Constitution doesn’t mention health care

[Soaring]

...I agree that NO WHERE in the constitution does it say that the government is responsible for giving you health care. It also doesn't say that the government is responsible for giving us life liberty or hapiness....it does state that we all have the right to persue those things but it in NO WAY makes the government responsible for providing them.

Then again, the Constitution does say that the government is responsible for "provid[ing] for the common defense" and "promot[ing] the general welfare." I've already shown how a certain basic level of healthcare applies to the former.

I'm sure if the framers had any idea that by the 21st Century, "we the people" would be plagued with a host of new diseases, treatments that extend our lifespans way beyond theirs, that we would be maiming ourselves on superhighways and a myriad of other unforeseen events that need medical treatment, they would have been more specific as to the meaning of "general welfare." They got specific over "common defense" because we had just fought for our independence and they were determined we should be well armed from then on against invading forces. I don't think the framers believed that the family unit would dissipate to the point where a person's "general welfare" wasn't basically taken care of by family and community.

No, the framers of our constitution left enough room open for future generations to add to and take away from the constitution with admendments and such, but the basic constitution is written so that the country would not be taken over by over zealous and greedy politicians. Obama and our current democratic politicians are quickly reaching that limit. I look to see the SCOTUS interfering before too long in how Obama is proposing all these money spending schemes.

 

[Oddball]

I'm sure if the framers had any idea that by the 21st Century, "we the people" would be plagued with a host of new diseases, treatments that extend our lifespans way beyond theirs, that we would be maiming ourselves on superhighways and a myriad of other unforeseen events that need medical treatment, they would have been more specific as to the meaning of "general welfare." They got specific over "common defense" because we had just fought for our independence and they were determined we should be well armed from then on against invading forces. I don't think the framers believed that the family unit would dissipate to the point where a person's "general welfare" wasn't basically taken care of by family and community.

Horseshit.

Madison on the "General Welfare" of America: His Consistent Constitutional Vision*(Review)

Horseshit? Do you channel Madison and Jefferson? How do you KNOW what they would believe TODAY? Which is what I'm talking about. They certainly weren't stupid, and if the world in the 1700's looked like it does today, do you seriously believe The Constitution wouldn't have had better defined conditions?

I don't have to channel Madison, I can read Federalist № 41, which are his exact thoughts on the matter.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Please don't try to confuse us with facts. Also don't cite the Constitution. That document isn't widely followed by our leaders anymore.

we have leaders?.....

 

[Cecilie1200]

I'd say that, if someone has a very communicable condition and can't afford treatment, giving them enough care to stop an epidemic is a defense expenditure.

And hey! We already have public health departments whose job is to handle specific occurrences like that. It hardly justifies changing the entire healthcare system and providing taxpayer money to cover every single person for every single aspect of medical care.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Who cares if its not in the Constitution?!

Well, that just says it all about you, doesn't it? "Fuck the law, I think THIS is good, so everyone else can just shove THEIR rights up their asses and shut up!"

 

[DamnYankee]

I'd say that, if someone has a very communicable condition and can't afford treatment, giving them enough care to stop an epidemic is a defense expenditure.

That would be a public health issue, not a "health care" issue.

 

[Centrism'sVoice]

I'd say that, if someone has a very communicable condition and can't afford treatment, giving them enough care to stop an epidemic is a defense expenditure.

And hey! We already have public health departments whose job is to handle specific occurrences like that. It hardly justifies changing the entire healthcare system and providing taxpayer money to cover every single person for every single aspect of medical care.

Neither of which I advocated, by the way. Don't put words in my mouth.

 

[caela]

Please don't try to confuse us with facts. Also don't cite the Constitution. That document isn't widely followed by our leaders anymore.

we have leaders?.....

No. What we have are parasites too damned busy trying to push their own version of a social agenda (no matter the side of the isle) and get re-elected, to bother doing their damned jobs. These people have forgotten that they are supposed to work for US...and worse, so have we to a large degree.

 

[Centrism'sVoice]

...I agree that NO WHERE in the constitution does it say that the government is responsible for giving you health care. It also doesn't say that the government is responsible for giving us life liberty or hapiness....it does state that we all have the right to persue those things but it in NO WAY makes the government responsible for providing them.

Then again, the Constitution does say that the government is responsible for "provid[ing] for the common defense" and "promot[ing] the general welfare." I've already shown how a certain basic level of healthcare applies to the former.

I'm sure if the framers had any idea that by the 21st Century, "we the people" would be plagued with a host of new diseases, treatments that extend our lifespans way beyond theirs, that we would be maiming ourselves on superhighways and a myriad of other unforeseen events that need medical treatment, they would have been more specific as to the meaning of "general welfare."

Perhaps, although a person's "general welfare" (or "general well-being" in today's language) has always included access to medical services, then as now. Of course, the pioneers were voluntarily sacrificing this part of their well-being by settling so far away from the nearest doctor...

 

[Oddball]

I'd say that, if someone has a very communicable condition and can't afford treatment, giving them enough care to stop an epidemic is a defense expenditure.

That would be a public health issue, not a "health care" issue.

Perzactly.

De jure government's proper role is to protect the general populace from aggression, whether that be from a burglar or an aggressive pathogen.

That's what "general welfare" is all about.

