Historical Question - Has anyone ever tried to add a right to healthcare as a constitutional amend.?

[danielpalos]

We have a US, uniformed health service. Only the right wing, never gets it.

 

[MadChemist]

Hi in

From Federalist 45:

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.

#############################

General Welfare is "defined" ?

General welfare is not general badfare. It is political. No one is claiming health care reform does not provide for the general welfare.

So, no response to Madison...duly noted.

Few and defined....and don't include healthcare.

Bummer dude.

That was the response; too illiterate, right winger?

Providing for the general welfare, can include health care. Why do you believe, the general welfare may not include health care?

Dear danielpalos:
I think I already replied to you on this. Previously I remember making these points on this thread or a related one:
1. Comparing right to life being INTERPRETED as inherently including unborn person's which advocates will argue should NOT require additional legislation, similar to how you don't believe general welfare requires additional laws passed or amendments to clarify this "inherently including" the "right to health care." If one requires added legislation voted on by states, by Congress or by people, that's similar to voting to clarify or expand on general welfare.
2. I replied to BULLDOG that even with Constitutonal rights and laws that we agree are govt jurisdiction, there are other Constitutional rights and principles that must be respected when crafting and enforcing laws . I mentioned due process and not depriving liberty of people not convicted of any crime or violation that merits losing freedom normally exercised under law. Also respecting religious freedom not to be imposed upon by govt or discriminated against on the basis of Creed or beliefs, as long as people are law abiding and not abusing religion to commit crimes already against the law such as child abuse.

danielpalos
A third point I will make here :
3. If people are already used to exercising freedom of choice in health care systems, it makes more sense to offer a public option and allow people to choose what degree they want to fund and rely on govt run health care.
A . Where we might agree is for govt to fund the SITES where each district state and county has access proportionate to their populations demand. But from there, people in each state or collective organization may choose to fund and participate in different options for the actual health care services. Some may have a better business model while others use a nonprofit or church run hospital. The VA and prison and mental health systems could be a mix of public and private. So perhaps on a federal or state level, there could be one policy to cover maintaining physical facilities so there is equal affordable access.
B. But the programs run internally could vary per district where some ppl want govt run and others want private business or charities .

4. As for comparing right to health care with right to bear arms:
A. again ppl have to agree how legislation is written because of contrasting political beliefs that should all be included equally without discrimination. The problem is when laws that favor one bias end up imposing costs or loss of rights and protections of ppl who didn't agree to those laws and consequences, intended or not. Drug laws and voting laws run into similar problems with unintended consequences if these are crafted carefully to avoid complications.
B. It has been argued that demanding health care as a right incurs costs of labor services and resources on someone providing these things. So the system(s) must be set up where ppl agree to provide health care under those terms or it imposed taxation without representation. There are countless areas where personal freechoice is affected such as with reproductive Rights and hospice or euthanasia beliefs. So because health care involves personal beliefs that's why it's a huge issue for federal govt to be involved. That's why I recommend only paying for the sites and letting taxpayers have equal free choice what medical programs or health care systems to pay for.

Providing for the general welfare must include health care, since general is comprehensive.

It's unfortunate that they didn't spend more money on your education.

 

[MadChemist]

I have not followed the thread with complete thoroughness.

But, as near as I can tell, the answer to the question in the OP is no.

There has been no effort to codify healthcare as a right.

And the country has never behaved like everyone had a right to healthcare because there have always been those who wanted it and could not purchase it.

 

[DGS49]

(1). The Federal Government is a government of expressly limited powers, as clearly stated in the Tenth Amendment.

B. The only branch of Government that is empowered to spend money is the Legislative (Congress), and Article I, Section 8 delineates ALL of the areas where Congress is empowered to act (spend money).

B(1). Some uninformed people look at the words referring to "general welfare" in Article I, and conclude that Congress has the power to do anything it wants, if Congress thinks it will promote the "general welfare" of the U.S. This argument has been resolved literally for hundreds of years, and that is not a correct interpretation. The specifically enumerated powers in Section 8 are the limit of Congress' powers.

(c). Creating a massive "single payer" healthcare system - such as is the case in many other countries - is not possible in the U.S. without a Constitutional Amendment to grant Congress the power to create it. This is entirely appropriate with our history. A change this massive MUST be authorized by supermajorities in both Congress and the States, as it is a total "game-changer" for the country, and should NEVER be implemented by a slim majority in Congress, regardless of which party holds that majority.

