If Medicare is constitutional, Obamacare is constitutional. The Supreme Court
says both are. That's good enough for me, and for the vast majority of
The attempt to spin the founders as creating a constitution that would never
allow for health care for everyone is getting mythical. Did the pioneers come to
Utah to escape the Affordable Care Act?
The first part of the Constitution was the effort of the proponents of the
American nation to prove up on the promises they made in the Declaration of
Independence. The second part, the Bill of Rights, came from the
negotiation with the colony governments who wanted their own freedom from
outside intervention. The purpose of the Bill of Rights was to allow the
colony governments to rule their citizens according to their own religion and
desires. The colonies wanted to renege on the promises of the Declaration
of Independence. I think that as people begin to realize the actual
manner in which the Constitution was put together, they may be more hesitant to
blindly pledge their support. The Constitution that I learned about in school
is not the same as now interpreted by conservatives.
The Constitution is merely a nuisance anymore. The Supreme Courts throughout the
past many decades have found mystical rights in it that ordinary people would
never have extracted. They wear robes, but maybe they should be wearing
wizards' hats, too. In truth, the court has become a virtual rubber stamp
for popular legislation, regardless of whether or not it conflicts with the
Constitution the way us ordinary people understand it.
As Americans we need a government of the people for the people; not a mess of
squabbling, privately owned colony governments sometimes referred to as states.
We need to eliminate state governments and a whole bunch of tiny
So there you have it. Ultra Bob's only problem with Big Government is that
it's not big enough or intrusive enough. Patience, Bob, patience.
We're getting there, sure as anything. The Supreme Court is on your side.
Now that government has taken the next step in providing a "basic human
right" in mandating health insurance on everyone whether they want it or
not, what is next?Everyone should have a "basic human right"
to food, clothing, shelter, and employment too. Shall we next pass legislation
in which the government provides everyone a house, the latest fashion designs,
the equivalent to school lunch for everyone, and a government job?Where does it end? Please liberals, tell me something that the government
should NOT provide.
@JoeCapitalistI'm a liberal, I don't need the government selling
me booze. But that's a different argument. My question to you is do you
know we are paying for peoples healthcare right now? Because hospitals
can't turn sick people away many of them are treated in the ER, and most
don't pay. But it's not like hospitals provide this care for free,
they just raise the rates for insurance companies, who also don't stop
making money, so they pass the cost on to you. Conservatives don't like the
ACA but don't have an alternative. The healthcare system is broken, going
back to what we had before won't work either. So get on the train or come
up with a better idea yourselves. But you can't, because the ACA is classic
conservative free market economics. In my opinion we should go to a swiss
system, where a basic healthcare plan is provided by the government, but
supplemental plans are easily available in the free market. So pretty much
Medicare for all.
The current health system is broken because it is an outgrowth of government
intervention during World War II when wage and price controls were in effect. We
haven't had any kind of free market in health care since that time. The
choice between government-provided care and the current system is one between
awful and horrendous.
How many would complain if their mortgage lender changed the mortgage contract
unilaterally? How many would complain if the contractor, who was building them
a new home, decided to double the price without their approval?We
have contracts so that all parties know what is expected of them. The federal
government is only one level of government. We have restricted the authority of
that level, preferring to have other levels of government handle other needs.
We have authorized the federal government to protect the States from invasion.
At least six of the seventeen enumerated duties that we have allocated to the
federal government deal with the military. We've given the federal
government limited authority to regulate interstate commerce so that large
states cannot prey upon small states. There are a few other duties that we have
authorized the federal government to perform. All other duties are to be
handled by the States or by the people. That is orderly. That is
understandable. That keeps coniving politicians from buying votes. That keeps
irresponsible citizens from passing their personal welfare to others.No good comes from ignoring contracts. The Constitution protects us.
Interpreting the Constitution is an adventure in real-life politics and
real-life issues, not the imaginary world inhabited by some who insist on a
strict interpretation (which is still an interpretation) of the grand old
document. We all disagree with some Supreme Court decisions, but why should that
surprise us? I happen to be glad that both Medicare and the ACA have been
declared constitutional. I am not so happy about the Supreme Court's
declaration that corporations "are people too," to put it in Mitt's
unfortunate words. The ramifications of that old decision has had a greater
impact on American society than practically any Court edict, ever. It's one
we really ought to revisit.
