Proposed Amendments 28 and 29 on Equality and Right to Health Care

[emilynghiem]

This email has made the rounds, proposing a 28th Amendment on keeping Congress and citizens under the same laws:

"Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the United States that does not apply equally to the Senators and/or Representatives; and, Congress shall make no law that applies to the Senators and/or Representatives that does not apply equally to the citizens of the United States".

(Yes, it might pass if we shortened it to "Congress shall make no laws at all.")

In the style of the Introduction and Second Amendment, stating "Right to bear arms" as a Constitutional right,
I propose an Amendment to add "Right to Health Care" to the Constitution, but in equal context with Free Market Choices so it is fair:

--------------------------------------------
AMENDMENT 29 - Right to Health Care, Freedom of Choice, and Equality of Political Beliefs
(Pursuant to the First, Tenth, Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments)

1. Political Beliefs, religious traditions, and spiritual processes of healing being integral to personal health care decisions,
Congress shall make no law either establishing or infringing on beliefs in the right to health care
or the right to free market choices without interference by competing ideologies;
but shall remain neutral in representing a public consensus that equally protects all citizens' interests inclusively, without discrimination by creed, religion, or party.

2. Where disputes arise due to religious or partisan biases, Congress is required to redress grievances and objections, brought by members of Congress or by the public,
to resolve all conflicts by agreement before voting on or passing proposed or amended legislation, and is prohibited from imposing a religious or partisan bias by majority-rule.

Pursuant to the First, Tenth, and Fourteenth Amendments, where partisan conflicts of political or religious beliefs cannot be resolved by consensus on a federal level,
proposed legislation or amendments shall be delegated to the People to decide locally through their States, Parties, or Organizations of choice, accepting legal and financial responsibility
for resolving conflicts and/or representing them separately to protect equal interests and beliefs of all citizens without infringing on others, as facilitated and confirmed through the Senate.

The Senate and Judiciary Committee shall be in charge of assessing areas of conflict, and appointing or approving mediation facilitators and conflict resolution procedures to redress grievances by the People, States, and Parties to reach a consensus on such policies, including but not limited to health care, marriage laws, and other issues divided over partisan lines by religious or political beliefs.

Congress shall have power to implement appropriate legislation as recommended by the Senate where consensus is reached on policies or procedures
for resolving or separating conflicting beliefs to ensure equal treatment and inclusion of all persons or parties.

3. States, Parties, Citizens and Organizations, public or private, reserve equal rights and responsibilities for policy requirements, and costs of implementation and management of health care programs that represent respective populations by membership or by region, as necessary for equal protections of the laws from discrimination by creed, involuntary servitude, or taxation without equal representation.

4. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation, including reforms through the Internal Revenue Service,
as required to delegate or separate policies on health care mandates, taxation, and exemptions by State or by Party,
as approved by consent of their respective populations and confirmed by consensus of the Senate.
=================================

I will ask former and current leaders and candidates to meet in teams representing all Parties
to refine these basic concepts behind this Amendment, try to post a working draft by June,
and try to recognize equal rights to health care and free market choices by August by Obama's birthday as a gift to the President.

If he wants his legacy to be health care reform, it must follow Constitutional procedures, where an Amendment is required; which at the same time
could protect all other political beliefs and require conflict resolution and consensus on policies to avoid imposing any partisan bias or beliefs.

If you have recommendations on this or on candidates or leaders to review and consult on these proposed Amendments, please advise! Thanks!

 

[rightwinger]

We have more pressing issues in this country

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

An "amendment" in search of a problem.

 

[OKTexas]

Take the courts out litigation, that's a unique idea. Don't think it will happen, but damned unique.

 

[emilynghiem]

We have more pressing issues in this country

Yes, and requiring conflict resolution by government
would remove excess burden and blockage
off our democratic due process, so would COULD
solve more problems EFFECTIVELY
instead of letting costs backlog and escalate for "political points."

We could resolve issues and prevent war this way.
How many trillions of dollars would we save?

 

[emilynghiem]

Take the courts out litigation, that's a unique idea. Don't think it will happen, but damned unique.

Yes, if we removed the conflict of interest with lawyers and lobbyists who profit big bucks off conflict, maybe we could focus on solutions we actually agree on instead. What a concept!

 

[Little-Acorn]

It's always been illegal for the Fed govt to get involved in health care programs, insurance etc., since the power to do that has never been mentioned in the Constitution, and the so-called "General Welfare clause" (better called the Uniformity clause) forbids to the Fed any program that does not benefit all Americans equally - a fact conveniently ignored by our distinguished brethern of the southpaw persuasion.

