Does The Constitution Include Health Care For All?

[midcan5]

"Access to affordable health care will help insure domestic tranquility, it will provide a common defense against illness and the exorbitant cost of health care, and it will indeed promote the general welfare. Nothing is more crucial to the general welfare of American citizens than their health and that requires access to affordable health care."

"Health care legislation will accomplish three essential objectives:

It will ensure that Americans have health insurance even when they lose their jobs or are between jobs.

It will ensure that Americans who suffer catastrophic illnesses will not have to lose their homes or go bankrupt in order to pay for treatment and hospitalization.

It will cover children who are out of college, but have not yet found jobs.

And—If the legislation includes a public option, it will lower costs by offering the choice of less-costly insurance."

Progressive Nation » Blog Archive » Does The Constitution Include Health Care ForÂ*All?

See also:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/healt...-all-your-questions-on-uhc-5.html#post1422612

Some Statistics:
Healthcare « ChartingTheEconomy.Com

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

No it doesn't specifically call for universal health care.

 

[midcan5]

No it doesn't specifically call for universal health care.

But if UHC is the way to a constitutional goal, and is legal and desired by the majority of we the people, why not?

 

[editec]

The constitution was NOT written as an all encompassing set of directions for what the government can or cannot do.

It does not include all sorts of things that the government does already that few of us have any problems with.

Anyone here complaining about the Coast Guard?

No?

Well that's run (or at least was run) by the Dept of Treasury.

Try finding the specific clause that allowed the government to create it.

It isn't there, because that was not the way the flundering father's thought.

The created a system which did not attempt to tie the hands of future governments.

that is exactly why we've suvived as long as we have, too.

Because they knew that they could not possible imagine every contingency that the future would necessitate, ergo they wrote a contstution granting the goverment the ability to deal with unforeseen necessitites,

 

[Oddball]

No it doesn't specifically call for universal health care.

But if UHC is the way to a constitutional goal, and is legal and desired by the majority of we the people, why not?

The means to the end of such "constitutional goals" were spelled out in Article 1, Section 8.

What is claimed to be wanted by the majority of the people (a highly duboius calim in this particular instance) is irrelevant, insofar as the workings of a representative republic go.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

No it does not.

 

[Oddball]

The constitution was NOT written as an all encompassing set of directions for what the government can or cannot do.

According to the concept of enumerated powers, yes it is.

It does not include all sorts of things that the government does already that few of us have any problems with.

Anyone here complaining about the Coast Guard?

No?

Well that's run (or at least was run) by the Dept of Treasury.

Try finding the specific clause that allowed the government to create it.

Common defense.

Also, the enumeated power to raise money for that common defense.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

No it doesn't specifically call for universal health care.

But if UHC is the way to a constitutional goal, and is legal and desired by the majority of we the people, why not?

The constitution, as a document, is intended to limit the power and scope of the government. It does not spell out what they are responsible to do, only what they are not allowed to do.

IF they put a ballot question on a national ballot for universal healthcare and more than 50% of americans vote yes than i would have to say too bad for people with my opinion.

but they wont put it to a vote that way as it will not get more than 50% IMO

 

[midcan5]

Common defense.

Also, the enumeated power to raise money for that common defense.

'We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.'

Using your argument. UHC = promote the general Welfare

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Common defense.

Also, the enumeated power to raise money for that common defense.

'We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.'

Using your argument. UHC = promote the general Welfare

PROMOTE as in advocate for...notice PROVIDE FOR DEFENCE and PROMOTE welfare.

This thread is a retread.

 

[midcan5]

but they wont put it to a vote that way as it will not get more than 50% IMO

"As U.S. House leaders unveil a plan to reform the U.S. healthcare system, a USA Today/Gallup poll finds 56% of Americans in favor and 33% opposed to Congress' passing major healthcare reform legislation this year. Support for healthcare reform before the end of the year is sharply split along party lines, with 79% of Democrats in favor, compared with only 23% of Republicans."

Majority in U.S. Favors Healthcare Reform This Year

 

[midcan5]

This thread is a retread.

Curious, you are losing every reply so now it is the thread that is bad. Sorry you guys lose.

 

[Vast LWC]

The means to the end of such "constitutional goals" were spelled out in Article 1, Section 8.

What is claimed to be wanted by the majority of the people (a highly duboius calim in this particular instance) is irrelevant, insofar as the workings of a representative republic go.

Except insofar as the majority chooses the representatives, which they did in November.

If the Democrats make this legislation, and the majority doesn't like it, they can vote other people in to take their place in the next elections.

After all, Democrats just finished suffering through 8 years of policies that we hated and the right approved of, and our tax money was used for that, wasn't it?

Now the Democrats are in charge, and suddenly a whole bunch of Republicans feel that they're being discriminated against. Seems petty and childish to me.

 

[Vast LWC]

PROMOTE as in advocate for...notice PROVIDE FOR DEFENCE and PROMOTE welfare.

This thread is a retread.

Promote(v):

1. a. To raise to a more important or responsible job or rank.
b. To advance (a student) to the next higher grade.
2. To contribute to the progress or growth of; further.
3. To urge the adoption of; advocate
4. To attempt to sell or popularize by advertising or publicity
5. To help establish or organize (a new enterprise), as by securing financial backing:

Note that your interpretation only covers meanings 3 and 4.

Meanings 2 and 5 back up UHC as "Promoting the General Welfare".

 

[Oddball]

The means to the end of such "constitutional goals" were spelled out in Article 1, Section 8.