 

[DamnYankee]

I'm sure if the framers had any idea that by the 21st Century, "we the people" would be plagued with a host of new diseases, treatments that extend our lifespans way beyond theirs, that we would be maiming ourselves on superhighways and a myriad of other unforeseen events that need medical treatment, they would have been more specific as to the meaning of "general welfare." They got specific over "common defense" because we had just fought for our independence and they were determined we should be well armed from then on against invading forces. I don't think the framers believed that the family unit would dissipate to the point where a person's "general welfare" wasn't basically taken care of by family and community.

Horseshit.

Madison on the "General Welfare" of America: His Consistent Constitutional Vision*(Review)

Horseshit? Do you channel Madison and Jefferson? How do you KNOW what they would believe TODAY? Which is what I'm talking about. They certainly weren't stupid, and if the world in the 1700's looked like it does today, do you seriously believe The Constitution wouldn't have had better defined conditions?

There is a mechanism for amending the Constitution, which has been used on a few occasions -- to keep up with TODAY.

Now, I'm not taking a position against health care access for all our citizens, but I am taking the position that there is no Consitutional provision for it, nor is there a viable plan to provide such access.

 

[Centrism'sVoice]

I'd say that, if someone has a very communicable condition and can't afford treatment, giving them enough care to stop an epidemic is a defense expenditure.

That would be a public health issue, not a "health care" issue.

And that would be a distinction without a difference.

 

[DamnYankee]

I'd say that, if someone has a very communicable condition and can't afford treatment, giving them enough care to stop an epidemic is a defense expenditure.

That would be a public health issue, not a "health care" issue.

And that would be a distinction without a difference.

There is a very big difference. PUBLIC health -- communicable disease, epidemics, food safety, and a host of other specialized areas, impact the WHOLE. Health care, as is being debated, impacts individuals and their families only -- their heart disease risk factors, their immunization status, their fertility and childbirth concerns. None of their health issues have an impact on society as a whole.

 

[Cecilie1200]

That's why we have the CDC and health clinics.

Which cost the taxpayer's money, which means that we are in fact already paying for other people's healthcare.

(And no, that fact doesn't necessarily make healthcare a right. Nor did I ever state that it was or wasn't.)

We also give poor people food stamps, in essence buying them food. Does that mean we should start providing groceries for everyone via taxpayer money?

 

[Avatar4321]

The Constitution also doesn't grant corporations the same status as individual citizens. The Constitution was written BY THE PEOPLE, FOR THE PEOPLE.

For good reason, that's a state issue. The Constitution only gives the federal government its power. Not the states.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Who cares if its not in the Constitution?!

Maybe because the people usurping that document are the ones who swore an oath to uphold it??

But I guess little trifles like honesty, integrity, adherence to principle and character can go right down the shitter as long as you get yours, huh??

No, that's not it at all, Dude. Times change. Why shouldn't we change with them? I mean, c'mon! How would it feel to know that you paid tens maybe hundreds of thousands of dollars to you health insurance provider only to be dropped or not treated for a fatal disease or condition simply because it eats into the companies profits? What if that happened to your wife or kids? I mean, that's inhumane!

Not all of our laws and rights are covered in the Constitution i.e. the Clean Air Act, the Right to Privacy, the Wilderness Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, etc.

I believe the existence of federal laws without a basis in the Constitution proves the illegitimacy of those laws, not what a good idea it is to pass more like them.

I don't see what that has to do with honest, integrity, or adherence to principle or character? Obama said he would reform health care, and he's trying to do it. I would say the program that the Whitehouse and the Dems are pushing is more dishonest, lacks integrity and adherence to principle and character because it doesn't really ensure healthcare universally. But, they are politicians so what can you expect?!

I think this has to do more with the conflicting philosophies of a static, unchanging Constitution and a living Constitution subject to interpretation as times change.

That's about it. Do we want a steady playing field with rules everyone can know and plan for ahead of time, or do we want to make them up as we go along, leaving everyone with no consistency and no rights, just a bunch of handouts (at least until the government runs out of money because no one's bothering to earn any to be taxed, that is)?

This is the federal government we're talking about, not a game of Calvinball.

 

[Centrism'sVoice]

That would be a public health issue, not a "health care" issue.

And that would be a distinction without a difference.

There is a very big difference. PUBLIC health -- communicable disease, epidemics, food safety, and a host of other specialized areas, impact the WHOLE. Health care, as is being debated, impacts individuals and their families only -- their heart disease risk factors, their immunization status, their fertility and childbirth concerns. None of their health issues have an impact on society as a whole.

I didn't realize the terms of the health care debate were defined so narrowly. That aside, however, how can you contain a communicable disease without providing some type of health care to those who have it? (I'm presuming you don't want to kill them. )

 

[Oddball]

This is the federal government we're talking about, not a game of Calvinball.

LMFAO!!

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Cecilie1200 again

 

[Centrism'sVoice]

That's why we have the CDC and health clinics.

Which cost the taxpayer's money, which means that we are in fact already paying for other people's healthcare.

(And no, that fact doesn't necessarily make healthcare a right. Nor did I ever state that it was or wasn't.)

We also give poor people food stamps, in essence buying them food. Does that mean we should start providing groceries for everyone via taxpayer money?

I think you already know that I never said anything remotely like this, either in a grocery context or a health care one.

 

[Oddball]

We also give poor people food stamps, in essence buying them food. Does that mean we should start providing groceries for everyone via taxpayer money?

I think you already know that I never said anything remotely like this, either in a grocery context or a health care one.

It's called follwing the same flawed premise to its natural conclusion.