SEY,Allowing the free market to run rampant in health care would be
a disaster of the greatest proportion. As has been pointed out repeatedly by
sane individuals, the market simply is not suited to deal with health care. It
would exclude tens of millions of people from getting care they desperately
need; it would price some services out of almost everyone's reach; and it
would offer dangerously low-quality care to those who can't afford Cadillac
care. Oh, wait, isn't that what we have already? Why? Not because
government is involved, but because the market is too involved. The only
health-care systems that work reasonably well are those that are tightly
controlled or run by government. Have you ever wondered why there is no system
in the entire world that operates on free-market principles? It ain't
because the free market works too well.
SEY.You will be governed by big government. If you weaken our
federal government by silly limitations from 250 years ago, your next big
government might be Chinese or Mexican or Catholic or Walmart or etc.JoeCapitalist2.There are no golden rules that limit what people
can ask their government to do. People can ask their government to do anything
the people want so long as the people can pay for it and it is possible to
accomplish. The reason private enterprise is against government is
because government has the job to control private enterprise. Small governments
are easily controlled by the giants of the world. The American federal
government is the last best chance for people to have freedoms and rights. It
can only secure those things if it is bigger than the other giants.
There is a method that solves the problem for everybody. That method is to
amend the Constitution when the people desire to give more authority to the
federal government. That process keeps the government honest and it keeps the
people from making unauthorized demands on the federal government.If
75% of the States want the Federal level of government to handle healthcare,
then they can petition Congress to start the process. That's not what
happened. One man wanted to change health care. He bribed and bullied
Democrats to accept his program. The Republicans refused to go along with him,
knowing they were not authorized to meddle in personal welfare. After buying
off Louisiana and making concessions to Nebraska and fiddling with the rules,
ObamaCare was passed after 59% of the people told Obama that they didn't
want ObamaCare to pass. He cared not at all about the will of the people. The
Democrats who passed that bill cared not at all about the people.Abiding by the Constitution would have kept Obama in check. Now, he will hurt
the most needy by shutting down the government to save his
"ObamaCare".And we're a civilized country when law is
The enumeration of powers, according to Hamilton, was intended to emphasize the
fed's authority in certain areas. But the elastic clause along with Article
1.8's stem clause "provide for the general welfare" means that the
Fed gov't had sweeping powers from the beginning, as even George Washington
recognized. This constitutional argument is getting silly.
John Adams had socialized healthcare for a sector of naval workers, 215 years
And the debate goes on between those who think that their personal welfare
should be included in the general welfare clause. They obviously don't
know where their driveway ends and where the public road begins or where their
house's sewer line ends and the public hookup begins or who should pay for
their groceries or their rent or their cell phones or their doctor visits.Do liberals really want their personal responsibility to be handled by
people in other states? Have they abandoned all personal liability so that they
can get "what they deserve" from some "rich guy" that Obama told
them to fleece because that "rich guy" worked harder and profited more
than they did while they whined and moaned about how they needed help wiping
Lew Scannon: do the best solutions always prevail in the economy? Does the mere
presence of a program indicate its excellence or the non-presence of a competing
program prove its inferiority? The real reason you haven't seen a genuine
free market health solution is because the large corporations and government
agencies would become disempowered, and they'll have none of that! Ron Paul
has promoted some very workable solutions that I'm sure you're not
aware of in which Big Pharma, the AMA and government are not the primary
beneficiaries, but consumers are.
Abraham Lincoln relied on the general welfare clause to emancipate the slaves.
"The intent was that power be confined to well defined limits, among three
branches, to ensure individual freedom in perpetuity." ========== Both the House and the Senate passed ACA.The
President of the united States signed the ACA.The Supreme Court of the
united States has upheld the ACA.What 3 branches of the Government
did we miss?Why are you trampling the Constitution?
@atl134Salt Lake City, UTJohn Adams had socialized healthcare
for a sector of naval workers, 215 years ago.10:59 a.m. Sept. 25, 2013======= I enjoyed "Socialized Healthcare" while
serving in the USAF.BTW - Hands down the BEST Healthcare my entire
family and I every had in our lives!No Insurance companies, No
"Pre-existing conditions", No denials, No payments, No
deductibles, No questions, No problems.Just good Doctors
doing their jobs - helping people.
To "Lew Scannon" why would it be bad to allow insurance companies to
have fewer regulations.Many liberals have complained that over the
past 30 years that the cost of insurance has skyrocketed, but ignore the fact
that the government has tripled the number of mandates on insurance
companies.In the early 1980's, and before, insurance companies
paid for more procedures and gave us better coverage than we have now that the
government is micromanaging the insurance companies. History shows that when
free markets are involved we had better care and coverage. If it worked
historically, why wouldn't it work now?
