Health Reform Not Constitutional

[Al Norris]

OK... Let's take a little side trip.

Nothing in this thread has anything to do with guns, does it?

Since I helped to write the rules of discussion on this particular forum of the Firing Line, explain to me why every thread must be about guns? Even the forum name, Law and Civil Rights, does not mandate gun threads only.

 

[BGutzman]

If "We" as a nation do not limit the Commerce clause then whats next? Maybe next we madate every US citizen must buy U.S. Savings bonds and the act of not buying the bonds should be considered commerce?

Im not arguing this point but using it for illustration. What then is the limit of governmental power? Further how is not choosing to buy something = to commerce? Is not commerce the engagement of a business agreement to conduct a trade of some sort. (dollars for a product or service or something similar)

Further is there a need to purchase a health insurance program from outside your state? If non then how is it interstate commerce? How about a specific state under its constitution outlaw all interstate health insurance, is it then exempt from this legislation?

The point I am driving at is power, the power to engage other governments or indians or come to some sort of agreement between several states is only necessary in the event of conflict or inequity and was meant for rules concerning trade not the lack of trade (commerce) nor was in meant to force a population to buying any product.

 

[carguychris]

The constitution does not guarntee that the state or federal government will protect you from all harm and ill what it guarntess you is the ability to have choices that are suppose to be protected. Further I do not see the constitution guarnteeing that any group will pay to provide some other group a benefit.

The Constitution may not not guarantee that the federal government will protect citizens from everything, but it clearly gives Congress the authority to act in the general welfare of the citizenry, even when those actions favor one group over another. For instance, public funding of roadway maintenance and the taking of people's property to build new roads could be argued as unfair to those who don't drive; however, the societal benefits of allowing citizens to travel freely clearly outweigh the negative consequences. The relative merits of other social programs may be less clear, but the underlying concept is not.

IMHO enacting a universal health system, along with other social programs, is clearly within the authority of Congress under the General Welfare Clause. The way such a program is supposed to work is fairly straightforward: the government collects tax money and distributes it based on certain legal criteria. Some people may pay more taxes than others, some people may be exempted from the tax, and some people may derive no direct benefits from the program, but that is the nature of the beast. On some level, this is true of almost everything the federal, state, and local government does. If one wishes the argue about the fairness or cost/benefit ratio of a particular program, that's what the elected legislative process is for.

The fundamental problem here is that the government is attempting to implement a social benefit without a social program, telling the citizens that they must pay for it themselves, and justifying all of this under a constitutional provision intended to allow the regulation of trade. If a social benefit is justified, then enact a social program and pay for it the normal way, with taxes! As stated in the Volokh Conspiracy link earlier in the thread, the health care mandate essentially amounts to Congress declaring that it has a general police power under the Commerce Clause. What's next, a regulation requiring citizens to eat their green vegetables in order to avoid government penalties?

I also think the judicial system needs to be reformed in that laws as they are proposed within the house and senate should be required to have some level of supreme court review prior to ratification and enforcement so that our freedoms as citizens arent always awaiting someone to file suit on one infringment or another.

I have a real problem with the idea of legislation having to be pre-approved by a non-elected council serving lifetime terms of office. This smacks of monarchy, aristocracy, or, worse yet, theocracy. FWIW one prominent country has embraced this idea, and they call this body the Guardian Council.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guardian_Council

 

[brickeyee]

If the feds just raised taxes and then paid for the insurance they would likely get it past the courts.

Politically this is a non-starter.

It is the mechanism they have chosen to use that allows challenges.

The commerce clause has never been used to force any one to purchase a product (and car insurance is a STATE issue, not federal).

If congress decided that everyone should own a widget, and passed a law requiring everyone to purchase same we would be in the same boat.

While the widget makers would surely be happy at the impending business, the basic constitutionality of such a law could be called into question.

Our care is expensive (and our drugs) because it is still the best in the world.

 

[jimjc]

Something needs to be done with the cost of healthcare why. Because the insurance, hospitals, doctors have put together a system that is not affordable for other than the very, very few. A product or service is only viable if people can afford it.

Two people go to the hospital and have exactly the same service performed the person with insurances bill is $2000 the person without insurance the bill is $5000.

The majority of the population will die of either Cancer or Heart Disease. My cancer cost over 1 million dollars over the last 6 years, "who can afford that" and this BS you hear that medicaid will pick these costs are all BS. If I didn`t have health insurance I would have been dead long ago.

What happens to a person that has say Cancer when he`s 30, no one will insure him for the rest of his life, He has a death sentence.

