Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Ah, yes. "I think it is a critical first step in making a health care system that works for all Americans."
Making it work for all Americans? Like the way the Federal Government currently handles medicare and medicaid? What about Social Security, I'm sure there has never been a problem with how the government manages that program? Can you name me one government run program that is more fiscally efficient than that of the private sector? I'd be intersted in hearing your view of how exactly does "government do a better job at making it work for All Americans", considering their financial track record and Federal budget issues.
It's odd--when the quote from my post trickled down into your response, the wording had changed. "I think it is a critical first step in making a health care system that works for all Americans" became "government do[es] a better job at making it work for All Americans."
I'm not sure how I explain a quote (which isn't mine, by the way) that doesn't say what you seem to think it says. That does seem be the theme of this thread, though. Many folks seem unable to distinguish between the kind of private multi-payer system reinforced by the ACA and single-payer models or "government-run" systems or whatever other terrors lurk in their imaginations.
So you can not provide ONE government program that is run more fiscally efficient than in the private sector.
Yet you believe government is the answer to providing a Health Care system that works for All Americans.
The enumerated power in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution that would authorize a universal single-payer system is the same one that authorizes Medicare, which is a non-universal single-payer system: "Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes . . . to . . . provide for the general welfare of the United States."
how does the commerce clause apply if not buying insurance = not engaging in commerce
EDIT: But fwiw, Dragon was referring to the general welfare clause, which by the prevailing 'interpretation' means the federal government can do virtually anything they want. Which of course raises the question of why they bothered with silly details like the post office and national defense. It's a tiring argument, one in which reason has historically given way to expediency.
The enumerated power in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution that would authorize a universal single-payer system is the same one that authorizes Medicare, which is a non-universal single-payer system: "Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes . . . to . . . provide for the general welfare of the United States."
I'm not sure if the ability to actually run and provide a British-style government-run health-care system is authorized, though. But that's not what's being proposed seriously by anyone.
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.
EDIT: But fwiw, Dragon was referring to the general welfare clause, which by the prevailing 'interpretation' means the federal government can do virtually anything they want. Which of course raises the question of why they bothered with silly details like the post office and national defense. It's a tiring argument, one in which reason has historically given way to expediency.
on re-read you are right
then United States v. Butler, 56 S. Ct. 312, 297 U.S. 1, 80 L. Ed. 477 (1936)
which limits the general welfare clause to money spent BY congress on matters delegated to their authority and not controlled by the states
EDIT: But fwiw, Dragon was referring to the general welfare clause, which by the prevailing 'interpretation' means the federal government can do virtually anything they want. Which of course raises the question of why they bothered with silly details like the post office and national defense. It's a tiring argument, one in which reason has historically given way to expediency.
on re-read you are right
then United States v. Butler, 56 S. Ct. 312, 297 U.S. 1, 80 L. Ed. 477 (1936)
which limits the general welfare clause to money spent BY congress on matters delegated to their authority and not controlled by the states
[I think you need to take another look at that decision. Here's a link to it: United States v. Butler
So you can not provide ONE government program that is run more fiscally efficient than in the private sector.
Most government programs don't do the same things as the private sector. They tend to take on enterprises that are more apt to lose money than make money (e.g. running health insurance programs for the highest risk populations: the elderly, the disabled, and the poor). That's why someone like yourself can marvel that, gee, it sure does cost the government more per individual to insure old folks with chronic conditions than it does for Aetna to insure healthy 30-somethings in high deductible policies!
Government programs exist precisely to step in where the private sector cannot or will not: those areas where social/public benefits do not align with what markets are producing. They're not meant to replace the private sector, simply to supplement it by filling in gaps where it's socially useful to do so.
Yet you believe government is the answer to providing a Health Care system that works for All Americans.
I don't know what this means. Where are you getting this?
So you can not provide ONE government program that is run more fiscally efficient than in the private sector.
Most government programs don't do the same things as the private sector. They tend to take on enterprises that are more apt to lose money than make money (e.g. running health insurance programs for the highest risk populations: the elderly, the disabled, and the poor). That's why someone like yourself can marvel that, gee, it sure does cost the government more per individual to insure old folks with chronic conditions than it does for Aetna to insure healthy 30-somethings in high deductible policies!
Government programs exist precisely to step in where the private sector cannot or will not: those areas where social/public benefits do not align with what markets are producing. They're not meant to replace the private sector, simply to supplement it by filling in gaps where it's socially useful to do so.
