Proposed Amendments 28 and 29 on Equality and Right to Health Care

[emilynghiem]

It's always been illegal for the Fed govt to get involved in health care programs, insurance etc., since the power to do that has never been mentioned in the Constitution, and the so-called "General Welfare clause" (better called the Uniformity clause) forbids to the Fed any program that does not benefit all Americans equally - a fact conveniently ignored by our distinguished brethern of the southpaw persuasion.

Now you want to amend the Constitution and insert the phrase "health care program" into it for the first time?

BAD idea.

I agree it is a bad IDEA and more importantly NOT NECESSARY!!!

I am not obsessed with this but WHY the NEED for a "health care program" when nearly 99% of people that are
legal, need and WANT health insurance have it!
The remaining 4 million can be covered at NO cost simply tax lawyers 10% as ACA taxes tanning salons.
Provide the 4 million that really want but can't get insurance with a $5,000 premium per year per uninsured.
Then tie the tax with the reduction of the $850 billion spent simply out of fear of lawsuits... i.e. lawyers !
Once this $850 billion declines payers claim payments reduce.
They reduce it will lower the $850 billion and state insurance regulators will not approve premiums that are not declining!

Congress can neither establish nor infringe on the belief in health care as a right,
but all legislation on this and other issues divided by beliefs (religious or political)
MUST be passed by consensus of the Senate to ensure there is no partisan bias.

Do I just need to say it simpler?

The Second Amendment allows for both "well regulated militia" and "right to bear arms" where this law is interpreted many different ways.

How to emphasize that there must be a consensus on law where
political beliefs or religious beliefs are involved,
while still treating ALL beliefs equally, whether the right to health care "as a belief"
and free choice or free market health care "as a belief" where
Congress cannot abuse majority-rule to impose a political bias.

What do I need to clarify or shorten to make this point?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

So why not require conflict resolution to fulfill that standard of laws?

Because it conflicts with the people’s inalienable right to petition the government for a redress of grievances as guaranteed by the First Amendment. And the venue for that process is the Federal court system, where the conflicts and controversies of the day are resolved in accordance with the Constitution and its case law.

The judicial branch of government is the mechanism used to realize “conflict resolution.”

That you and others are unhappy with how some of those conflicts are resolved is compelling evidence that the system is working extremely well and as intended.

 

[emilynghiem]

The conflicts AREN'T being resolved.

The conflict resolution that is FAILING through the justice system WOULD be facilitated through the Senate Judiciary Committee to make sure the legal/judicial system ISN'T BEING ABUSED to decide religious issues that belong to the people to decide. That's the reason the conflicts aren't being settled -- where people will not or cannot change their religious views, solutions must be sought that prevent imposing one way or another.

By resolving the conflicts directly with the parties bringing suit, that mediation and its results ARE approved through the Judiciary. The Senate would be used to check for political conflicts of interest, and make sure that FACILITATORS and MEDIATORS are available that are able to orchestrate "amicable solutions" as normally required of parties BEFORE seeking lawsuits to begin with.

There is nothing illegal about mediating, resolving and settling conflicts to reduce the burden on the courts. In fact, since conflict resolution saves resources, and prevents problems from escalating and backlogging the system, it is more in keeping with the Code of Ethics for Government Service. So ALL govt employees of ALL branches should seek to resolve conflicts in order to save public resources and make govt work more efficiently.

So why not require conflict resolution to fulfill that standard of laws?

Because it conflicts with the people’s inalienable right to petition the government for a redress of grievances as guaranteed by the First Amendment. And the venue for that process is the Federal court system, where the conflicts and controversies of the day are resolved in accordance with the Constitution and its case law.

The judicial branch of government is the mechanism used to realize “conflict resolution.”

That you and others are unhappy with how some of those conflicts are resolved is compelling evidence that the system is working extremely well and as intended.

 

[buckeye45_73]

Just what we need...an amendment that says photographers don't have to work at fag weddings

Don't conservatives have anything better to do with their time? Don't you have some Repeal Obamacare Amendments?

Hi RW
instead of repealing, this Amendment would require of Congress to resolve conflicts with respect to equal political beliefs, and/or delegate responsibility to parties or states to represent people separately.

It may repeal or replace the mandate part with choice by State or Party on how to manage the taxation or exemptions, and what counts as an alternative for paying for health care.

Isn't that better than repealing it? Allowing people to keep the current options, but through their Parties or States that agree to those provisions or revisions thereof.

So everyone gets free choice of their system of health care, without competing with others.