US health care costs 2 1/2 times more than the next most expensive countries health care, why our health care is by far not the best health care in the world, it`s just the MOST EXPENSIVE. Every measure of health the US lags far behind the rest of the world. You work all your life pay for health care, you lose your job you get sick, YOU ARE SCREWED. if you get sick early in life YOU ARE SCREWED no one will insure you. Insurance companies cherry pick. United Health care CEO makes $160,000 per hour [ that not a misprint] We here in this country are being screwed by the system put into place to exploit us and it`s come to a head now after 30 years of laws put into place in the dark of night. I doubt many know whats coming.

 

[Musketeer]

Something needs to be done with the cost of healthcare why. Because the insurance, hospitals, doctors have put together a system that is not affordable for other than the very, very few. A product or service is only viable if people can afford it.

Very very few? You were taken care of and so are the significant majority of Americans. You statement does not add up.

Some people have flat out bad luck. Many many others though are stupid, lazy and short sighted. It is not gov't's job to punish the majority to assist the stupid and lazy. The true minority group with a real issue can be addressed without turning over everything and lowering the standard of care for all.

Secondly, just because you believe "something needs to be done" doesn't mean it is the Federal government's job, duty or that they are even empowered to do so. Other nations have different systems, our COTUS was meant to keep gov't out. If you see a problem you are free to find and market a solution to willing participants.

 

[Brian Pfleuger]

^^^^

Well said, Musketeer.

 

[Al Norris]

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;

The clause above gives the Congress the authority to; collect taxes (in all forms) to pay the debts of the US and provide for the common defense and general welfare.

There is no so-called general welfare clause. There is a power to collect taxes to pay for things that benefit the general welfare.... Like roads, as noted earlier.

The problem exists because like the Commerce Clause, The Congress, the Executive and the Judicial branches have altered the meaning and scope of these clauses, ever since the New Deal.

This all happened because WE (as a people) demanded it of the Federal Government, way back then (the Great Depression). We are now seeing the consequences of this.

 

[jimjc]

I`ve heard it all before people are stupid and lazy always the peoples fault, It`s not these massive corporations sucking the life out of everyone because they now own the house and senate and after 30yrs. passed all the legislation to do whatever they want and that is exploitation.

Taxes paid by everyone has paid for the research and development through Universities and institutions for health care, now fewer and fewer are receiving adequate care, some none at all

Because I had enough health care I should shut up according to you, well I don`t think you know what you are talking about because your arguments have little to do with the realities today and more about "you have what you want screw everyone else".

There`s a certain groups motto lately " Don`t get sick and if you do just go somewhere and die so we don`t have to pay for your care"

 

[Brian Pfleuger]

now fewer and fewer are receiving adequate care, some none at all

Who are these people? I've never met a single person who can not and does not receive adequate medical care, regardless of their ability to pay, except by their own doing.

Never. Not one single person.

 

[BGutzman]

I have a real problem with the idea of legislation having to be pre-approved by a non-elected council serving lifetime terms of office. This smacks of monarchy, aristocracy, or, worse yet, theocracy. FWIW one prominent country has embraced this idea, and they call this body the Guardian Council.

The justices of the SCOTUS are entrusted to protect our freedoms. Certainly there should be some judical (the forgotten branch to some) review if were passing multi hundred, multi thousand page bills to ensure the general freedom of John Q. Citizen. When our representatives encroach on freedom are we truly to have to wait for just the right case to be brought by a person with a fair amount of money to fight to get those freedoms back or should we as a people find or create a constitutional mechanism that allows the judicial system to remove parts of any bill inconsistent with the rights and freedoms under the constitution before they become law.

So basically suck it up and live without your right to whatever until someone with the money can sue so you might maybe have a chance to get whatever particular right or freedom back....

Im not saying the justices should be able to pass any law or bill I am simply saying if bills were reviewed solely on the basis of constitutionality (line by line) how many more freedoms could we the people be enjoying.

Would not or could not have such a constitutionally enacted mechanism removed so many encroachments on our basic rights and freedoms. Should we settle for "less free" while we wait for a new case and a person or group with the money to challenge it or should we entrust these people (SCOTUS) to act for the good of the constitution.

Further I would say that the initital review would not limit the law from further future review in a normal Federal case, it should simply be a protection for "We the people" so we can live as reasonably free as possible.

Im not saying its a perfect idea but maybe it might be a better idea, certaily worth thinking about and in this case with the "Commerce Clause" it may have saved millions or hundreds of millions of dollars from being spent to enact legislation that may ultimately be judged to be unconstitutional.

 

[Buzzcook]

nate45: Davy may have been right as far as charity to specific individuals are concerned. Though I tend to disagree.

But he is very wrong as far as charity to a class of people. Specifically members of the military and their survivors.

The elderly or infirm is another class of people were aid has passed constitutional muster. That is if you think SSI is constitutional.

A mandate is different from pensions, support for war widows, health care for wounded vets, or support for the infirm.