(iv). In the case of a massively-Unconstitutional law such as ACA, one notes that there is a GIANT HOLE in our Federal Court system. That hole is simply this: The U.S Supreme Court cannot render a "Declaratory Judgment." In other words, if a law is arguably unconstitutional, then it SHOULD be possible for its opponents to go directly to the Supreme Court and ask for an opinion, before that law goes into effect. But under our Constitution and laws, the USSC may only hear actual "cases and controversies," and not general questions of law of constitutionality. So to get a law before the USSC, it is first necessary to have a lawsuit or a criminal prosecution under the questionable law, and have it decided in a low court, then appealed, then appealed again, until it comes up before the USSC - a process that can take years. And when it finally does get to the USSC, ONLY THAT PARTICULAR ASPECT OF THE LAW will be reviewed, not the whole damn law. When the ACA was first challenged, the process was gone through to challenge a couple different aspects: the need to have a state "exchange" (the Feds had set one up, contrary to what the law required), and the individual mandate. In both cases, the Roberts Court ignored the un-Constitutionality of the law, and tried to "interpret" the law to mean SOMETHING OTHER THAN WHAT IT ACTUALLY SAID, in order to try to defer to the wishes of Congress.

5. Nevertheless, each of our Congresspersons and governors swear an oath of office that requires that the uphold and defend the laws and the Constitution in carrying out their duties. Thus, any Congressperson signing onto a clearly-unconstitutional law is violating his or her Oath of Office. It is not rational or honest to act as though any law is presumptively constitutional until the USSC has a chance to review it and strike it down. Especially where there is. no viable means of getting the Court to opine on the general constitutionality of the law before it goes into effect.

P.S. Congress has the absolute power to define the jurisdiction and powers of the Federal Courts, up to and including the USSC. Were Congress acting in the best interest of the country, it would take that right/obligation a little more seriously and address this hole in the USSC's powers, things like "forum shopping," lifetime tenure of judges and a few other odds and ends of a similar nature.

Healthcare is not a "right" in the United States. And until and unless the Federal Government actually HIRES and army of doctors and other medical practitioners, and OWNS hospitals, labs, clinics, etc. (like the Veterans Administration), it cannot be a "right" under U.S. law because of the restrictions of the Thirteenth Amendment. It is what it is.

 

[danielpalos]

Hi in

General welfare is not general badfare. It is political. No one is claiming health care reform does not provide for the general welfare.

So, no response to Madison...duly noted.

Few and defined....and don't include healthcare.

Bummer dude.

That was the response; too illiterate, right winger?

Providing for the general welfare, can include health care. Why do you believe, the general welfare may not include health care?

Dear danielpalos:
I think I already replied to you on this. Previously I remember making these points on this thread or a related one:
1. Comparing right to life being INTERPRETED as inherently including unborn person's which advocates will argue should NOT require additional legislation, similar to how you don't believe general welfare requires additional laws passed or amendments to clarify this "inherently including" the "right to health care." If one requires added legislation voted on by states, by Congress or by people, that's similar to voting to clarify or expand on general welfare.
2. I replied to BULLDOG that even with Constitutonal rights and laws that we agree are govt jurisdiction, there are other Constitutional rights and principles that must be respected when crafting and enforcing laws . I mentioned due process and not depriving liberty of people not convicted of any crime or violation that merits losing freedom normally exercised under law. Also respecting religious freedom not to be imposed upon by govt or discriminated against on the basis of Creed or beliefs, as long as people are law abiding and not abusing religion to commit crimes already against the law such as child abuse.

danielpalos
A third point I will make here :
3. If people are already used to exercising freedom of choice in health care systems, it makes more sense to offer a public option and allow people to choose what degree they want to fund and rely on govt run health care.
A . Where we might agree is for govt to fund the SITES where each district state and county has access proportionate to their populations demand. But from there, people in each state or collective organization may choose to fund and participate in different options for the actual health care services. Some may have a better business model while others use a nonprofit or church run hospital. The VA and prison and mental health systems could be a mix of public and private. So perhaps on a federal or state level, there could be one policy to cover maintaining physical facilities so there is equal affordable access.
B. But the programs run internally could vary per district where some ppl want govt run and others want private business or charities .