People have multiple options on health insurance. The only option they don't have is not being insured

Rw gets paid to post, which is why he never has an original thought

 

[Spoonman]

We have more pressing issues in this country

like the current failed administration that is running this country into the ground

 

[Spoonman]

Hi RW
instead of repealing, this Amendment would require of Congress to resolve conflicts with respect to equal political beliefs, and/or delegate responsibility to parties or states to represent people separately.

It may repeal or replace the mandate part with choice by State or Party on how to manage the taxation or exemptions, and what counts as an alternative for paying for health care.

Isn't that better than repealing it? Allowing people to keep the current options, but through their Parties or States that agree to those provisions or revisions thereof.

So everyone gets free choice of their system of health care, without competing with others.

People have multiple options on health insurance. The only option they don't have is not being insured

Rw gets paid to post, which is why he never has an original thought

he's obviously over paid

 

[whitehall]

People who advocate amendments to the Constitution seem to forget the basic tenant of American politics. How many times do you have to remind people that politicians work for us? I bet the people who advocate a quick fix with another amendment are the same people who ridicule the good folks who represent the Tea Party and try to get the right people elected. If the media cooperates, politicians can violate every stinking Amendment on the books. They don't care. The only tool Americans have is our Constitutional right to throw the rascals out every couple of years. If we can't accomplish that simple thing we don't deserve the freedom and liberty inherent in the Constitution.

 

[emilynghiem]

People who advocate amendments to the Constitution seem to forget the basic tenant of American politics. How many times do you have to remind people that politicians work for us? I bet the people who advocate a quick fix with another amendment are the same people who ridicule the good folks who represent the Tea Party and try to get the right people elected. If the media cooperates, politicians can violate every stinking Amendment on the books. They don't care. The only tool Americans have is our Constitutional right to throw the rascals out every couple of years. If we can't accomplish that simple thing we don't deserve the freedom and liberty inherent in the Constitution.

Hi Whitehall: This isn't a quick fix.

It's a brutal process of recognizing we need to separate our political beliefs from government, on all levels, and seek conflict resolution.

the people are the government.
we need to petition "each other" for redress of grievances.

I am just proposing the minimal way to introduce this back into government,
within the given structures we have now.

Even proposing it is pushing change to get aligned with principles
and back on track.

WH it takes more than just voting people in or out.

The damage done in the meantime is unbearable on the taxpayers.

We need to either resolve conflicts or separate out the policies or funding in dispute.
We don't need to keep imposing this on government, but need to take it back and
fix it ourselves. Either by state, by party, but the people need more direct involvement
in resolving conflicts instead of leaving it to political party and majority-rule by bullying.

Thanks and I agree with your sentiment, but don't agree to keep waiting 2 to 4 years
to change anything. We need to solve problems directly, not just rely on votes or elections.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

We have more pressing issues in this country

What's more pressing than enacting laws that reduce the power of government over the citizenry?

Pity you and others on the right don’t pursue such a goal.

Instead you seek to increase the power of government over the citizenry by denying women their privacy rights, gay Americans their equal protection rights, immigrants their due process rights, and minorities their voting rights.

 

[rightwinger]

We have more pressing issues in this country

What's more pressing than enacting laws that reduce the power of government over the citizenry?

The government is the citizenry

Dont forget that

 

[whitehall]

People who advocate amendments to the Constitution seem to forget the basic tenant of American politics. How many times do you have to remind people that politicians work for us? I bet the people who advocate a quick fix with another amendment are the same people who ridicule the good folks who represent the Tea Party and try to get the right people elected. If the media cooperates, politicians can violate every stinking Amendment on the books. They don't care. The only tool Americans have is our Constitutional right to throw the rascals out every couple of years. If we can't accomplish that simple thing we don't deserve the freedom and liberty inherent in the Constitution.

Hi Whitehall: This isn't a quick fix.

It's a brutal process of recognizing we need to separate our political beliefs from government, on all levels, and seek conflict resolution.

the people are the government.
we need to petition "each other" for redress of grievances.

I am just proposing the minimal way to introduce this back into government,
within the given structures we have now.

Even proposing it is pushing change to get aligned with principles
and back on track.

WH it takes more than just voting people in or out.

The damage done in the meantime is unbearable on the taxpayers.

We need to either resolve conflicts or separate out the policies or funding in dispute.
We don't need to keep imposing this on government, but need to take it back and
fix it ourselves. Either by state, by party, but the people need more direct involvement
in resolving conflicts instead of leaving it to political party and majority-rule by bullying.

Thanks and I agree with your sentiment, but don't agree to keep waiting 2 to 4 years
to change anything. We need to solve problems directly, not just rely on votes or elections.

