Constitution doesn’t mention health care

[Oddball]

what limits? the general welfare clause is pretty expansive and was always intended to allow government to grow and operate. and if you'll note, there is a supremacy clause that subjugates state law to conflicting federal law.

If any of what you say were accurate, we'd still be living under the articles of confederation.

If what you say were true we'd need neither, in lieu of mob rule and the judicial oligarchy just making shit up as they went along.

Oh yeah, that's right....They already do.

 

[Gunny]

Who cares if its not in the Constitution?! Are you okay with families going bankrupt, with people (this one's for you BBD and children dying despite paying for health insurance because the insurance company drops their coverage due to a pre-existing condition of because the it eats into the multi-billion dollar insurance companies' profits? Where's the humanity, the compassion in allowing that to happen? Why is it all about money with you conservatives? WWJD?

Why is it always about MY money with you leftwingers? Save your appeal to emotion, and I'm not Jesus.

Since you lefties are so generous, you pay double and let the rest of us get our own.

 

[Gunny]

Constitution doesn’t mention health care - Las Vegas Sun

I have asked my liberal friends, “If I buy my health care directly from my doctor, why would you require me to pay taxes to buy health care for other people?” They usually answer, “Because everyone has a right to health care, and we are all in this together.”

My question then is, “So was I born with an obligation to work to pay for someone else’s health care?” At this point, they will say something like, “You’re already paying for other people’s health care,” or, “That’s the wrong way to look at it,” or, “That sounds selfish,” or just “Yes.”

If health care is a right, then the government must provide for it, as it does national defense and public safety and a judicial system. If it is not, then government has no more business being involved in it than it has in grocery stores or hotels or automobiles. So is health care a right?

More at link..

The Constitution also doesn't grant corporations the same status as individual citizens. The Constitution was written BY THE PEOPLE, FOR THE PEOPLE.

And still doesn't say you can reach into my wallet to pay for someone else's healthcare.

 

[Gunny]

...I agree that NO WHERE in the constitution does it say that the government is responsible for giving you health care. It also doesn't say that the government is responsible for giving us life liberty or hapiness....it does state that we all have the right to persue those things but it in NO WAY makes the government responsible for providing them.

Then again, the Constitution does say that the government is responsible for "provid[ing] for the common defense" and "promot[ing] the general welfare." I've already shown how a certain basic level of healthcare applies to the former.

Which means nothing.

 

[Centrism'sVoice]

And still doesn't say you can reach into my wallet to pay for someone else's healthcare.

Except that the federal government CAN reach into YOUR wallet and mine to pay for almost whatever the hell it wants to. And, by the way, the Constitution does in fact say it can do that.

 

[Gunny]

...I agree that NO WHERE in the constitution does it say that the government is responsible for giving you health care. It also doesn't say that the government is responsible for giving us life liberty or hapiness....it does state that we all have the right to persue those things but it in NO WAY makes the government responsible for providing them.

Then again, the Constitution does say that the government is responsible for "provid[ing] for the common defense" and "promot[ing] the general welfare." I've already shown how a certain basic level of healthcare applies to the former.

I'm sure if the framers had any idea that by the 21st Century, "we the people" would be plagued with a host of new diseases, treatments that extend our lifespans way beyond theirs, that we would be maiming ourselves on superhighways and a myriad of other unforeseen events that need medical treatment, they would have been more specific as to the meaning of "general welfare." They got specific over "common defense" because we had just fought for our independence and they were determined we should be well armed from then on against invading forces. I don't think the framers believed that the family unit would dissipate to the point where a person's "general welfare" wasn't basically taken care of by family and community.

Lame projecting.

 

[Centrism'sVoice]

Which means nothing.

Well that was an intelligent, insightful, and superbly reasoned analysis...

 

[Gunny]

And still doesn't say you can reach into my wallet to pay for someone else's healthcare.

Except that the federal government CAN reach into YOUR wallet and mine to pay for almost whatever the hell it wants to. And, by the way, the Constitution does in fact say it can do that.

Not for whatever the Hell it wants, it most certainly doesn't. Try again.

 

[Gunny]

Which means nothing.

Well that was an intelligent, insightful, and superbly reasoned analysis...

Of nothing? I'd say so.

 

[Centrism'sVoice]

And still doesn't say you can reach into my wallet to pay for someone else's healthcare.

Except that the federal government CAN reach into YOUR wallet and mine to pay for almost whatever the hell it wants to. And, by the way, the Constitution does in fact say it can do that.

Not for whatever the Hell it wants, it most certainly doesn't. Try again.

You forgot the word "almost." But don't worry; it's a short list.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

I'm surprised no one in here picked up on my challenge to the government.

Challenge: United States Govt Officials take care of social security and make it a solvent program instead of the current ponzie scheme it has become.

If the govt can fix social security so that it is solvent THEN maybe I will support them getting involved in health care....but only after they show by example that they can handle something as simple as a general savings account.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Then again, the Constitution does say that the government is responsible for "provid[ing] for the common defense" and "promot[ing] the general welfare." I've already shown how a certain basic level of healthcare applies to the former.

I'm sure if the framers had any idea that by the 21st Century, "we the people" would be plagued with a host of new diseases, treatments that extend our lifespans way beyond theirs, that we would be maiming ourselves on superhighways and a myriad of other unforeseen events that need medical treatment, they would have been more specific as to the meaning of "general welfare." They got specific over "common defense" because we had just fought for our independence and they were determined we should be well armed from then on against invading forces. I don't think the framers believed that the family unit would dissipate to the point where a person's "general welfare" wasn't basically taken care of by family and community.