4. As for comparing right to health care with right to bear arms:
A. again ppl have to agree how legislation is written because of contrasting political beliefs that should all be included equally without discrimination. The problem is when laws that favor one bias end up imposing costs or loss of rights and protections of ppl who didn't agree to those laws and consequences, intended or not. Drug laws and voting laws run into similar problems with unintended consequences if these are crafted carefully to avoid complications.
B. It has been argued that demanding health care as a right incurs costs of labor services and resources on someone providing these things. So the system(s) must be set up where ppl agree to provide health care under those terms or it imposed taxation without representation. There are countless areas where personal freechoice is affected such as with reproductive Rights and hospice or euthanasia beliefs. So because health care involves personal beliefs that's why it's a huge issue for federal govt to be involved. That's why I recommend only paying for the sites and letting taxpayers have equal free choice what medical programs or health care systems to pay for.

Providing for the general welfare must include health care, since general is comprehensive.

It's unfortunate that they didn't spend more money on your education.

I didn't mind, saving costs.

Health and safety is what State government is for. Providing for the general welfare must include health care, since general is comprehensive.

Only the right wing has nothing but, continuance, diversion, and other forms of fallacy.

 

[danielpalos]

(1). The Federal Government is a government of expressly limited powers, as clearly stated in the Tenth Amendment.

B. The only branch of Government that is empowered to spend money is the Legislative (Congress), and Article I, Section 8 delineates ALL of the areas where Congress is empowered to act (spend money).

B(1). Some uninformed people look at the words referring to "general welfare" in Article I, and conclude that Congress has the power to do anything it wants, if Congress thinks it will promote the "general welfare" of the U.S. This argument has been resolved literally for hundreds of years, and that is not a correct interpretation. The specifically enumerated powers in Section 8 are the limit of Congress' powers.

(c). Creating a massive "single payer" healthcare system - such as is the case in many other countries - is not possible in the U.S. without a Constitutional Amendment to grant Congress the power to create it. This is entirely appropriate with our history. A change this massive MUST be authorized by supermajorities in both Congress and the States, as it is a total "game-changer" for the country, and should NEVER be implemented by a slim majority in Congress, regardless of which party holds that majority.

(iv). In the case of a massively-Unconstitutional law such as ACA, one notes that there is a GIANT HOLE in our Federal Court system. That hole is simply this: The U.S Supreme Court cannot render a "Declaratory Judgment." In other words, if a law is arguably unconstitutional, then it SHOULD be possible for its opponents to go directly to the Supreme Court and ask for an opinion, before that law goes into effect. But under our Constitution and laws, the USSC may only hear actual "cases and controversies," and not general questions of law of constitutionality. So to get a law before the USSC, it is first necessary to have a lawsuit or a criminal prosecution under the questionable law, and have it decided in a low court, then appealed, then appealed again, until it comes up before the USSC - a process that can take years. And when it finally does get to the USSC, ONLY THAT PARTICULAR ASPECT OF THE LAW will be reviewed, not the whole damn law. When the ACA was first challenged, the process was gone through to challenge a couple different aspects: the need to have a state "exchange" (the Feds had set one up, contrary to what the law required), and the individual mandate. In both cases, the Roberts Court ignored the un-Constitutionality of the law, and tried to "interpret" the law to mean SOMETHING OTHER THAN WHAT IT ACTUALLY SAID, in order to try to defer to the wishes of Congress.

5. Nevertheless, each of our Congresspersons and governors swear an oath of office that requires that the uphold and defend the laws and the Constitution in carrying out their duties. Thus, any Congressperson signing onto a clearly-unconstitutional law is violating his or her Oath of Office. It is not rational or honest to act as though any law is presumptively constitutional until the USSC has a chance to review it and strike it down. Especially where there is. no viable means of getting the Court to opine on the general constitutionality of the law before it goes into effect.

P.S. Congress has the absolute power to define the jurisdiction and powers of the Federal Courts, up to and including the USSC. Were Congress acting in the best interest of the country, it would take that right/obligation a little more seriously and address this hole in the USSC's powers, things like "forum shopping," lifetime tenure of judges and a few other odds and ends of a similar nature.

Healthcare is not a "right" in the United States. And until and unless the Federal Government actually HIRES and army of doctors and other medical practitioners, and OWNS hospitals, labs, clinics, etc. (like the Veterans Administration), it cannot be a "right" under U.S. law because of the restrictions of the Thirteenth Amendment. It is what it is.

