Quote: Originally Posted by
sealybobo 
Quote: Originally Posted by
Navy1960 The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. 10th Amendment
Under the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution, it has been determined
that prisoners (or inmates) have a constitutional right to adequate health care.1 Texas has
codified society’s requirement to give care to its incarcerated persons, and requires state prisons
to provide health care.2 Under the final HIPAA Privacy rule, identifiable health information
pertaining to “inmates” has been deemed “protected health information,” called “PHI.” Although
excepted in the preliminary rule, the final Privacy Rule protects inmates’ PHI.3 This protection is
further broadened by the loose definition afforded to “inmates.”
http://www.law.uh.edu/healthlaw/pers...0128HIPAAs.pdf
As we all know the healthcare debate rages on and it centers around usually Govt. sponsored healthcare. It is my contention that Federally mandated healthcare that is not part of Medicare Act or that offered as a benefit of employment for Federal workers is not constitutional. It would appear that each state would have the right to offer such Universal care under the constitution and even be offered Federal money to do so as long as it is a state program. This is another compromise solution that can be offered and allow the states to have a vote on this issue. Take Mass. for example.
In April 2006, the Massachusetts legislature passed universal health insurance legislation aimed at ensuring that all Massachusetts residents have health insurance coverage. The law (1) penalizes those who do not have such coverage and (2) imposes a surcharge on employers who do not offer health insurance to their employees. The law also created the Commonwealth Care Health Insurance Program (CCHIP), which offers subsidized insurance coverage for those who cannot afford coverage.
MASSACHUSETTS UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE FUNDING
So why then is this arguement being presented on the Federal level as it applies to Govt. mandated healthcare when it clearly belongs at the state level? Could it be that its a political issue as well?
When all other arguments fail, this is the GOP's fallback argument.
Here is the answer. American citizens have the right to LIFE, liberty and the persuit of happiness. LIFE baby!!!
And our government breaks up monopolies.
And we already have medicare and social security. Are those unconstitutional too?
If they are, then you have lost this argument a long time ago.
Now go vote for Bob Barr or Ron Paul.
sealy, first of all you have no such rights in the constitution..
We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
thats in the Declaration of Independence not! the constitution, and medicare , as well as social security were passed as tax measures bascially ..
AAPS WAS ORGANIZED to maintain the highest ethical integrity of the medical profession, to protect the responsibility, independence, and freedom of patients and doctors, particularly from encroachment upon their liberty by government...It does not seek any subsidy of any kind from the federal government. All we want is to be left alone to exercise our best judgment and skill for the benefit of our patients.
Mr. Roosevelt knew that the Federal Government did not have Constitutional authority to interfere in social welfare problems and said so quite effectively before becoming President of the United States. The Founders clearly did not intend to grant such authority to the Federal Government, as shown in the Federalist papers and other writings.
Social Security legislation, including Medicare, violates Constitutional principles. In a speech to the employees of the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, on October 23, 1962 (U.S.D.H.E.W. 17, US Govt Printing Office: 1963, O-685-624), Frances Perkins explained how the Social Security Act was used to subvert the Constitution:
``Before I was appointed, I had a little conversation with Roosevelt in which I said perhaps he didn't want me to be the Secretary of Labor because if I were, I should want to do this, and this, and this. Among the things I wanted to do was find a way of getting unemployment insurance, old-age insurance and health insurance. I remember he looked so startled, and he said, `Well, do you think it can be done?' I said, `I don't know.' He said, ``Well, there are Constitutional problems aren't there?'
Medicare
So yes, it is unconstitutional for the Federal Govt. to provide healthcare to all it's citizens as it violates the 10th Amendment. It's exactly why I said, in order to get healthcare to states that want them, then allow those states to proceed with voting for it on their own.