What is claimed to be wanted by the majority of the people (a highly duboius calim in this particular instance) is irrelevant, insofar as the workings of a representative republic go.

Except insofar as the majority chooses the representatives, which they did in November.

If the Democrats make this legislation, and the majority doesn't like it, they can vote other people in to take their place in the next elections.

After all, Democrats just finished suffering through 8 years of policies that we hated and the right approved of, and our tax money was used for that, wasn't it?

Now the Democrats are in charge, and suddenly a whole bunch of Republicans feel that they're being discriminated against. Seems petty and childish to me.

First of all, I'm not a republican, so your childish "you guys did it toooooo" argument holds no more water than it ever did...Which has always been none at all.

When you can come up with something of substance, rather than a rephrasing of the equally childish "we won...neeeener-neeeener" and "now it's our turn to be the petty tin pot despots, so deal with it" arguments, bring it on.

 

[Navy1960]

"If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare,
and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare,
they may take the care of religion into their own hands;
they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish
and pay them out of their public treasury;
they may take into their own hands the education of children,
establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union;
they may assume the provision of the poor;
they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads;
in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation
down to the most minute object of police,
would be thrown under the power of Congress.... Were the power
of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for,
it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature
of the limited Government established by the people of America."

James Madison


Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

 

[Vast LWC]

The means to the end of such "constitutional goals" were spelled out in Article 1, Section 8.

What is claimed to be wanted by the majority of the people (a highly duboius calim in this particular instance) is irrelevant, insofar as the workings of a representative republic go.

Except insofar as the majority chooses the representatives, which they did in November.

If the Democrats make this legislation, and the majority doesn't like it, they can vote other people in to take their place in the next elections.

After all, Democrats just finished suffering through 8 years of policies that we hated and the right approved of, and our tax money was used for that, wasn't it?

Now the Democrats are in charge, and suddenly a whole bunch of Republicans feel that they're being discriminated against. Seems petty and childish to me.

First of all, I'm not a republican, so your childish "you guys did it toooooo" argument holds no more water than it ever did...Which has always been none at all.

When you can come up with something of substance, rather than a rephrasing of the equally childish "we won...neeeener-neeeener" and "now it's our turn to be the petty tin pot despots, so deal with it" arguments, bring it on.

K, "Mr Un-conservative", then just read the first two lines and ignore the rest, which other people may read if they decide to look at this thread.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The constitution was NOT written as an all encompassing set of directions for what the government can or cannot do.

It does not include all sorts of things that the government does already that few of us have any problems with.

Anyone here complaining about the Coast Guard?

No?

Well that's run (or at least was run) by the Dept of Treasury.

Try finding the specific clause that allowed the government to create it.

It isn't there, because that was not the way the flundering father's thought.

The created a system which did not attempt to tie the hands of future governments.

that is exactly why we've suvived as long as we have, too.

Because they knew that they could not possible imagine every contingency that the future would necessitate, ergo they wrote a contstution granting the goverment the ability to deal with unforeseen necessitites,

Wrong as usual, the Coast Guard provides sea going coastal inspection, safety of shipping and shipping lanes and is in war time part of the Military. Try harder next time. The Constitution WAS and IS meant to LIMIT the Government, READ the fucking papers written by the writers of the damn document.

IT does provide the means to allow more power or less, it is called the AMENDMENT process. Which our Government understood until about 1950. You want more power for the Government? DRAFT an amendment and get it the fuck PASSED. The Congress does NOT NOW or EVER have the power to just create new powers of the Government. It is NOT a power granted to the Congress.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The means to the end of such "constitutional goals" were spelled out in Article 1, Section 8.

What is claimed to be wanted by the majority of the people (a highly duboius calim in this particular instance) is irrelevant, insofar as the workings of a representative republic go.

Except insofar as the majority chooses the representatives, which they did in November.

If the Democrats make this legislation, and the majority doesn't like it, they can vote other people in to take their place in the next elections.

After all, Democrats just finished suffering through 8 years of policies that we hated and the right approved of, and our tax money was used for that, wasn't it?

Now the Democrats are in charge, and suddenly a whole bunch of Republicans feel that they're being discriminated against. Seems petty and childish to me.

Congress does not now nor ever have the power to create new powers or new responsibilities nor to pay for things not specifically enumerated in the Constitution. They MUST create and pass an Amendment to do that. I do not care how many people want it, nor what party is in power. You want new authority for the Government? CREATE an Amendment and get it passed.

 

[Immanuel]

No it doesn't specifically call for universal health care.

But if UHC is the way to a constitutional goal, and is legal and desired by the majority of we the people, why not?

but they wont put it to a vote that way as it will not get more than 50% IMO

"As U.S. House leaders unveil a plan to reform the U.S. healthcare system, a USA Today/Gallup poll finds 56% of Americans in favor and 33% opposed to Congress' passing major healthcare reform legislation this year. Support for healthcare reform before the end of the year is sharply split along party lines, with 79% of Democrats in favor, compared with only 23% of Republicans."

Majority in U.S. Favors Healthcare Reform This Year

Being in favor of healthcare reform does not necessarily mean being in favor of the bill(s) or necessarily all provisions of the bill(s) circulating through Congress at the time being.

Also the conclusion that Gallop arrived at would have a lot to do with how the questions are asked:

"Are you in favor of Congress inacting healthcare reform this year?" is not the same as "Do you support the current healthcare reform act being discussed by Congress?"

I think only a fool would say that healthcare reform is not something that needs to be accomplished and soon, but how do we go about that?

Immie