Now you want to amend the Constitution and insert the phrase "health care program" into it for the first time?

BAD idea.

 

[emilynghiem]

???

You make it quite clear you do not want people of opposing political beliefs
getting a majority in Congress and abusing THAT to overrule you and your beliefs.

You don't consider that a problem?

Maybe you mean "not my problem" instead of not a problem.

Which is the difference between people who expect government to fix problems for them, and people who believe we are the government and need to fix our own problems for us.

An "amendment" in search of a problem.

Our Constitution calls for equal protection of the laws for all people within our jurisdiction.

Until we have all our debts paid, and all people accounted for with programs running cost-effectively without any waste or abuses due to unresolved conflicts and unequal access to resources and assistance, maybe then we aren't causing bigger problems than we can fix.

* If we don't have federal funds to pay for Veterans we spend billions to cripple, physically and financially, by sending them to war;

* If we don't have federal funds to save endangered environmental and historic sites that volunteers like me struggle to work two jobs to cover the costs on credit;

Then we DON'T have time or money to waste deadlocking Congress and shutting down govt at a 24 billion dollar cost to taxpayers.

I don't appreciate being abused like a slave to fund and finance corrections
to government abuses, with other unpaid volunteers doing double or triple duty,
while people like you act like "there is no problem" with letting conflicts run amok.

I'm sorry you have no clue, but I do.

Sorry I am biased from my experience paying the costs and consequences for unresolved conflicts.

Consider yourself blessed you never tried to take on responsibilities as I did
for correcting the causes and damages of government corruption.

I just think about Veterans and violent crime victims who pay a bigger price and sacrifice
than I ever will for failures of govt to protect and serve people equally. By the time we make conflict resolution the norm, and healing of physical, mental, and social ills, the resources we stop wasting will easily provide for education and economic development.

We can stop fighting over politics and taxes, because the solutions we build can be self-sustaining instead of running us into more and more debt, and creating security risks.

 

[rightwinger]

An "amendment" in search of a problem.

Agree

Constitutional Amendments used to be groundbreaking achievements. Lately, all we get is these petty administrative whines from the right

Next, we need an anti-Sharia law amendment

 

[emilynghiem]

It's always been illegal for the Fed govt to get involved in health care programs, insurance etc., since the power to do that has never been mentioned in the Constitution, and the so-called "General Welfare clause" (better called the Uniformity clause) forbids to the Fed any program that does not benefit all Americans equally - a fact conveniently ignored by our distinguished brethern of the southpaw persuasion.

Now you want to amend the Constitution and insert the phrase "health care program" into it for the first time?

BAD idea.

Yes, the point is to point that out.
That in order to authorize the Federal Government, an Amendment is needed.

Should it just be shortened to
neither establishing or infringing upon political beliefs,
and requiring conflict resolution and answering all objections
so that bills disputed or divided by partisan lines, due to religious or political beliefs,
are rewritten and passed by consensus.

And if conflicts cannot be resolved, people parties and states
reserve the right to implement these by vote among themselves
independently to avoid infringing on the equal political beliefs of others.

How would you clarify this so that
A. right to health care can be implemented where agreed upon by consensus
B. otherwise it is delegated to people (including separate taxation or
exemption by State or Party as mediated and approved through the Senate
before recommending legislation to pass through Congress)
C. and this process can be applied to resolve ALL other issues of
partisan conflict over religious and political beliefs protected equally by law

Thanks, LA!

 

[buckeye45_73]

An "amendment" in search of a problem.

Agree

Constitutional Amendments used to be groundbreaking achievements. Lately, all we get is these petty administrative whines from the right

Next, we need an anti-Sharia law amendment

If the left didnt abuse the law and the constitution by making shit up. But hey you get paid to post, cha ching for you!

And id love to see those smith/wellesley dykes live under sharia law......that would be karma for those abortion loving, man hating bitches. Oh and lets see how the homos would fare

 

[emilynghiem]

An "amendment" in search of a problem.

Agree

Constitutional Amendments used to be groundbreaking achievements. Lately, all we get is these petty administrative whines from the right

Next, we need an anti-Sharia law amendment

???

I'm a prochoice progressive Democrat. I see more commonality than conflict
in defending "civil liberties" and "freedom of choice" which are both about
free will of individuals to have laws that reflect "consent of the governed."