Lame projecting.

Gunny, you must admit...lame projecting is highly underrated by society. just look around.

 

[Tech_Esq]

And still doesn't say you can reach into my wallet to pay for someone else's healthcare.

Except that the federal government CAN reach into YOUR wallet and mine to pay for almost whatever the hell it wants to. And, by the way, the Constitution does in fact say it can do that.

You need to go get your copy of the Constitution checked. It does not say that.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

And still doesn't say you can reach into my wallet to pay for someone else's healthcare.

Except that the federal government CAN reach into YOUR wallet and mine to pay for almost whatever the hell it wants to. And, by the way, the Constitution does in fact say it can do that.

You need to go get your copy of the Constitution checked. It does not say that.

Oh centrism I promise I dont hate you but again I am at a loss with this post.

Can you cut and paste out the language in the constitution where it says what you claim?

Here in case u need a link The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

 

[Centrism'sVoice]

Oh centrism I promise I dont hate you but again I am at a loss with this post.

Can you cut and paste out the language in the constitution where it says what you claim?

Offhand, I can think of two places: Article 1, Section 8, and the 16th amendment. These appear to cover most situations.

(I hope you don't mind my conserving bandwidth by using only those two references.)

 

[Tech_Esq]

I guess since this thread is going to continue, I'll post the discussion I had with Jillian about this.

The Constitution "lives and breathes" no more than a contract does. You enforce the Constitution in the same way you enforce a contract. You don't change the terms of a contract because they become inconvenient for one party or the other and the same goes for the Constitution. The parties in both cases have the ability to amend what is in the document. If they are no longer satisfied with the contents of the four corners of the agreement, then they should avail themselves of the amendment process.

That said, is health care an item than can be shoe honed somewhere in Article I, Section 8? (or anywhere else). I don't think so. I think it is an impermissible expansion of federal power. (Leaving aside whether it's a good or bad thing to do). Madison was quite clear on how Article I, Section 8 should be read at the bottom of Federalist 41.

I suppose health care can be shoved down our throat by some additional specious construction of the Interstate Commerce Clause. Since Wicker v. Filburn, limitation on federal power has been meaningless. But, it is important to remember that the character of the government that was set up by the Constitution was federal. That power given to the national government was limited and constrained.

On a philosophical level, when we violate the nature of the compact that created the social contract by unceasingly thwarting the constraints on federal power, we endanger the existence of that social contract. I believe we do so at our peril. But perhaps I think more of the intellect of common people than I should. Maybe they'll stay asleep while they are robbed of their birth-right and subjugated.

 

[Bern80]

Oh centrism I promise I dont hate you but again I am at a loss with this post.

Can you cut and paste out the language in the constitution where it says what you claim?

Offhand, I can think of two places: Article 1, Section 8, and the 16th amendment. These appear to cover most situations.

(I hope you don't mind my conserving bandwidth by using only those two references.)

Here's where interpretation comes into play. The first thing in Article 1 Section 8 is that the government can collect taxes. But that's kind of where it stops. Doesn't really get into what for. I think you can easily interpret that the framers did not intend for the government to gouge the populace for whatever they want by looking at the rest of the things outlined that government can do. The rest of that list is pretty specific (i.e. establish a Navy) so if the framers had intended to allow government to collect taxes for the purpose of running the countries healthcare I would thing one of the things in there would be 'to provide the nation with health care'. Anyone think I'm way off base here?

 

[Centrism'sVoice]

Oh centrism I promise I dont hate you but again I am at a loss with this post.

Can you cut and paste out the language in the constitution where it says what you claim?

Offhand, I can think of two places: Article 1, Section 8, and the 16th amendment. These appear to cover most situations.

(I hope you don't mind my conserving bandwidth by using only those two references.)

Here's where interpretation comes into play. The first thing in Article 1 Section 8 is that the government can collect taxes. But that's kind of where it stops. Doesn't really get into what for. I think you can easily interpret that the framers did not intend for the government to gouge the populace for whatever they want by looking at the rest of the things outlined that government can do. The rest of that list is pretty specific (i.e. establish a Navy) so if the framers had intended to allow government to collect taxes for the purpose of running the countries healthcare I would thing one of the things in there would be 'to provide the nation with health care'. Anyone think I'm way off base here?

This argument has already been debunked earlier in the thread. The framers clearly could not have "intended" to allow the government to collect taxes for the pupose of space exploration. It does not follow that NASA is unconstitutional.

 

[Tech_Esq]

Oh centrism I promise I dont hate you but again I am at a loss with this post.

Can you cut and paste out the language in the constitution where it says what you claim?

Offhand, I can think of two places: Article 1, Section 8, and the 16th amendment. These appear to cover most situations.

(I hope you don't mind my conserving bandwidth by using only those two references.)

What, in Article I, Section 8, do you think gives the government the ability to do "almost anything?"

 

[jillian]

Non sequitur.

The Constitution isn't there to limit the actions of the people, it's role is to delineate specific powers to and limits on the feds.

what limits? the general welfare clause is pretty expansive and was always intended to allow government to grow and operate. and if you'll note, there is a supremacy clause that subjugates state law to conflicting federal law.

If any of what you say were accurate, we'd still be living under the articles of confederation.

sounds good

Perhaps. But it isn't the system of government under which we live.