You can't separate political beliefs from government. Government is our freaking political beliefs. The rascals work for us. If you forget that and try to create another layer of laws they can violate you are dodging your own responsibility.

 

[rightwinger]

Hi RW
instead of repealing, this Amendment would require of Congress to resolve conflicts with respect to equal political beliefs, and/or delegate responsibility to parties or states to represent people separately.

It may repeal or replace the mandate part with choice by State or Party on how to manage the taxation or exemptions, and what counts as an alternative for paying for health care.

Isn't that better than repealing it? Allowing people to keep the current options, but through their Parties or States that agree to those provisions or revisions thereof.

So everyone gets free choice of their system of health care, without competing with others.

People have multiple options on health insurance. The only option they don't have is not being insured

Rw gets paid to post, which is why he never has an original thought

No, that is not how it works

The cut and pasters do not get paid much, barely more than minimum wage. But they do get dental benefits.
Those of us who make $100,000 or more posting on this board are held to a much higher standard

 

[BDBoop]

People have multiple options on health insurance. The only option they don't have is not being insured

Rw gets paid to post, which is why he never has an original thought

No, that is not how it works

The cut and pasters do not get paid much, barely more than minimum wage. But they do get dental benefits.
Those of us who make $100,000 or more posting on this board are held to a much higher standard

They keep me on retainer.

Which reminds me; I need to submit my expense report. Be back shortly.

 

[emilynghiem]

[MENTION=47390]DriftingSand[/MENTION]

Here is the draft of the Resolution I started for
presentation at the next Democratic Convention.

This is "overly broad" and addressed to the DemParty
but can be adapted to gun issues and addressed
to both Parties to respect equal political beliefs on both sides.
and seek solutions that both sides agree address the objections.

=================================

RESOLUTION on Equality of Party, Political Beliefs, and Protection of the Law

WHEREAS all taxpayers, citizens and persons under Government jurisdiction have equal rights to defend individual beliefs from discrimination by religious or political creed; and

WHEREAS many citizens rely on Political Parties to represent their political beliefs equally as their religious beliefs and personal morals; and

WHEREAS government and public institutions are required to include and serve diverse citizens equally of all views and beliefs, without discrimination by creed otherwise infringing on equal religious freedom, representation, due process and protection of law;

The Democrat Party Principles and Platform shall defend the rights of all citizens to equal representation and inclusion of Political Beliefs without discrimination by Party, including but not limited to:
(a) beliefs for or against gay marriage
(b) beliefs in health care as a right ("singlepayer") or as a choice ("free market")
(c) beliefs for or against death penalty, abortion, euthanasia or other termination issues
(d) beliefs regarding federalism, anti-federalism, states' rights or Constitutionalism, including Constitutional reforms of the IRS, Federal Reserve, and other agencies
(e) beliefs in decriminalizing or legalizing drugs, prostitution, gambling or other policies
(f) beliefs for or against restorative justice or retributive justice, restitution, or amnesty in criminal justice or immigration reform

To prevent from enacting or enforcing laws that discriminate on the basis of creed, by imposing or excluding conflicting beliefs and values, the Democrat Party shall support reforms that equally respect, represent and include beliefs of all citizens, either (1) by passing laws by consensus of representatives voting, to ensure all views are included; (2) in cases where conflicts cannot be resolved, by separating systems by Party to create and fund equal access for members of shared beliefs to policies, practices and administration representing their choices without imposition; (3) by expanding Senate Judiciary Duties to mediate conflicts, grievances and complaints of partisan bias, including but not limited to the areas above, before laws are written and passed; and possibly (4) by reforming the position of Vice President to appoint and train key Mediators through the Justice Department to focus on Peace and Justice by conflict resolution, and to oversee a system of representation by Party on key issues of conflicting beliefs, for the purpose of reaching a consensus on laws, or separating systems by Party as needed for equal representation.

 

[emilynghiem]

[MENTION=47390]DriftingSand[/MENTION]

Here is the one on equal beliefs on health care.
So instead of health care, this should address both
sides of the gun laws issues, and respect both as
equal political beliefs protected under law.

And I would like to propose a SOLUTION
that would satisfy issues on both sides.

So one part about the problem, and agreeing to separate.
And one part about the solution, and agreeing to collaborate.

I guess it will address BOTH interpretations of the
Second Amendment that are equally valid as beliefs,
and cannot be imposed by govt but laws must
respect and reflect solutions that all people agree to
regardless of creed so nobody is discriminated against or excluded by law.

