Historical Question - Has anyone ever tried to add a right to healthcare as a constitutional amend.?

Discussion in 'Healthcare/Insurance/Govt Healthcare' started by AndyT, Oct 29, 2017.

  1. AndyT
    Offline

    AndyT Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 29, 2016
    Messages:
    12
    Thanks Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Location:
    USA
    Ratings:
    +8
    I'm just curious. There's been thousands of ideas for amendments discussed, but has anyone ever in US history tried to go through the proposal/ratify method and actually amend the Constitution to add a right to health care? Thanks so much.
     
  2. emilynghiem
    Offline

    emilynghiem Constitutionalist / Universalist Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2010
    Messages:
    18,292
    Thanks Received:
    2,418
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    National Freedmen's Town District
    Ratings:
    +6,092
    Hi AndyT while I believe that is the correct process required
    to expand jurisdiction of federal govt,
    unfortunately it seems the very people who believe that health care is a right
    tend not to be Constitutionalists, and don't believe they need to go through
    this Constitutional step. Because it is such an engrained belief, advocates
    believe this is a natural right, any laws obstructing it are violations of basic human rights,
    and thus can be 'struck down' merely by voting by majority rule or overruling by courts.

    The Constitutionalists who would support the process of passing
    a Constitutional Amendment first tend NOT to believe that health care is
    a human right. I believe this explains why the push for health care reform
    took this direction: conservatives believe in limited govt where things must be Constitutional for govt to do them; liberals believe in using govt to establish the will of the people, so their beliefs and agenda are pushed through the political and legal system UNTIL they are proven and struck down as unconstitutional "after the fact."

    The next best alternative I've run across, is someone suggested on another forum:
    why not hold a vote in Congress BEFORE such innovative or contested legislation
    is passed whether or not that bill is within the Constitutional powers and limits on federal govt.

    That seems a logical way to approach this.

    Had Congress first voted on whether ACA was even Constitutional or not,
    it could be voted down. Then the advocates of ACA can take that vote NO
    as a STEP that then calls for passing a Constitutional Amendment in order
    to ADD that power to govt. The opponents can then express their opinion
    more clearly that the DUTY itself is outside Constitutional powers of federal govt,
    and THAT is the reason for objection (NOT because of the actual content
    and purpose promoted as to provide more affordable accessible health care)
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  3. rightwinger
    Online

    rightwinger Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Top Poster Of Month

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2009
    Messages:
    143,570
    Thanks Received:
    22,822
    Trophy Points:
    2,190
    Ratings:
    +62,018
    Some advanced countries already have it

    Our Declaration of Independence called out.......Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  4. AndyT
    Offline

    AndyT Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 29, 2016
    Messages:
    12
    Thanks Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Location:
    USA
    Ratings:
    +8
    Hi Emily,
    Thanks for much for the in-depth reply. I'm a bit confused by what you say as the next best alternative, though. It's understandable that some individuals believe the ACA is unconstitutional while others do not, but isn't voting for whether the ACA, or any bill really, is constitutional or not a bit redundant? Wouldn't those voting at the time, in case of the ACA example, the majority party Democrats, already believe that this bill was constitutional in the first place? I'm just not sure I see the difference between your example and allowing SCOTUS to decide what parts of the ACA were constitutional in NFIB v. Sebelius, AFTER the bill was in effect. Maybe I'm understanding your scenario wrong, but I'd love to hear more. Thanks!
     
    • Funny and Agree!! Funny and Agree!! x 1
  5. rightwinger
    Online

    rightwinger Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Top Poster Of Month

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2009
    Messages:
    143,570
    Thanks Received:
    22,822
    Trophy Points:
    2,190
    Ratings:
    +62,018
    Obamacare was Constitutional

    SCOTUS already declared it
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  6. AndyT
    Offline

    AndyT Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 29, 2016
    Messages:
    12
    Thanks Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Location:
    USA
    Ratings:
    +8
    In NFIB v. Sebelius they did explain that expansion of Medicaid was not a valid way for Congress to use the SPENDING power, so what I'm saying is that judicial review did happen and examined whether the law was constitutional or not. I'm just questioning how this would be different than theoretically doing that constitutional decision in Emily's alternative example.
     