Providing for the general welfare, is a general power delegated to Congress.

 

[MadChemist]

(1). The Federal Government is a government of expressly limited powers, as clearly stated in the Tenth Amendment.

B. The only branch of Government that is empowered to spend money is the Legislative (Congress), and Article I, Section 8 delineates ALL of the areas where Congress is empowered to act (spend money).

B(1). Some uninformed people look at the words referring to "general welfare" in Article I, and conclude that Congress has the power to do anything it wants, if Congress thinks it will promote the "general welfare" of the U.S. This argument has been resolved literally for hundreds of years, and that is not a correct interpretation. The specifically enumerated powers in Section 8 are the limit of Congress' powers.

(c). Creating a massive "single payer" healthcare system - such as is the case in many other countries - is not possible in the U.S. without a Constitutional Amendment to grant Congress the power to create it. This is entirely appropriate with our history. A change this massive MUST be authorized by supermajorities in both Congress and the States, as it is a total "game-changer" for the country, and should NEVER be implemented by a slim majority in Congress, regardless of which party holds that majority.

(iv). In the case of a massively-Unconstitutional law such as ACA, one notes that there is a GIANT HOLE in our Federal Court system. That hole is simply this: The U.S Supreme Court cannot render a "Declaratory Judgment." In other words, if a law is arguably unconstitutional, then it SHOULD be possible for its opponents to go directly to the Supreme Court and ask for an opinion, before that law goes into effect. But under our Constitution and laws, the USSC may only hear actual "cases and controversies," and not general questions of law of constitutionality. So to get a law before the USSC, it is first necessary to have a lawsuit or a criminal prosecution under the questionable law, and have it decided in a low court, then appealed, then appealed again, until it comes up before the USSC - a process that can take years. And when it finally does get to the USSC, ONLY THAT PARTICULAR ASPECT OF THE LAW will be reviewed, not the whole damn law. When the ACA was first challenged, the process was gone through to challenge a couple different aspects: the need to have a state "exchange" (the Feds had set one up, contrary to what the law required), and the individual mandate. In both cases, the Roberts Court ignored the un-Constitutionality of the law, and tried to "interpret" the law to mean SOMETHING OTHER THAN WHAT IT ACTUALLY SAID, in order to try to defer to the wishes of Congress.

5. Nevertheless, each of our Congresspersons and governors swear an oath of office that requires that the uphold and defend the laws and the Constitution in carrying out their duties. Thus, any Congressperson signing onto a clearly-unconstitutional law is violating his or her Oath of Office. It is not rational or honest to act as though any law is presumptively constitutional until the USSC has a chance to review it and strike it down. Especially where there is. no viable means of getting the Court to opine on the general constitutionality of the law before it goes into effect.

P.S. Congress has the absolute power to define the jurisdiction and powers of the Federal Courts, up to and including the USSC. Were Congress acting in the best interest of the country, it would take that right/obligation a little more seriously and address this hole in the USSC's powers, things like "forum shopping," lifetime tenure of judges and a few other odds and ends of a similar nature.

Healthcare is not a "right" in the United States. And until and unless the Federal Government actually HIRES and army of doctors and other medical practitioners, and OWNS hospitals, labs, clinics, etc. (like the Veterans Administration), it cannot be a "right" under U.S. law because of the restrictions of the Thirteenth Amendment. It is what it is.

Providing for the general welfare, is a general power delegated to Congress.

Keep believing that....then explain to us why the federal government never provided for it in the past.

 

[MadChemist]

Hi in

So, no response to Madison...duly noted.

Few and defined....and don't include healthcare.

Bummer dude.

That was the response; too illiterate, right winger?

Providing for the general welfare, can include health care. Why do you believe, the general welfare may not include health care?

Dear danielpalos:
I think I already replied to you on this. Previously I remember making these points on this thread or a related one:
1. Comparing right to life being INTERPRETED as inherently including unborn person's which advocates will argue should NOT require additional legislation, similar to how you don't believe general welfare requires additional laws passed or amendments to clarify this "inherently including" the "right to health care." If one requires added legislation voted on by states, by Congress or by people, that's similar to voting to clarify or expand on general welfare.
2. I replied to BULLDOG that even with Constitutonal rights and laws that we agree are govt jurisdiction, there are other Constitutional rights and principles that must be respected when crafting and enforcing laws . I mentioned due process and not depriving liberty of people not convicted of any crime or violation that merits losing freedom normally exercised under law. Also respecting religious freedom not to be imposed upon by govt or discriminated against on the basis of Creed or beliefs, as long as people are law abiding and not abusing religion to commit crimes already against the law such as child abuse.