I don't know what this means. Where are you getting this?Yet you believe government is the answer to providing a Health Care system that works for All Americans.
[I think you need to take another look at that decision. Here's a link to it: United States v. Butler
good lord, moses, mary, judge wapner and atticus finch
just damn son
you are presenting the causes of action
go back and look where it says HELD
and find this:
(4) The power of taxation, which is expressly granted to Congress, may be adopted as a means to carry into operation another power also expressly granted, but not to effectuate an end which is not within the scope of the Constitution.
come back if you need help with what HELD means
Making it work for all Americans? Like the way the Federal Government currently handles medicare and medicaid? What about Social Security, I'm sure there has never been a problem with how the government manages that program? Can you name me one government run program that is more fiscally efficient than that of the private sector? I'd be intersted in hearing your view of how exactly does "government do a better job at making it work for All Americans", considering their financial track record and Federal budget issues.
It's odd--when the quote from my post trickled down into your response, the wording had changed. "I think it is a critical first step in making a health care system that works for all Americans" became "government do[es] a better job at making it work for All Americans."
I'm not sure how I explain a quote (which isn't mine, by the way) that doesn't say what you seem to think it says. That does seem be the theme of this thread, though. Many folks seem unable to distinguish between the kind of private multi-payer system reinforced by the ACA and single-payer models or "government-run" systems or whatever other terrors lurk in their imaginations.
So you can not provide ONE government program that is run more fiscally efficient than in the private sector. Yet you believe government is the answer to providing a Health Care system that works for All Americans. Interesting. Are you simply afraid to address the issue, so you resort to a little "cop-out" response? Simply give me an example of a government program to which Federal Government did a more financially efficient job?
I interject to tell the two of you that neither interpretation grants the federal gubmint the authority to require me to buy potatoes, or oranges, or insurance, with the only qualifier being birth.
My state can require me to purchase insurance if I CHOOSE to buy a car.
My country can't require to buy health insurance because I was BORN.
EDIT: But fwiw, Dragon was referring to the general welfare clause, which by the prevailing 'interpretation' means the federal government can do virtually anything they want. Which of course raises the question of why they bothered with silly details like the post office and national defense. It's a tiring argument, one in which reason has historically given way to expediency.
on re-read you are right
then United States v. Butler, 56 S. Ct. 312, 297 U.S. 1, 80 L. Ed. 477 (1936)
which limits the general welfare clause to money spent BY congress on matters delegated to their authority and not controlled by the states
I think you need to take another look at that decision. Here's a link to it: United States v. Butler
"13. In Article I, § 8, cl. 1 of the Constitution, which provides that 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 phrase "to provide for the general welfare" is not an independent provision empowering Congress generally to provide for the general welfare, but is a qualification defining and limiting the power "to lay and collect taxes," etc. P. 64.
14. The power to appropriate money from the Treasury (Constitution, Art. I, § 9, cl. 7) is as broad as the power to tax, and the power to lay taxes to provide for the general welfare of the United States implies the power to appropriate public funds for that purpose. P. 65.
15. The power to tax and spend is a separate and distinct power; its exercise is not confined to the fields committed to Congress by the other enumerated grants of power, but it is limited by the requirement that it shall be exercised to provide for the general welfare of the United States. P. 65. [p3] "
Emphasis added. The power to tax and spend is not unlimited, and one of the limits is that Congress can't use it as a back-door way to regulate what it isn't authorized to regulate (which is why the individual mandate may indeed be unconstitutional). That's the basis for the court striking down the AAA in this decision.
But Medicare faces no such dilemmas. It's based simply on the power to tax and spend for the general welfare. If it were extended to cover everyone, not just the elderly, its constitutionality would not be any more in dispute than it is now.
In avoiding a single-payer system, Obamacare creates a mess. It's an overly-complicated Rube Goldberg contraption that tries to preserve the health-insurance industry, and it's like that because the industry paid off a lot of Democrats, including the president. We could much more simply and effectively have expanded our existing single-payer system into a universal on. Medicare is already covering the most expensive patients (the elderly), so adding everyone else would not add proportional costs, it would add a lot more revenue, while saving employers big bucks in health-insurance costs. It would give the program bargaining leverage to hold down medical costs, just as foreign governments do. Compared to Obamacare, it would be a HUGE improvement.
But it would put most private health-insurance providers out of business and drastically reduce the business of those that survive, and that's why we don't have it.
