Is healthcare a right? why or why not?

[jillian]

I like to be thorough. So states can do it. Okay, that's similar to the Canadian model which is provincially-based.

Now, this is hypothetical, if, say the House proposed and passed a bill and it was also passed by the Senate and wasn't struck down by veto, how would that bill be deemed unconstitutional?

That's not quite accurate. There is a fundamental difference of opinion about States' rights versus Federalism. Some people think that battle is still being waged. And I suppose it is because of the un-constitutionalists Bush appointed to the Supreme Court. However, that's a battle that was really fought and won a long time ago. If we were supposed to be living under a system where the States were as strong or stronger than the Federal government, we would still be living under the Articles of Confederation. That not being the case, to think that the States have the power to legislate universal health care but the Feds do not is simply a silly argument. The Federal government absolutely has the power to effectuate such a system. They are not MANDATED to, but they have the right to legislate what is necessary and proper for the common good.

You will see a lot of people on these boards who think the only purpose for government is for a military defense, which is why they have no concern about 120 Billion Dollars a year being thrown away on Iraq, but become outraged at the concept of even a fraction of that being spent in a way that actually does people some good.

Our government and the world is not so Hobbesian.

That being said, legislation enacting a medical care system wouldn't be struck down. Hypothetically, to do so, it would have to go through the Federal District Courts, the Circuit Court and then to the Supreme Court, which would make the final determination.

It would be upheld, however, the same way Social Security was... though the same people who decry providing health care, hate social security, too.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

That's not quite accurate. There is a fundamental difference of opinion about States' rights versus Federalism. Some people think that battle is still being waged. And I suppose it is because of the un-constitutionalists Bush appointed to the Supreme Court. However, that's a battle that was really fought and won a long time ago. If we were supposed to be living under a system where the States were as strong or stronger than the Federal government, we would still be living under the Articles of Confederation. That not being the case, to think that the States have the power to legislate universal health care but the Feds do not is simply a silly argument. The Federal government absolutely has the power to effectuate such a system. They are not MANDATED to, but they have the right to legislate what is necessary and proper for the common good.

You will see a lot of people on these boards who think the only purpose for government is for a military defense, which is why they have no concern about 120 Billion Dollars a year being thrown away on Iraq, but become outraged at the concept of even a fraction of that being spent in a way that actually does people some good.

Our government and the world is not so Hobbesian.

That being said, legislation enacting a medical care system wouldn't be struck down. Hypothetically, to do so, it would have to go through the Federal District Courts, the Circuit Court and then to the Supreme Court, which would make the final determination.

It would be upheld, however, the same way Social Security was... though the same people who decry providing health care, hate social security, too.

Absolutely untrue. There is NO power given to the Federal Government to provide anything to individual citizens except that are somehow employed by the Government in some capacity. States NOT the Federal Government are the highest level of Government for those purposes. You want that to change? GET AN AMENDMENT passed. Claiming a State can not pass state wide Universal care is a bald faced lie. Depending on what their Constitution says they can do it any time they want. Or would you care to provide for us the section of the Constitution that makes it a Federal power and thus the 10th Amendment does not apply?

 

[M14 Shooter]

I like to be thorough. So states can do it. Okay, that's similar to the Canadian model which is provincially-based.

Now, this is hypothetical, if, say the House proposed and passed a bill and it was also passed by the Senate and wasn't struck down by veto, how would that bill be deemed unconstitutional?

Someone would sue (who that someone is depends on the specifics of the bill) and it would go to court. It may eventually reach the supreme court.

 

[M14 Shooter]

So who's the collective bargaining agent for members of Congress?

How is that relevant to the point?

 

[M14 Shooter]

That's not quite accurate. There is a fundamental difference of opinion about States' rights versus Federalism. Some people think that battle is still being waged. And I suppose it is because of the un-constitutionalists Bush appointed to the Supreme Court.

Ok, now THAT'S funny.

However, that's a battle that was really fought and won a long time ago. If we were supposed to be living under a system where the States were as strong or stronger than the Federal government, we would still be living under the Articles of Confederation.

Hardly. Even under the currrent constitution, the states hold sovereignty over the federal government, as the federal government exists at the pleasure of the states.

That not being the case, to think that the States have the power to legislate universal health care but the Feds do not is simply a silly argument. The Federal government absolutely has the power to effectuate such a system.

Really.
Where is this power specified by the Constitution?

They are not MANDATED to, but they have the right to legislate what is necessary and proper for the common good.

Again:
Where is this power specified by the Constitution?

It would be upheld, however, the same way Social Security was... though the same people who decry providing health care, hate social security, too.