danielpalos
A third point I will make here :
3. If people are already used to exercising freedom of choice in health care systems, it makes more sense to offer a public option and allow people to choose what degree they want to fund and rely on govt run health care.
A . Where we might agree is for govt to fund the SITES where each district state and county has access proportionate to their populations demand. But from there, people in each state or collective organization may choose to fund and participate in different options for the actual health care services. Some may have a better business model while others use a nonprofit or church run hospital. The VA and prison and mental health systems could be a mix of public and private. So perhaps on a federal or state level, there could be one policy to cover maintaining physical facilities so there is equal affordable access.
B. But the programs run internally could vary per district where some ppl want govt run and others want private business or charities .

4. As for comparing right to health care with right to bear arms:
A. again ppl have to agree how legislation is written because of contrasting political beliefs that should all be included equally without discrimination. The problem is when laws that favor one bias end up imposing costs or loss of rights and protections of ppl who didn't agree to those laws and consequences, intended or not. Drug laws and voting laws run into similar problems with unintended consequences if these are crafted carefully to avoid complications.
B. It has been argued that demanding health care as a right incurs costs of labor services and resources on someone providing these things. So the system(s) must be set up where ppl agree to provide health care under those terms or it imposed taxation without representation. There are countless areas where personal freechoice is affected such as with reproductive Rights and hospice or euthanasia beliefs. So because health care involves personal beliefs that's why it's a huge issue for federal govt to be involved. That's why I recommend only paying for the sites and letting taxpayers have equal free choice what medical programs or health care systems to pay for.

Providing for the general welfare must include health care, since general is comprehensive.

It's unfortunate that they didn't spend more money on your education.

I didn't mind, saving costs.

Health and safety is what State government is for. Providing for the general welfare must include health care, since general is comprehensive.

Only the right wing has nothing but, continuance, diversion, and other forms of fallacy.

Actually, that is you.

You won't address the arguments that have been put before you that clearly show that health care was never in the purview of the federal congress.

All you keep saying is comprehensive is general. Which, in this case it is within the general duties of the federal government as defined by the constitution.

 

[dblack]

Providing for the general welfare, is a general power delegated to Congress.

This, of course, make no sense. But if that were the actual intent of the welfare clause, why in the world would they have wasted time writing anything else?

 

[MadChemist]

Providing for the general welfare, is a general power delegated to Congress.

This, of course, make no sense. But if that were the actual intent of the welfare clause, why in the world would they have wasted time writing anything else?

Which is what essentially what Madison said:

“General Welfare” and “Common Defense” Explained by James Madison

 

[Spare_change]

General welfare is not general badfare. It is political. No one is claiming health care reform does not provide for the general welfare.

Actually, I would argue just the opposite ...

Government healthcare does NOT enhance the general welfare. Political control of personal decisions results in arbitrary decision making that may, or may not, be advantageous to your particular situation. Further, as we've seen, government meddling has driven up total healthcare costs while decreasing product availability.

I would be O.K. with a conversation in my home state around health care.

I am O.K. with trying it at a level of 5 million people, not 320,000,000 people.

At least California had a vote on health care reform; the right wing has nothing but repeal.

Yes the did.

And that was an education for many on both sides.

I applaude the effort.

Tennesse actually has a state run healthcare sytem....Tenncare. Good old Tennessee, a left wing bastion if ever there was one.....

The system has undergone several evolutions, not repeal as you call it....in response to costs (yeah...that nasty reality that exists). But it still exists.

You might remember that Vermont was a on path to single payer. It died before it ever got started. Why ? Costs. I guess you could call that a repeal.

Why single payer died in Vermont

You really have demonstrated nothing in the way of knowledge regarding the realities of health care.

Like many "intellectuals" who are good on "ideas" but useless on implementation, you sit around and complain....but have nothing to offer.

And please don't take the term "intellectual" as a complement. It only denotes a class of individuals who have more faith in their paltry reasoning than they do in the reality of the world.

the right wing had literally, nothing but repeal as their political platform; it makes all of the political difference in the World.

Wow --- are you REALLY that disconnected from reality, or are you just spouting unjustifiable bumper sticker slogans?

