Healthcare and the constitution - questions.

Discussion in 'Healthcare/Insurance/Govt Healthcare' started by Russell, Aug 14, 2011.

  1. Russell
    Offline

    Russell Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2011
    Messages:
    63
    Thanks Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Ratings:
    +6
    Two questions.
    1. Healthcare insurance did not exist when the constitution was written; therefore, how can it be constitutional or un-constitutional? The constitution is silent with regard to space travel; yet, NASA was never declared to be un-constititional...
    2. This may be an over simplification but from what I gather Obama care wants everyone to pay for health insurance and get it from private insurance companies; and those opposed to Obama Care believe that no one should have health care insurance, if they don't want it.
    I can agree with those who are not in the mood to pay for health care insurance but by the same token, they should agree with my refusal to pay for their medical expenses when they become sick or injured. If these individuals consent to carry a card indicating they do not want medical treatment for any reason and do not want to be a financial burden on society, then, by all means they should be allowed to get sick or injured, let the condition be allowed to run its course and die in their homes, on the street, or in other public places. Why would anyone expect me to pay their medical bills - no one pays for mine but me?
    Thank you
     
  2. Mad Scientist
    Offline

    Mad Scientist Deplorable Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2008
    Messages:
    23,936
    Thanks Received:
    5,211
    Trophy Points:
    270
    Ratings:
    +7,676
    Doesn't matter whether it existed or not. The gov't cant offer a service and force you to use it.

    The gov't fucks up everything it touches so why would I want it to control my healthcare?
     
  3. Russell
    Offline

    Russell Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2011
    Messages:
    63
    Thanks Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Ratings:
    +6
    Then by the same token, do you agree that the state and federal government can't force me to pay the medical bills of others with my tax dollars?
     
  4. code1211
    Offline

    code1211 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2009
    Messages:
    5,999
    Thanks Received:
    845
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +845


    Regarding NASA, there is no connection.

    Regarding healthcare, allowing the government to force the purchase of anything is no Constitutional. Even with the most Liberal interpretation, this would be a states rights issue.

    Regarding the payment of the care of others by you, we are a nation founded on Christian/Judaic values and as such do provide for the cre of the disadvantaged. The hospitals will care for the sick and stabalize them. This is a cost of doing business and will be spread across the income from others.

    This is common in business so the bad debts of some will be paid by the good payments of others whether they be fuel oil, electric bills, faile credit card payments or abandoned mortgages.

    Just the way it is, my friend.
     
  5. C_Clayton_Jones
    Offline

    C_Clayton_Jones Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2011
    Messages:
    41,543
    Thanks Received:
    8,933
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Location:
    In a Republic, actually
    Ratings:
    +23,869
    That something is ‘not in the Constitution’ doesn’t mean it can’t be addressed by the courts. When a citizen files suit in Federal court he’s challenging the Constitutional rationale upon which the law or action is based and the case law with regard to similar issues, not the action per se.

    This is a moral, not legal, question. All I can tell you is that for over 500 years a fundamental principle of Western Civilization is to not allow people to die in the streets if society as a whole can prevent it.

    There are also public safety and health issues. It may have been acceptable during the 19th Century to step over dead bodies in the street but that won’t be tolerated today. In your conservative fantasy, the sick and dying would at least be mandated to hospices or other ‘death warehouses’ where their conditions wouldn’t pose a general public health risk and bodies can be disposed of timely.
    The question is moot, as that’s already occurring with Medicare and Medicaid. You seem to be making the same mistake as others opposed to the ACA, that this is some sort of ‘individual rights’ issue, it’s not. It’s a Commerce Clause, market regulation issue. The courts are currently reviewing the so-called ‘individual mandate’ to determine if Congress is authorized by the Constitution to regulate the market in this manner. Whatever the outcome, it won’t be predicated in ‘individual rights.’

    Again, and as already noted, that the word ‘insurance’ is not in the Constitution is irrelevant, it’s the authorization which is being reviewed, not the action. For example, the word ‘individual’ is not in the Second Amendment, yet the Court inferred this right in the context of the individual and self defense. The Court is allowed to do this, it is authorized to interpret the Constitution as it sees fit. The individual right to bear arms is indeed no where in the Constitution, but interestingly you’ll hear no conservatives complain about it.

    Remember also that the courts recognize the fact that all acts of Congress are presumed Constitutional until otherwise determined by the courts. The ‘individual mandate’ is currently Constitutional, as are Medicare and Medicaid.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  6. dblack
    Offline

    dblack Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2011
    Messages:
    20,118
    Thanks Received:
    2,006
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +3,766
    Yup. Or at least, that's the way it ought to be.

    This is the reason limited government 'fanatics' get bent out of shape with the expansion of the welfare state. I don't have a problem with helping out the less fortunate, but government 'entitlements' always include a level of control that ultimately drives things like freedom killing mandates.
     
    Last edited: Aug 14, 2011
  7. Russell
    Offline

    Russell Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2011
    Messages:
    63
    Thanks Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Ratings:
    +6
    Hi Code,
    According to my sense of Judeo/Christian ethics, those who are not in the mood to pay their bills should not be supported by everyone else. And don't forget the founding fathers were all too familiar with debtor's prisons. Those who are not in the mood to pay their bills are morally destitute, and the wages of sin is death. If God wishes to forgive the morally destitute, He may do so. He may even wish me to do the same but God does not pay the medical bills of those who do not wish to do so, and neither should I.
     
  8. Russell
    Offline

    Russell Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2011
    Messages:
    63
    Thanks Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Ratings:
    +6
    Hi Jones
    "There are also public safety and health issues. It may have been acceptable during the 19th Century to step over dead bodies in the street but that won’t be tolerated today. In your conservative fantasy, the sick and dying would at least be mandated to hospices or other ‘death warehouses’ where their conditions wouldn’t pose a general public health risk and bodies can be disposed of timely. "

    And all because some individuals were not in the mood to buy health insurance! There is a difference between those who actually cannot afford health insurance and those who would rather spend the money on an extra vacation, jewelry or a new car.

    Unfortunately, those death warehouses would be paid for at public expense and we would have to pay the gas bills of the crematories - all because certain individuals were not in the mood to pay their bills but would rather spend their money on champaign, caviar or jewelry.
     

Share This Page