Odd. In looking into the Constitution for the power to create universal health care at the federal level, I also looked for the power to create a national retirement system. I didnt find that either.

Can you specify the article and section where these powers might be found?

 

[Diuretic]

Someone would sue (who that someone is depends on the specifics of the bill) and it would go to court. It may eventually reach the supreme court.

Okay, thanks - the Supreme Court would no doubt rule on constitutionality. btw that's a good thing in your system.

 

[Diuretic]

How is that relevant to the point?

If the Teamsters got them that deal then they should be recruiting

 

[Diuretic]

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

Odd. In looking into the Constitution for the power to create universal health care at the federal level, I also looked for the power to create a national retirement system. I didnt find that either.

Can you specify the article and section where these powers might be found?

Does the US have a national retirement system?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Does the US have a national retirement system?

Social Security.

 

[Diuretic]

Social Security.

Is it illegal?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Is it illegal?

There's nothing in the Constitution that gives the federal government the power to create it.

So, its extra-constitutional.

 

[Diuretic]

There's nothing in the Constitution that gives the federal government the power to create it.

So, its extra-constitutional.

So why does it exist?

 

[M14 Shooter]

So why does it exist?

Because Congress passed it anyway.

 

[Diuretic]

Because Congress passed it anyway.

Then why does it continue to exist?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Then why does it continue to exist?

Because it hasnt been struck down.

That, however, doesnt change the fact that the power to create it doesnt exist.

 

[Diuretic]

Because it hasnt been struck down.

That, however, doesnt change the fact that the power to create it doesnt exist.

Why - and this might be an unfair question - hasn't it been struck down if it's unconstitutional?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Why - and this might be an unfair question - hasn't it been struck down if it's unconstitutional?

I do not know if Social Security, specifically, has ever been taken before the court. Conlaw was about 10 years ago.

But, a better question:
Why would it be NOT be struck down if there's no power specifically granted by the Constitution?

 

[jillian]

Because it hasnt been struck down.

That, however, doesnt change the fact that the power to create it doesnt exist.

That would be incorrect. Something does not need to be included in the Constitution for it to be "constitutional". It simply can't be PROHIBITED by the Constitution.

What determines whether something is prohibited by the Constitution is what the Supreme Court decides is prohibited ... hence all the battles about who gets appointed to the Court.

Social Security has long been upheld as a lawful (read: Constitutional) exercise of governmental power.

Steward Machine Co. v Davis, 301U.S. 548 (1937)

Helvering v. Davis, 301 U.S. 619 (1937)

Cheers.

 

[jillian]

And just to elaborate a bit ...

there is a difference between something being MANDATED by the Constitution and something being permissible by it.

 

[M14 Shooter]

That would be incorrect. Something does not need to be included in the Constitution for it to be "constitutional". It simply can't be PROHIBITED by the Constitution.

Hmm. It appears the court disagrees with you.

This original and supreme will organizes the government, and assigns to different departments their respective powers. It may either stop here, or establish certain limits not to be transcended by those departments.

The government of the United States is of the latter description. The powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken, or forgotten, the constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing, if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained? The distinction between a government with limited and unlimited powers is abolished, if those limits do not confine the persons on whom they are imposed, and if acts prohibited and acts allowed, are of equal obligation. It is a proposition too plain to be contested, that the constitution controls any legislative act repugnant to it; or, that the legislature may alter the constitution by an ordinary act.

Between these alternatives there is no middle ground. The constitution is either a superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and, like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it.

If the former part of the alternative be true, then a legislative act contrary to the constitution is not law: if the latter part be true, then written constitutions are absurd attempts, on the part of the people, to limit a power in its own nature illimitable.

http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/9.htm

Further, who among the people that wrote the constuttion held that the government was -not- limited to what it could do by the powers granted to it; rather it could do whatever it wanted so long as there was no specific prhohibition against it?

What, then, is the point of specifying a limited set of things it can do?

What determines whether something is prohibited by the Constitution is what the Supreme Court decides is prohibited ... hence all the battles about who gets appointed to the Court.

Please compare and contrast what you just said to what the court said.

Social Security has long been upheld as a lawful (read: Constitutional) exercise of governmental power.

Your cittations come from the FDR-packed court that also ruled that the Interstate Commerce Clause allows the federal government to force an Ohio wheat farmer to sell all of his crop, rather than keep some for his own pruposes, using the same sort of logic that created the rulins in the cited cases.

And to think that you spoke of the un-constitutionalists that -Bush- appointed to the Supreme Court.