 

[MadChemist]

Actually, I would argue just the opposite ...

Government healthcare does NOT enhance the general welfare. Political control of personal decisions results in arbitrary decision making that may, or may not, be advantageous to your particular situation. Further, as we've seen, government meddling has driven up total healthcare costs while decreasing product availability.

I would be O.K. with a conversation in my home state around health care.

I am O.K. with trying it at a level of 5 million people, not 320,000,000 people.

At least California had a vote on health care reform; the right wing has nothing but repeal.

Yes the did.

And that was an education for many on both sides.

I applaude the effort.

Tennesse actually has a state run healthcare sytem....Tenncare. Good old Tennessee, a left wing bastion if ever there was one.....

The system has undergone several evolutions, not repeal as you call it....in response to costs (yeah...that nasty reality that exists). But it still exists.

You might remember that Vermont was a on path to single payer. It died before it ever got started. Why ? Costs. I guess you could call that a repeal.

Why single payer died in Vermont

You really have demonstrated nothing in the way of knowledge regarding the realities of health care.

Like many "intellectuals" who are good on "ideas" but useless on implementation, you sit around and complain....but have nothing to offer.

And please don't take the term "intellectual" as a complement. It only denotes a class of individuals who have more faith in their paltry reasoning than they do in the reality of the world.

the right wing had literally, nothing but repeal as their political platform; it makes all of the political difference in the World.

Wow --- are you REALLY that disconnected from reality, or are you just spouting unjustifiable bumper sticker slogans?

I supposed we can keep waiting for a reply as to why Vermont wouldn't move forward with a state run plan (you know it's a blue state which means it must be swimming in money....).

 

[Spare_change]

I would be O.K. with a conversation in my home state around health care.

I am O.K. with trying it at a level of 5 million people, not 320,000,000 people.

At least California had a vote on health care reform; the right wing has nothing but repeal.

Yes the did.

And that was an education for many on both sides.

I applaude the effort.

Tennesse actually has a state run healthcare sytem....Tenncare. Good old Tennessee, a left wing bastion if ever there was one.....

The system has undergone several evolutions, not repeal as you call it....in response to costs (yeah...that nasty reality that exists). But it still exists.

You might remember that Vermont was a on path to single payer. It died before it ever got started. Why ? Costs. I guess you could call that a repeal.

Why single payer died in Vermont

You really have demonstrated nothing in the way of knowledge regarding the realities of health care.

Like many "intellectuals" who are good on "ideas" but useless on implementation, you sit around and complain....but have nothing to offer.

And please don't take the term "intellectual" as a complement. It only denotes a class of individuals who have more faith in their paltry reasoning than they do in the reality of the world.

the right wing had literally, nothing but repeal as their political platform; it makes all of the political difference in the World.

Wow --- are you REALLY that disconnected from reality, or are you just spouting unjustifiable bumper sticker slogans?

I supposed we can keep waiting for a reply as to why Vermont wouldn't move forward with a state run plan (you know it's a blue state which means it must be swimming in money....).

Indubitably.

 

[danielpalos]

(1). The Federal Government is a government of expressly limited powers, as clearly stated in the Tenth Amendment.

B. The only branch of Government that is empowered to spend money is the Legislative (Congress), and Article I, Section 8 delineates ALL of the areas where Congress is empowered to act (spend money).

B(1). Some uninformed people look at the words referring to "general welfare" in Article I, and conclude that Congress has the power to do anything it wants, if Congress thinks it will promote the "general welfare" of the U.S. This argument has been resolved literally for hundreds of years, and that is not a correct interpretation. The specifically enumerated powers in Section 8 are the limit of Congress' powers.

(c). Creating a massive "single payer" healthcare system - such as is the case in many other countries - is not possible in the U.S. without a Constitutional Amendment to grant Congress the power to create it. This is entirely appropriate with our history. A change this massive MUST be authorized by supermajorities in both Congress and the States, as it is a total "game-changer" for the country, and should NEVER be implemented by a slim majority in Congress, regardless of which party holds that majority.

