that should change. I'd rather favour subsidies for small-time, family farms, so that rural regions maintain a broad population with the necessary skills to produce food, preferably in a sustainable way, so that the regions one might characterise as "civilised nature" are being maintained. Otherwise, no objections here...

__________________________________

It's not nonsense. I was responding to a claim that the Constitution empowers government broad power to provide for the general welfare of citizens. We're talking about what powers we'd want to see granted to government by a new constitution. Rehashing disputes over interpretation of the existing verbiage is pointless.

Yeah, there's that thing about learning from history, to which you seem to be strenuously objecting.

 

[Derideo_Te]

We agree that the Welfare clause has been abused to provide subsidies where none should be provided. The primary goal of the constitution is to provide for We the People and not for private sector corporations that should prosper or fail on their own merits. The case for subsidizing farmers made sense since it was in the vital interests of the nation at that time but that is long past and should be terminated. Same applies to nuclear plants, Boeing, etc.

I am with you on all of this, but would go for a modified approach to farming and subsidies. As things currently stand, that is, the bulk of subsidies going to agro-industrial conglomerates, that should change. I'd rather favour subsidies for small-time, family farms, so that rural regions maintain a broad population with the necessary skills to produce food, preferably in a sustainable way, so that the regions one might characterise as "civilised nature" are being maintained. Otherwise, no objections here...

 

[dblack]

The primary goal of the constitution is to provide for We the People and not for private sector corporations that should prosper or fail on their own merits. The case for subsidizing farmers made sense since it was in the vital interests of the nation at that time but that is long past and should be terminated. Same applies to nuclear plants, Boeing, etc.

I would vehemently oppose any such verbiage in a new constitution. I don't want a government that functions as a general purpose "provider", regardless of who is being provided for. This is specifically what I'd want to address with a separation of economy and state. Government should protect our freedom to take care of ourselves.

 

[Derideo_Te]

The primary goal of the constitution is to provide for We the People and not for private sector corporations that should prosper or fail on their own merits. The case for subsidizing farmers made sense since it was in the vital interests of the nation at that time but that is long past and should be terminated. Same applies to nuclear plants, Boeing, etc.

I would vehemently oppose any such verbiage in a new constitution. I don't want a government that functions as a general purpose "provider", regardless of who is being provided for. This is specifically what I'd want to address with a separation of economy and state. Government should protect our freedom to take care of ourselves.

Not everyone has the same advantages that you do to exercise your "freedom". If you want the benefits of living in a civilized society such as this one you must assume the responsibilities that accompany those benefits.

You cannot impose burdens on others in order to exercise your "freedom". If "taking care of yourself" means that others must suffer unnecessary hardships then that is clearly never going to be ratified by the majority.

FF has grasped this point when she has conceded that a "moral and good people" must provide for those less fortunate. We differ on how that can be accomplished but she does appreciate that the obligation to provide for the less fortunate does exist.

 

[Foxfyre]

Healthcare is not a shared resource. It is a service/product sold by healthcare providers just as food is sold by a supermarket or houses or business spaces are sold by developers or office supplies are sold by Staples or Office Depot. A shared resource is the air we all must breathe--there is no way to separate out some for the use of one person and other for the use of another. Or water in an aquifer that spans a number of properties or counties or water in a river that is shared by multiple states.

Therein lies the rub!

You perceive healthcare as a product from which profits must be derived.

Did Florence Nightingale share your profit motive? How about Albert Schweitzer? Or Doctors without Borders? Are the healthcare workers putting their lives on the line in Liberia and Sierra Leone doing it to make a profit?

Helathcare is not just about making a profit. Certainly it is a career choice but how many enter the profession with the expectation of becoming wealthy? How many are willing to slave away for 10 years earning next to nothing and racking up hundreds of thousands in loans if they are not dedicated to the concept of helping the sick?

The profit aspect of healthcare is distorted way out of proportion to the real purpose of healthcare.

As someone mentioned earlier in this thread Jesus never asked for payment for healing the sick. He did it out of love and compassion for the suffering of the sick. The Hippocratic Oath is not about how much to charge, it is about dealing with the ailments of people.

Here is the modern version used by Johns Hopkins.

Hippocratic Oath (Modern version)

I swear to fulfill, to the best of my ability and judgment, this covenant:

I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those physicians in whose steps I walk, and gladly share such knowledge as is mine with those who are to follow.

I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures which are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism.

I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon's knife or the chemist's drug.

I will not be ashamed to say "I know not," nor will I fail to call in my colleagues when the skills of another are needed for a patient's recovery.

I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know. Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God.

I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness may affect the person's family and economic stability. My responsibility includes these related problems, if I am to care adequately for the sick.

I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure.

I will remember that I remain a member of society, with special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm.

If I do not violate this oath, may I enjoy life and art, respected while I live and remembered with affection thereafter. May I always act so as to preserve the finest traditions of my calling and may I long experience the joy of healing those who seek my help.

Written in 1964 by Louis Lasagna, Academic Dean of the School of Medicine at Tufts University, and used in many medical schools today. ​

Hippocratic Oath Modern version - Bioethics - Library Guides at Johns Hopkins University

Nowhere does it mention the term profit.

The fundamental difference is your perception of healthcare versus mine.

To me healthcare is something that We the People must provide for the General Welfare of all. Because when we don't care for those less fortunate than ourselves we lessen ourselves as human beings. I don't begrudge the taxes I pay for the healthcare of others because to me that is just part of my duty as a citizen.