==========================

RESOLUTION on equal rights and Constitutional beliefs about health care and government

WHEREAS all taxpaying citizens have equal rights to exercise their individual beliefs about “health care as a right” (as singlepayer advocates) and “how to pay for health care as a choice” (as free market advocates) without political or religious discrimination by opposition; and

WHEREAS citizens of Texas and other states hold different Constitutional beliefs on the limits on and duty of federal government in relation to states’ rights and the right of the people; and

WHEREAS the U.S. Constitution and its Amendments requires government and public officials to protect, include and represent diverse citizens equally of all views and beliefs, without discrimination by creed otherwise perceived as infringing on religious freedom and due process;

Be it hereby resolved the Democrat Party Principles and Platform shall (1) recognize equal beliefs and rights of all citizens regarding health care choices, Constitutional laws, due process and procedures, and will not enact or enforce laws that discriminate on the basis of creed by imposing on conflicting beliefs and values; and (2) shall support reforms that equally respect beliefs of all citizens, either by passing laws by consensus of representatives voting, to ensure all views are included, and/or by separating systems of health care by Party to create equal access for members of shared beliefs to policies, practices and administration representing their choices.

 

[Moonglow]

(including equal religious freedom, check and balances of separate powers, and due process of laws) so they are upheld, taught and adopted as God's laws along with the Torah, Bible (which also instructs believers to respect Civil Laws and Authority), and Quran (by which followers receive and respect all sent by God namely Jewish Torah, Christian Scriptures and Muslim Quran, to which I would add Constitutional natural laws)

Those more accurately would be titled,
Religious natural Laws..

 

[emilynghiem]

You can't separate political beliefs from government. Government is our freaking political beliefs. The rascals work for us. If you forget that and try to create another layer of laws they can violate you are dodging your own responsibility.

Hi Whitehall
Yes, and for govt to reflect ALL of us INCLUSIVELY and EQUALLY
it makes sense that laws/govt reflect a CONSENSUS among people,
ie where we AGREE policies should be made laws mandatory at
either state, federal or local levels, and the writing/regulations/terms of these laws.

We can have our political beliefs, but the laws themselves must be
agreed upon before we consider them public as a binding contract.
If we agree to majority or super majority, that's fine; but where
we don't we need to re-negotiate and resolve objections preventing an agreement on laws.

If we argue to keep Christian or other biases out of the laws
the same standards should apply to ALL beliefs and biases, religious political or otherwise.

That is, if we TRULY want to live up to the standard of
EQUAL JUSTICE and
EQUAL PROTECTIONS of the laws
without discrimination by creed.

It depends how consistent we want to enforce the laws,
or where we are willing to take short cuts and
go with 2/3 or 51/49 majority rule.

WH clearly with religious issues, and abortion/guns and now
health care and gay marriage,
people on BOTH sides DO NOT AGREE to let the other beliefs impose on theirs!

So we DO NOT CONSENT to majority rule or super majority
on these certain issues that are religiously held and sacred to people as religions.

We need to recognize this and quit dancing around it
thinking we can just keep overruling by majority party.

it's not working, not solving the problems, and costing us
more and more if we don't focus on solutions that are
INDEPENDENT and don't require imposing one belief over another.

we CAN find ethical solutions that work WITHOUT compromising and discriminating.
we are big enough as a nation, with ability to develop access and organize resources,
to separate our solutions by party or by state, and quit imposing
one policy for all people who don't fit under one grouping because of diversity
that is organized by groups and parties, so this is easier to facilitate representation using those structures as the backbone.

religious churches and nonprofits manage localized, national and even international outreach
for their members, on a voluntary basis, without imposing
on other religious groups or beliefs by "force of law or mandates"

why can't we do the same thing with political organizations?

 

[Little-Acorn]

"Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the United States that does not apply equally to the Senators and/or Representatives; and, Congress shall make no law that applies to the Senators and/or Representatives that does not apply equally to the citizens of the United States".

I can see what you're trying to do with this amendment, and it's laudable.

But this amendment falls short of accomplishing your goal, by a wide sea mile.

If this were enacted as written, then when Congress passes a law raising Congress's pay by 10% (that's the only way Congress's pay can be determined), then every worker in America must get a 10% increase too.

I know, you didn't mean it that way. But that's what it says.

You see the problem. Unless the amendment is written in a way that doesn't cause such a problem, it's unacceptable.

And you might find it's impossible to write an amendment to accomplish what you want, without also causing unintended problems like that.

In the style of the Introduction and Second Amendment, stating "Right to bear arms" as a Constitutional right,
I propose an Amendment to add "Right to Health Care" to the Constitution, but in equal context with Free Market Choices so it is fair:

Flat fail.