(iv). In the case of a massively-Unconstitutional law such as ACA, one notes that there is a GIANT HOLE in our Federal Court system. That hole is simply this: The U.S Supreme Court cannot render a "Declaratory Judgment." In other words, if a law is arguably unconstitutional, then it SHOULD be possible for its opponents to go directly to the Supreme Court and ask for an opinion, before that law goes into effect. But under our Constitution and laws, the USSC may only hear actual "cases and controversies," and not general questions of law of constitutionality. So to get a law before the USSC, it is first necessary to have a lawsuit or a criminal prosecution under the questionable law, and have it decided in a low court, then appealed, then appealed again, until it comes up before the USSC - a process that can take years. And when it finally does get to the USSC, ONLY THAT PARTICULAR ASPECT OF THE LAW will be reviewed, not the whole damn law. When the ACA was first challenged, the process was gone through to challenge a couple different aspects: the need to have a state "exchange" (the Feds had set one up, contrary to what the law required), and the individual mandate. In both cases, the Roberts Court ignored the un-Constitutionality of the law, and tried to "interpret" the law to mean SOMETHING OTHER THAN WHAT IT ACTUALLY SAID, in order to try to defer to the wishes of Congress.

5. Nevertheless, each of our Congresspersons and governors swear an oath of office that requires that the uphold and defend the laws and the Constitution in carrying out their duties. Thus, any Congressperson signing onto a clearly-unconstitutional law is violating his or her Oath of Office. It is not rational or honest to act as though any law is presumptively constitutional until the USSC has a chance to review it and strike it down. Especially where there is. no viable means of getting the Court to opine on the general constitutionality of the law before it goes into effect.

P.S. Congress has the absolute power to define the jurisdiction and powers of the Federal Courts, up to and including the USSC. Were Congress acting in the best interest of the country, it would take that right/obligation a little more seriously and address this hole in the USSC's powers, things like "forum shopping," lifetime tenure of judges and a few other odds and ends of a similar nature.

Healthcare is not a "right" in the United States. And until and unless the Federal Government actually HIRES and army of doctors and other medical practitioners, and OWNS hospitals, labs, clinics, etc. (like the Veterans Administration), it cannot be a "right" under U.S. law because of the restrictions of the Thirteenth Amendment. It is what it is.

Providing for the general welfare, is a general power delegated to Congress.

Keep believing that....then explain to us why the federal government never provided for it in the past.

Means nothing; where was a Space Race or Moon Race in our Constitution.

Providing for the general welfare must include health care, since it is general and must be comprehensive.

There is no drug war clause.

 

[danielpalos]

Hi in

That was the response; too illiterate, right winger?

Providing for the general welfare, can include health care. Why do you believe, the general welfare may not include health care?

Dear danielpalos:
I think I already replied to you on this. Previously I remember making these points on this thread or a related one:
1. Comparing right to life being INTERPRETED as inherently including unborn person's which advocates will argue should NOT require additional legislation, similar to how you don't believe general welfare requires additional laws passed or amendments to clarify this "inherently including" the "right to health care." If one requires added legislation voted on by states, by Congress or by people, that's similar to voting to clarify or expand on general welfare.
2. I replied to BULLDOG that even with Constitutonal rights and laws that we agree are govt jurisdiction, there are other Constitutional rights and principles that must be respected when crafting and enforcing laws . I mentioned due process and not depriving liberty of people not convicted of any crime or violation that merits losing freedom normally exercised under law. Also respecting religious freedom not to be imposed upon by govt or discriminated against on the basis of Creed or beliefs, as long as people are law abiding and not abusing religion to commit crimes already against the law such as child abuse.

danielpalos
A third point I will make here :
3. If people are already used to exercising freedom of choice in health care systems, it makes more sense to offer a public option and allow people to choose what degree they want to fund and rely on govt run health care.
A . Where we might agree is for govt to fund the SITES where each district state and county has access proportionate to their populations demand. But from there, people in each state or collective organization may choose to fund and participate in different options for the actual health care services. Some may have a better business model while others use a nonprofit or church run hospital. The VA and prison and mental health systems could be a mix of public and private. So perhaps on a federal or state level, there could be one policy to cover maintaining physical facilities so there is equal affordable access.
B. But the programs run internally could vary per district where some ppl want govt run and others want private business or charities .