The reason Health care through Aetna, to use your example, is so expensive is due to individual state regulations that makes it impossible for some insurance companies to do business in certain states. What we need is to remove the boundaries of individual state regulations and allow insurance companies to compete across sate lines, to vie for a customer's business.
Look at Massachusetts. Why did the result of STATE government controlling Health Care not reduce the cost? In fact, the costs of the program INCREASED when the state took over, it NEVER reduced.
So you stand AGAINST the Federal Government having more control over the Health Care System, and taking that control away from the private sector? You do not approve of a Government single payer system?
on re-read you are right
then United States v. Butler, 56 S. Ct. 312, 297 U.S. 1, 80 L. Ed. 477 (1936)
which limits the general welfare clause to money spent BY congress on matters delegated to their authority and not controlled by the states
I think you need to take another look at that decision. Here's a link to it: United States v. Butler
"13. In Article I, § 8, cl. 1 of the Constitution, which provides that 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 phrase "to provide for the general welfare" is not an independent provision empowering Congress generally to provide for the general welfare, but is a qualification defining and limiting the power "to lay and collect taxes," etc. P. 64.
14. The power to appropriate money from the Treasury (Constitution, Art. I, § 9, cl. 7) is as broad as the power to tax, and the power to lay taxes to provide for the general welfare of the United States implies the power to appropriate public funds for that purpose. P. 65.
15. The power to tax and spend is a separate and distinct power; its exercise is not confined to the fields committed to Congress by the other enumerated grants of power, but it is limited by the requirement that it shall be exercised to provide for the general welfare of the United States. P. 65. [p3] "
Emphasis added. The power to tax and spend is not unlimited, and one of the limits is that Congress can't use it as a back-door way to regulate what it isn't authorized to regulate (which is why the individual mandate may indeed be unconstitutional). That's the basis for the court striking down the AAA in this decision.
But Medicare faces no such dilemmas. It's based simply on the power to tax and spend for the general welfare. If it were extended to cover everyone, not just the elderly, its constitutionality would not be any more in dispute than it is now.
In avoiding a single-payer system, Obamacare creates a mess. It's an overly-complicated Rube Goldberg contraption that tries to preserve the health-insurance industry, and it's like that because the industry paid off a lot of Democrats, including the president. We could much more simply and effectively have expanded our existing single-payer system into a universal on. Medicare is already covering the most expensive patients (the elderly), so adding everyone else would not add proportional costs, it would add a lot more revenue, while saving employers big bucks in health-insurance costs. It would give the program bargaining leverage to hold down medical costs, just as foreign governments do. Compared to Obamacare, it would be a HUGE improvement.
But it would put most private health-insurance providers out of business and drastically reduce the business of those that survive, and that's why we don't have it.
A single payer system wouldn't put the private insurance companies totally out of business but it would lower or altogether stop them from raising premiums sky high to cover their operating costs. If the current systems continues without a single payers system the costs will continue to go high.
I interject to tell the two of you that neither interpretation grants the federal gubmint the authority to require me to buy potatoes, or oranges, or insurance, with the only qualifier being birth.
My state can require me to purchase insurance if I CHOOSE to buy a car.
My country can't require to buy health insurance because I was BORN.
Apparently you didn't get the memo: The power to tax implies the power to spend. The power to spend implies the power to pass laws to support that spending. And since that implied spending can be for anything that Congress claims is for the general welfare, they can pass any laws that they claim are for the general welfare. Got it?
Now, it might seem that extracting all these implications from an subordinate clause on the power to tax, itself a line item in a very explicit enumerated list of Congressional powers, is a daunting challenge. But it's one that a long line of courageous statesmen have championed over the years. And against all reason, they have emerged victorious!
I read that section. I also read where the court EXPLICITLY stated that the power to tax and spend is a separate and independent power and NOT limited by the OTHER enumerated powers. Which is what relates to the current discussion.
I interject to tell the two of you that neither interpretation grants the federal gubmint the authority to require me to buy potatoes, or oranges, or insurance, with the only qualifier being birth.
My state can require me to purchase insurance if I CHOOSE to buy a car.
My country can't require to buy health insurance because I was BORN.
Apparently you didn't get the memo: The power to tax implies the power to spend. The power to spend implies the power to pass laws to support that spending. And since that implied spending can be for anything that Congress claims is for the general welfare, they can pass any laws that they claim are for the general welfare. Got it?