  7. emilynghiem
    Offline

    emilynghiem Constitutionalist / Universalist Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2010
    Messages:
    18,292
    Thanks Received:
    2,418
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    National Freedmen's Town District
    Ratings:
    +6,092
    Hi Andylusion what I was comparing it with
    was instead of lobbying to pass a Constitutional Amendment first,
    which the believers in right to health care wouldn't do if they already believe it is an inherent right,
    Congress could vote on (1) whether ACA was Constitutionally included in federal govt powers or not
    before voting on (2) the actual content and bill presented as ACA.

    So in this case of ACA, the Republicans would have voted NO, the Democrats would vote YES,
    and this would still prove it is biased by BELIEFS on Constitutional grounds and arguments,
    instead of arguing that it was based on the content.

    I guess what you are saying, we would also need to specify that if the vote
    gets split on Constitutional beliefs whether it is Constitutional or not,
    then it should go into mediation to address that conflict of beliefs.

    In this case, I would have and would STILL recommend that
    party and govt leaders acknowledge the ACA mandates violate Constitutional beliefs
    while the lack of govt guaranteed health care violates political beliefs in right to health care;
    so that the solution would be to SEPARATE funding and jurisdiction
    between these two political beliefs. Let the reps, taxpayers and members of parties that believe
    it is necessary for equal rights and protections to fund their own programs through their taxes;
    and equally allow reps, taxpayers, and members of parties who believe govt health care
    can't be forced without consent or representation or it's unconstitutional to fund
    their own alternative systems of health care they do consent to.

    So if that's what you mean,you are right, there should be a process as to
    what to do if the vote on Constitutionality gets split based on politicial beliefs.

    Maybe both need to be added to the process,
    instead of pushing a contested bill opposed as unconstitutional
    through Congress, waiting on the judiciary to rule on it, then
    complaining "after the fact" that it's still unconstitutional.
    why not address that at the beginning of the process
    to fix the flaws and conflicts up front? once it's passed
    it causes additional complications trying to repeal, replace, or revise
    it while half the country is still yelling and opposed that it's unconstitutional to begin with!
     
  8. rightwinger
    Online

    rightwinger Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Top Poster Of Month

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2009
    Messages:
    143,570
    Thanks Received:
    22,822
    Trophy Points:
    2,190
    Ratings:
    +62,018
    Our Congress is broken right now

    I would not be giving them additional responsibilities
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  9. williepete
    Offline

    williepete Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2011
    Messages:
    2,898
    Thanks Received:
    1,070
    Trophy Points:
    315
    Location:
    Troposphere
    Ratings:
    +3,502
    Hi Andy,

    The constitution does not give us rights. That is a huge misconception come upon innocently by some and foisted upon others by unscrupulous indoctrination centers. The constitution is a restriction on government to protect our inherent rights.

    Look into the history of our founding fathers and the founding of the constitution for your answer.

    The Bill of Rights is a list of limits on government power. For example, what the Founders saw as the natural right of individuals to speak and worship freely was protected by the First Amendment’s prohibitions on Congress from making laws establishing a religion or abridging freedom of speech. For another example, the natural right to be free from unreasonable government intrusion in one’s home was safeguarded by the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirements.

    Other precursors to the Bill of Rights include English documents such as the Magna Carta, the Petition of Right, the English Bill of Rights, and the Massachusetts Body of Liberties.

    Bill of Rights - Bill of Rights Institute
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  10. JoeMoma
    Online

    JoeMoma Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2014
    Messages:
    7,976
    Thanks Received:
    1,039
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Ratings:
    +6,011
    Healthcare is a need, not a right. I don't have a right to demand that other people provide my needs.
     
    • Winner Winner x 3
    • Agree Agree x 1

Share This Page