4. As for comparing right to health care with right to bear arms:
A. again ppl have to agree how legislation is written because of contrasting political beliefs that should all be included equally without discrimination. The problem is when laws that favor one bias end up imposing costs or loss of rights and protections of ppl who didn't agree to those laws and consequences, intended or not. Drug laws and voting laws run into similar problems with unintended consequences if these are crafted carefully to avoid complications.
B. It has been argued that demanding health care as a right incurs costs of labor services and resources on someone providing these things. So the system(s) must be set up where ppl agree to provide health care under those terms or it imposed taxation without representation. There are countless areas where personal freechoice is affected such as with reproductive Rights and hospice or euthanasia beliefs. So because health care involves personal beliefs that's why it's a huge issue for federal govt to be involved. That's why I recommend only paying for the sites and letting taxpayers have equal free choice what medical programs or health care systems to pay for.

Providing for the general welfare must include health care, since general is comprehensive.

It's unfortunate that they didn't spend more money on your education.

I didn't mind, saving costs.

Health and safety is what State government is for. Providing for the general welfare must include health care, since general is comprehensive.

Only the right wing has nothing but, continuance, diversion, and other forms of fallacy.

Actually, that is you.

You won't address the arguments that have been put before you that clearly show that health care was never in the purview of the federal congress.

All you keep saying is comprehensive is general. Which, in this case it is within the general duties of the federal government as defined by the constitution.

Yes, general means, comprehensive since it is general, and not major or common.

 

[danielpalos]

Providing for the general welfare, is a general power delegated to Congress.

This, of course, make no sense. But if that were the actual intent of the welfare clause, why in the world would they have wasted time writing anything else?

Ask the right wing; there is no general warfare clause nor any common offense clause.

Why do you have any problem with a general welfare clause? It is not a general badfare clause. That is the whole and entire difference. Now do y'all understand.

 

[dblack]

Providing for the general welfare, is a general power delegated to Congress.

This, of course, make no sense. But if that were the actual intent of the welfare clause, why in the world would they have wasted time writing anything else?

Ask the right wing; there is no general warfare clause nor any common offense clause.

Why do you have any problem with a general welfare clause? It is not a general badfare clause. That is the whole and entire difference. Now do y'all understand.

Clear as mud!

 

[danielpalos]

Providing for the general welfare, is a general power delegated to Congress.

This, of course, make no sense. But if that were the actual intent of the welfare clause, why in the world would they have wasted time writing anything else?

Which is what essentially what Madison said:

“General Welfare” and “Common Defense” Explained by James Madison

To raise money for the general welfare, not the general warfare; Only the right wing, never gets it.

 

[danielpalos]

Actually, I would argue just the opposite ...

Government healthcare does NOT enhance the general welfare. Political control of personal decisions results in arbitrary decision making that may, or may not, be advantageous to your particular situation. Further, as we've seen, government meddling has driven up total healthcare costs while decreasing product availability.

I would be O.K. with a conversation in my home state around health care.

I am O.K. with trying it at a level of 5 million people, not 320,000,000 people.

At least California had a vote on health care reform; the right wing has nothing but repeal.

Yes the did.

And that was an education for many on both sides.

I applaude the effort.

Tennesse actually has a state run healthcare sytem....Tenncare. Good old Tennessee, a left wing bastion if ever there was one.....

The system has undergone several evolutions, not repeal as you call it....in response to costs (yeah...that nasty reality that exists). But it still exists.

You might remember that Vermont was a on path to single payer. It died before it ever got started. Why ? Costs. I guess you could call that a repeal.

Why single payer died in Vermont

You really have demonstrated nothing in the way of knowledge regarding the realities of health care.

Like many "intellectuals" who are good on "ideas" but useless on implementation, you sit around and complain....but have nothing to offer.

And please don't take the term "intellectual" as a complement. It only denotes a class of individuals who have more faith in their paltry reasoning than they do in the reality of the world.

the right wing had literally, nothing but repeal as their political platform; it makes all of the political difference in the World.

Wow --- are you REALLY that disconnected from reality, or are you just spouting unjustifiable bumper sticker slogans?

What health care plan does the right wing have?

 

[danielpalos]

Providing for the general welfare, is a general power delegated to Congress.

This, of course, make no sense. But if that were the actual intent of the welfare clause, why in the world would they have wasted time writing anything else?

Ask the right wing; there is no general warfare clause nor any common offense clause.

Why do you have any problem with a general welfare clause? It is not a general badfare clause. That is the whole and entire difference. Now do y'all understand.

Clear as mud!

Yes, dear; general means comprehensive so health care can be included in Any deliberation regarding the general welfare.

There is no general badfare clause which includes, the general warfare or the common offense.

Yes, the right wing really is, "that dumb".