Again you have dishonestly mischaracterized what I said. I did not say that profits must be derived from healthcare. I have never said that profits must be derived from food or clothing or office supplies either.

But it is a tortuous and indefensible stretch to suggest that delivery of healthcare is any different than delivery of food, shelter, or clothing or any other necessity of life or even those things that allow us to be happier or more productive humans.

Why is it more in the interest of the 'general welfare' for the government to control all who presume to be in the healthcare business and for the government to dictate how the resources will be allocated and who will receive them at what price when it does not (yet) presume to do that for food, water, or shelter or any other necessities of life?

Again you have dishonestly mischaracterized what I said.

How ironic that you make that false accusation and then follow it with this malicious mischaracterization of what I actually posted.

Why is it more in the interest of the 'general welfare' for the government to control all who presume to be in the healthcare business and for the government to dictate how the resources will be allocated and who will receive them at what price

Let's expose the former by asking this all too obvious question...if the private sector is not in the business of making a profit then why is there a private sector at all? So given that the private sector is in the business of making profits it does so out of healthcare too, right? All I did was quote you exactly so there was no "mischaracterization" on my part of what you posted or your position.

As far as your mischaracterization of the latter is concerned where did I post that government has the right to "control all who presume to be in the healthcare business and for the government to dictate how the resources will be allocated and who will receive them at what price"?

You cannot point to a single thing that I have posted that supports your canard.

What I have done is make the case that healthcare and profits are not a good combination because they end up denying the least fortunate their access to affordable healthcare. I have also made the case that in order for healthcare to be equitably distributed that can only happen via a central non profit agency that treats everyone equally. I have established that affordable healthcare for all is in the best interests of this nation as a whole and I have debunked your claims that there is bloat and self serving in Medicare.

Since we live in a free society there is nothing stopping anyone from setting themselves up in the private sector and offering "premium" healthcare services for a profit. But when it comes to the fact that everyone requires affordable healthcare at some stages in their life the best means of providing it equitably is from a single nationwide non profit organization.

If you insist upon objecting to this falling under the Federal government then an independent non profit agency could be formed to do the same thing. Payroll deductions could be funneled in directly via the IRS and it could be managed as a single payer for all healthcare services provided to the American people. None of the healthcare providers would be "controlled" by this agency (just as Medicare doesn't control them either). They would just be doing the same jobs in the same careers but would be paid via the single payer non profit instead of the for profit private sector.

This makes fiscal sense too because by eliminating the profit overhead which only gives us 80 cents of healthcare for every dollar in the private sector compared to 98 cents of healthcare for every dollar in the non profit single payer alternative. Healthcare professionals will be better off because they will get more money from the single payer non profit than they do from the for profit private sector right now. (Note that currently Medicare deals only with the most expensive sector of the population. Once the pool is expanded to the entire population there will be more funding for the same coverage.)

The concept is identical to what we have right now with Medicare and it works for millions of Americans. Why break what works and works well? Just expand it to ensure that everyone has access to affordable healthcare. It doesn't matter if it comes via the non profit Federal government or a non profit single payer agency. The end result is the same by ensuring that everyone has affordable healthcare.

Isn't that the humane thing that a "good and moral people" would do in a civilized society?

I give up. It is impossible to have a reasoned discussion with you. I objected to your specific and targeted mischaracterization of what I said. I did not mention you or characterize you in any way in my argument in support of the topic.

If you can show how Obamacare does NOT effectively control every aspect of the healthcare industry to what products the insurance companies MUST offer and what the people are REQUIRED to buy, go for it. If you can show how people going to their jobs and running their businesses for their own benefit does not benefit society as a whole at prices people can afford to pay and are willing to pay, go for it. How can anybody rate a program successful that takes away most choices from most Americans and is projected to cost unfunded trillions in coming years? That would be Medicare alone. Add Obamacare to that and you have unsustainable chaos.

I'm sure single payer sounds wonderful to some. To me it sounds like a straight jacket, like totalitarianism in its worst form, a method to take away all choice, opportunity, options, and liberty from the people.

How can I feel good about any program sold to the people with intentional and blatant lies so that they won't object to it until it is too late?

The reformed Constitution I propose will prevent the federal government from presuming that kind of terrible power ever again.

 

[dblack]

The primary goal of the constitution is to provide for We the People and not for private sector corporations that should prosper or fail on their own merits. The case for subsidizing farmers made sense since it was in the vital interests of the nation at that time but that is long past and should be terminated. Same applies to nuclear plants, Boeing, etc.

I would vehemently oppose any such verbiage in a new constitution. I don't want a government that functions as a general purpose "provider", regardless of who is being provided for. This is specifically what I'd want to address with a separation of economy and state. Government should protect our freedom to take care of ourselves.

Not everyone has the same advantages that you do to exercise your "freedom". If you want the benefits of living in a civilized society such as this one you must assume the responsibilities that accompany those benefits.

You cannot impose burdens on others in order to exercise your "freedom". If "taking care of yourself" means that others must suffer unnecessary hardships then that is clearly never going to be ratified by the majority.

FF has grasped this point when she has conceded that a "moral and good people" must provide for those less fortunate. We differ on how that can be accomplished but she does appreciate that the obligation to provide for the less fortunate does exist.

I'm pretty sure FF has always felt that way, as have I - it's no concession. The issue here isn't the value of society caring for the poor. It's with setting up government as "caretaker". A provider always has power over those provided for and is implicitly empowered to decide what's best for them. It's that power we want to keep out of the hands of government.