Healthcare can never be driven by a free market. In a real free market you have
a choice to shop around and buy something or not buy something. No matter what
anybody says eventually every person will need healthcare.People who
can not afford insurance usually end in the emergency room for care, which is
the most expensive type of care. I know people will argue all day long that
someone else's health is not their problem but in the end they are still
paying for it through higher insurance premiums.I also wonder where
the line is for people helping out other people. I assume most people would give
aid to an injured person that just got in an accident or would give cpr to
someone who needed it. You would give this aid without asking for some kind of
payment would you not? Or being in the purest capitalistic free market would you
recognize this injured person needs you more than you need them and you can
charge top dollar to help them. Supply and demand at its finest.
This letter asks a serious constitutional question, and it deserves a serious
response. And the answer is, that 'providing for the General Welfare'
is the larger goal of the entire document. The enumerated rights are specific
areas where they imagined federal action might become necessary. They
didn't enumerate health care because they didn't have it--18th century
doctors were hopelessly incompetent, far more likely to do harm than good. If
Congress tried to do something of questionable constitutionality, the Supreme
Court's role was to rule on it. They have; it's all good. So yeah,
the ACA is completely and entirely constitutional.
To "Shaun" healthcare care has existed in the free market and has done a
better job of providing for the poor than the current fascist system that
Obamacare is implementing.Prior to the 1960's people paid for
their own care. Those that couldn't pay for their own care were able to go
to various charity hospitals that the community donated to keep up. If you want
to have a purely capitalistic society, you also have to have people that are
concerned for the poor. Read "Moral Sentiments" by Adam Smith which
lays the foundation for what it takes to have a successful capitalistic
society.Why is it ok to force others to help special needs groups?
Doesn't that take away our freedom? Why take away freedoms from people
because they won't do what you want them to? Isn't that tyranny?
I'm glad we don't restrict the government to just what's
enumerated in the constitution.
@RedshirtOk, so i work for an insurance company, if we totally unregulated
the only people that fall into a favorable risk pool are non smoking men,
without chronic health conditions between 2-40 years of age. Women are a bad
risk altogether, there is much too high of a chance of them getting pregnant,
once they leave their childbearing days(40+) they area bad risk, as the body
starts to decline right around 40 years of age. No children under 2 are good,
way too many doctors visits, and no matter what kind of health they are in
anyone over 60 would be automatically rejected. Why would we cover old people
who will die soon, end of life care care is expensive most people spend at least
30% of their lifetime healthcare costs in the last 6 months of their life. Yep,
since i'm under 40, not a smoker, and have no chronic health problems
i'd be fine. RedShirt, would you be covered by the free market?
The term “free market” is a term describing a mythical condition
that has never existed, can never exist and will never exist. Businessmen do
not want a free market for their products and their purchases and will fight
every attempt to force it upon them. Our federal government has the
least amount of business control over the actions of business and tries to give
us a fair market if not a free market. Local and state governments are totally
under the control of businessmen and therefore will not do any thing to further
either a fair market or a free market.
Hold the press...... evidently when the founding fathers were defining the role
of the federal government, there was unanimity among the delegates as to the
role of the federal branch. The federalist and anti federalist papers were
just high minded banter - not a serious debate between opposing view points.This is what is so annoying. This notion by some that their
interpretation of the constitution some how reflects the founding fathers
intent, when there was no universal agreement on the extent of the those powers.
To presume somehow after over 200 years that some level of profound
understanding has been discovered defies history.But go ahead, think
your version of understanding is the sole source of truth.... that the debate
about the interpretation of the constitution can not be stopped. We now have a
definitive answer from Utah that settles over 200 years of debate.
Ultra Bob,You're quite right. The "free market" is one
of those imaginary notions Republicans keep trying to force people to accept. It
exists only in the fantasy land they inhabit. Other ideas that exist there are
American exceptionalism, libertarianism, reducing deficits without increasing
taxes, and "guns don't kill people; people kill people."
@Redshirt. Would you charge someone who got into a car accident before you gave
them aid? If you say no. Would you reject the idea of the injured person being
transported to a hospital to continue their care or save their life regardless
of their ability to pay? If you say no then we have to have a system place to
provide for the less fortunate.I wish there were charity hospitals
but I doubt a hospital that simply runs on charitable contributions could come
close to having the same equipment as a regular hospital.I wish
there were market solutions to healthcare but it is not a true free market and
never will be because we all need healthcare and the special equipment and
expertise is not easily attainable.