You can't make a law providing a "right to health care" of ANY description, any more than you can make a law providing that all horses will henceforth have seven legs. And for the same reason: There simply is no such thing, and making a law won't change that.

Even if your law simply says that the Fed govt shall have nothing to do with people's right to health care... that law clearly implies that people have a "right to health care". When in fact they don't.

Unlike the right to keep and bear arms, "health care" is something other people (usually) give to you. Doctors treat you, people run drug companies to make medicines for you to take, people build hospitals to provide operating rooms etc. And if you have a "right" to those things, then those people can be COMPELLED to do their work or build their facilities to provide it to you.

Unh-unh.

If people have to do things to provide you this "right", then it isn't a right at all. Instead, it's an obligation imposed on others.

You have the right to keep and bear arms... but that doesn't mean others are obligated to give you a pistol or rifle.

But the "right" to health care as most people mean it, DOES obligate others to treat you when you need treatments.

Huge, and vital, difference. And it's a difference that means there can NEVER be a "right to health care".

Unfortunate, since the provision of health care can mean the difference between life and death. But true nonetheless, since forcing others to provide you health care, violates THEIR rights.

The only way your amendment can ever come close to working, is if it simply says something like, "Congress shall make no law regarding the provision or restriction of Health Care." And then you'd have to write more to define "health Care", which is a separate mess all its own.

Sorry, but the Framers got it right the first time. They simply wrote a document (Constitution) saying what the Fed govt CAN do, and forbade all else, letting lower govts do other stuff if they want.

The problem is not what the document says. The problem is that people aren't obeying it.

And changing the document, won't change that.

 

[rightwinger]

[MENTION=47390]DriftingSand[/MENTION]

Here is the draft of the Resolution I started for
presentation at the next Democratic Convention.

This is "overly broad" and addressed to the DemParty
but can be adapted to gun issues and addressed
to both Parties to respect equal political beliefs on both sides.
and seek solutions that both sides agree address the objections.

=================================

RESOLUTION on Equality of Party, Political Beliefs, and Protection of the Law

WHEREAS all taxpayers, citizens and persons under Government jurisdiction have equal rights to defend individual beliefs from discrimination by religious or political creed; and

WHEREAS many citizens rely on Political Parties to represent their political beliefs equally as their religious beliefs and personal morals; and

WHEREAS government and public institutions are required to include and serve diverse citizens equally of all views and beliefs, without discrimination by creed otherwise infringing on equal religious freedom, representation, due process and protection of law;

The Democrat Party Principles and Platform shall defend the rights of all citizens to equal representation and inclusion of Political Beliefs without discrimination by Party, including but not limited to:
(a) beliefs for or against gay marriage
(b) beliefs in health care as a right ("singlepayer") or as a choice ("free market")
(c) beliefs for or against death penalty, abortion, euthanasia or other termination issues
(d) beliefs regarding federalism, anti-federalism, states' rights or Constitutionalism, including Constitutional reforms of the IRS, Federal Reserve, and other agencies
(e) beliefs in decriminalizing or legalizing drugs, prostitution, gambling or other policies
(f) beliefs for or against restorative justice or retributive justice, restitution, or amnesty in criminal justice or immigration reform

To prevent from enacting or enforcing laws that discriminate on the basis of creed, by imposing or excluding conflicting beliefs and values, the Democrat Party shall support reforms that equally respect, represent and include beliefs of all citizens, either (1) by passing laws by consensus of representatives voting, to ensure all views are included; (2) in cases where conflicts cannot be resolved, by separating systems by Party to create and fund equal access for members of shared beliefs to policies, practices and administration representing their choices without imposition; (3) by expanding Senate Judiciary Duties to mediate conflicts, grievances and complaints of partisan bias, including but not limited to the areas above, before laws are written and passed; and possibly (4) by reforming the position of Vice President to appoint and train key Mediators through the Justice Department to focus on Peace and Justice by conflict resolution, and to oversee a system of representation by Party on key issues of conflicting beliefs, for the purpose of reaching a consensus on laws, or separating systems by Party as needed for equal representation.

That makes absolutely no sense

It is completely unworkable

 

[nodoginnafight]

2. Where disputes arise due to religious or partisan biases, Congress is required to redress grievances and objections, brought by members of Congress or by the public,
to resolve all conflicts by agreement before voting on or passing proposed or amended legislation, and is prohibited from imposing a religious or partisan bias by majority-rule.

That's what courts do. Violates the separation of powers doctrine.