 

[jimjc]

"This all happened because WE (as a people) demanded it of the Federal Government, way back then (the Great Depression). We are now seeing the consequences of this. "
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Na... what we are seeing now is the massive military expenditures for 30 years that have had no benefit to the population of this country. Massive redistribution of wealth from the middle class to the upper 2% and the multi national corps. Massive growth of the Federal Government. Decades ago corporations paid 65% of the taxes now the people pay almost 65% of the taxes. Wall street and the Banks led by the Federal Reserve will nail the last nails in the coffins of the people of the USA, just wait and see.

The idea the people of this country have anything to do with legislation passed by electing certain representatives is a fallacy. Laws that do what corporations want get passed no matter what, we have no say. the Constitution has become irrelevant.

 

[jimjc]

Who are these people? I've never met a single person who can not and does not receive adequate medical care, regardless of their ability to pay, except by their own doing.

Never. Not one single person.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

I`m afraid you don`t want to see. No use discussing because you don`t believe there is a problem, how uninformed can a person be.

 

[BGutzman]

Na... what we are seeing now is the massive military expenditures for 30 years that have had no benefit to the population of this country.

I take exception to this as a member who on a day to day basis served this country and put my life on the line more times than I care to remember.

I will however refrain from stating a few facts and leave this alone.

Let me simply say without every member of the military you would not be free and you would not be enjoying the freedoms you currently have. I leave it at that.

Possibly under the commerce clause you should seek to hire some corporate force to protect you from the evils of this world. Best of luck.

 

[jimjc]

I take exception to this as a member who on a day to day basis served this country and put my life on the line more times than I care to remember.

I will however refrain from stating a few facts and leave this alone.

Let me simply say without every member of the military you would not be free and you would not be enjoying the freedoms you currently have. I leave it at that.

Possibly under the commerce clause you should seek to hire some corporate force to protect you from the evils of this world. Best of luck
________________________________________________________________


This has nothing to do of the people that fight the wars I was once one, we only do what we are told. The wars of the last 30 years have nothing to do with the freedom of the people of the USA. They have to do with corporate interests costing the taxpayers trillions of hard earned money and the lives of some very good men and women.

 

[BGutzman]

Sorry I wont touch that one and now back to the commerce clause and a better discussion.

 

[Musketeer]

Jimjc, did I say screw everyone? No.

Did I say look to solve the problems for those who truly need help? Yes.

Did you say that very very few people could afford care here? Yes.

Is that statement factually incorrect? Incontravertiby.

You had your issues cared for as do the vast majority of Americans but you seem to think very very few (your words) people can afford care here while very very few really cannot.

If you think there is not a group of citizens who are stupid, lazy and shortsighted then you aren't looking hard. I would love to introduce you to my father in law who we are all footing the bill for. His utter laziness and incompetence left his family without private coverage when my wife and her
brother were not even out of elementry school. Somehow though "the system"
took care of them. They should be cared for. He should rot.

"Massive growth of the Federal Government. Decades ago corporations paid 65% of the taxes now the people pay almost 65% of the taxes."

So you propose growing the gov't further and giving them the say over what medical care you are allowed to have? You also seem to ignore the significant liability cost our out of control legal system has on medical care. Nobody pushing this "reform" cares to address that. I know though how it will be handled. Once gov't dictates and manages all care it will also see fit to hold itself unnacountable for any of it's errors. Ask members of the military what recourse their families have should a military doctor kill them through outright incompetence. Absolutely NONE. That is what we would all have. A bloated, inefficient, gov't run system giving minimal level care and with zero accountability.

The second part is the most telling though. CORPORATIONS PAY NO TAXES EVER!!! Any tax on a corporation always falls back on the private citizen to pay through higher prices. You are under the misconception that one can tax corporations in order to make a nations fiscal policy solvent. Every tax always lands on the citizenry.

 

[BGutzman]

Come on guys I really dont want to have this thread closed because its run off the track so to speak. I think all of us have some strong opinion but operating within the rules given in this forum we are very close to the edge of the cliff if not falling off the cliff.

I truly think there is value in this thread so please help me put this back on track.

 

[BGutzman]

Something needs to be done with the cost of healthcare why. Because the insurance, hospitals, doctors have put together a system that is not affordable for other than the very, very few. A product or service is only viable if people can afford it.

Two people go to the hospital and have exactly the same service performed the person with insurances bill is $2000 the person without insurance the bill is $5000.

So if the person without insurance chooses to not carry insurance we should all fit the bill for him or her? Whats the modivation for working if you can sit at home and do nothing and get it all for free?

The commerce clause is not a social program mechanism it is a commerce mechanism. I am constantly astonished by our reps of all parties who are in majority professional lawyers who seem to mis interpet or fail to recognize any limits to there powers to legislate anything.

Maybe the best thing we could do would be to remove the commerce clause from the constitution and give our reps something to think about when they challenge the rights of the people to be free.