What I can't understand is how Republican cringe and contort over being
taxed for Healthcare...But think nothing about being taxed for: Wars we don't want to be involved with,Foreign Aid to
countries we don't like, Oil Corporation subsidizes, Farming
subsidizes, Pharmaceutical subsidizes,Bank Bailouts, WallStreet hand-outs.Fine - stick to Grandma and Grandpa, the sick
and the poor.Your masters the Gadiantons love what you are doing for them.
To "Noodlekaboodle" if allowing the free market to operate for the
insurance companies would be so bad, how do you explain the fact that prior to
the 1980's when many of the mandates were put in place, women were insured
and pregnancies were paid for, kids with diabetes were not disqualified from
insurance, insurance was cheaper. It seems that when there was less regulation,
there was more and better coverage.To "Shaun" you are right,
charity hospitals are not equal to for-profit hospitals. Many of them are
better than the for-profit hospitals. Just look at the Shriner's
Hospitals, they are one of the leaders in handling burns and scaring.As for somebody getting in an accident, as a hospital, they shouldn't
worry. State law requires that anybody who drives a car must have insurance
which covers medical bills. There should be little concern for a hospital to be
Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. The only reason we have Medicare is because
seniors were destitute. The reason healthcare has been addressed is because
privatizing and profitizing has caused costs to rise for 30 plus years enough so
that we were facing spending 50% of GNP on healthcare alone. Free enterprise
can't survive if money doesn't circulate. America is falling behind
other industrialized nations because it's citizens are spending too much
money and time just trying to feed their families let alone giving them the
luxuries of life such as healthcare and education. This misnomer that it's
socialist and all going to be free is nothing more a lie or ignorance and if
that's the case our education system is worse off that I thought.
If the private sector can do no wrong, why is JP Morgan making an eleven Billion
dollar fine payment?
To "ugottabkidn" you are wrong. Health insurance has been getting more
expensive because government keeps micromanaging it.30 years ago
ther were approximately 800 mandates on insurance companies. Now ther are
2400+. You can mandate more stuff on the insurance companies without expecting
a rise in cost.Then, if that wasn't enough, you also have the
simple fact that the government won't reign in the malpractice laws so that
it is more difficult to sue or to put caps on payouts.Finally, the
US has the highest tax rate on medical devices in the world. That means that
the x-ray or MRI machiene costs that much more to install and use.During this time the profit margins for insurance companies has fallen from 7%
to around 3%. They are not profiting much at all, your grocery store has higher
‘Letters: Federal intrusion’======== Says
the very same people who support:Who can live with who, What
decisions are made between a woman and her doctor, and not allowing
non-Christian Muslims the right to build a church where they want to.
@redshirt. You have convinced me. I will no longer have compassion about the
less fortunate. When I come across a cancer patient who's insurance dropped
them because they have reached their policy maximum, I will look them straight
in the eye and say, "there is a market solution to your problem."
To "Shaun" read the book Moral Sentiments, then follow it up with Wealth
of Nations. Capitalism needs to have individuals that are compassionate and
establish or donate to charity hospitals, libraries, and so forth.What I don't understand about your ilk is why you want to force others to
do your will and do the good that you think needs to be done.
@Redshirt. How much do you donate to local charitable hospitals already?
Probably none because you will say your taxed to death and can not afford to.
Your ilk has their head in the sand, period. You guys believe in this magical
mystic utopia of a society that has never existed and will never exist. There
were people dying and suffering long before medicaid, medicare, and social
security even existed. If the charitable model worked so great why didn't
it work before these programs came about? I also wonder whether or
not you are going to accept social security and medicare when it becomes
available to you? You shouldn't out of principle.
You know, what I don't understand about RedShirt and his ilk, is their
total willingness to live in an ideologically driven fantasy world. If you notice what they want to talk about is usually pure theory. You will
never see them talk about the very real people who are financially ruined
because of health care issues beyond their control. They will never talk about
people on waiting lists to enter charity hospitals. They will never talk about
families that have to make very real decisions on how to provide health care to
loved ones without insurance. They will never talk about the people
that absolutely rely on government provided health care programs to care for
loved ones, who would NEVER find this care through charity. With all
their talk about how all problems would be solved if only health care in America
were not regulated, and that charity will provide high quality medical care for
the needy, they never stop to contemplate how real people are affected. That's what I don't understand about RedShirt and his ilk.