No, we would not need amendments for every issue of political belief,
if we set up one requiring Congress to MEDIATE all such conflicts to reach
a consensus, or else not pass laws imposing a partisan bias by majority-rule.

Should I call it "consent of the governed" would that be more clear?

Which part are you objecting to, besides a rightwing bias by a prochoice Democrat.

You don't see the benefits of requiring conflict resolution and consensus on policy,
and Congress members who can FACILITATE and represent public agreement?

What problems COULDN'T be resolved more effectively that way,
instead of political bullying by majority rule and coercion.

If I'm on the wrong planet, I apologize; but I THOUGHT the Constitution
enforced "equal protection of the laws" from discrimination by creed.

So why not require conflict resolution to fulfill that standard of laws?

 

[rightwinger]

An "amendment" in search of a problem.

Agree

Constitutional Amendments used to be groundbreaking achievements. Lately, all we get is these petty administrative whines from the right

Next, we need an anti-Sharia law amendment

If the left didnt abuse the law and the constitution by making shit up. But hey you get paid to post, cha ching for you!

And id love to see those smith/wellesley dykes live under sharia law......that would be karma for those abortion loving, man hating bitches. Oh and lets see how the homos would fare

Just what we need...an amendment that says photographers don't have to work at fag weddings

Don't conservatives have anything better to do with their time? Don't you have some Repeal Obamacare Amendments?

 

[emilynghiem]

An "amendment" in search of a problem.

Agree

Constitutional Amendments used to be groundbreaking achievements. Lately, all we get is these petty administrative whines from the right

Next, we need an anti-Sharia law amendment

If the left didnt abuse the law and the constitution by making shit up. But hey you get paid to post, cha ching for you!

And id love to see those smith/wellesley dykes live under sharia law......that would be karma for those abortion loving, man hating bitches. Oh and lets see how the homos would fare

Actually I believe the whole issue with Islam can be resolved the other way:
by organizing American Muslims leaders and members to formally recognize Constitutional laws as divinely inspired and given/sent by God (including equal religious freedom, check and balances of separate powers, and due process of laws) so they are upheld, taught and adopted as God's laws along with the Torah, Bible (which also instructs believers to respect Civil Laws and Authority), and Quran (by which followers receive and respect all sent by God namely Jewish Torah, Christian Scriptures and Muslim Quran, to which I would add Constitutional natural laws).

This would be totally voluntarily decided of course, but I would highly recommend this to resolve any issues or conflcits with Islam,
and to avoid abuses of ANY laws or religions by collective authority.
Not just Islam.

ALL collective organizations need equal checks and balances against abuse of collective authority, influence or resources, similar to how the Bill of Rights protects individuals.
If Muslims can recognize this is what is missing in the political abuse of Islam by terrorist regimes,
maybe all other groups, from religious to business or nonprofit corporations,
can come to the same realization that we all need to follow due process,
redress grievances and resolve conflicts, and respect equal protections for all persons.

 

[emilynghiem]

Agree

Constitutional Amendments used to be groundbreaking achievements. Lately, all we get is these petty administrative whines from the right

Next, we need an anti-Sharia law amendment

If the left didnt abuse the law and the constitution by making shit up. But hey you get paid to post, cha ching for you!

And id love to see those smith/wellesley dykes live under sharia law......that would be karma for those abortion loving, man hating bitches. Oh and lets see how the homos would fare

Just what we need...an amendment that says photographers don't have to work at fag weddings

Don't conservatives have anything better to do with their time? Don't you have some Repeal Obamacare Amendments?

Hi RW
instead of repealing, this Amendment would require of Congress to resolve conflicts with respect to equal political beliefs, and/or delegate responsibility to parties or states to represent people separately.

It may repeal or replace the mandate part with choice by State or Party on how to manage the taxation or exemptions, and what counts as an alternative for paying for health care.

Isn't that better than repealing it? Allowing people to keep the current options, but through their Parties or States that agree to those provisions or revisions thereof.

So everyone gets free choice of their system of health care, without competing with others.

 

[rightwinger]

If the left didnt abuse the law and the constitution by making shit up. But hey you get paid to post, cha ching for you!

And id love to see those smith/wellesley dykes live under sharia law......that would be karma for those abortion loving, man hating bitches. Oh and lets see how the homos would fare

Just what we need...an amendment that says photographers don't have to work at fag weddings

Don't conservatives have anything better to do with their time? Don't you have some Repeal Obamacare Amendments?

Hi RW
instead of repealing, this Amendment would require of Congress to resolve conflicts with respect to equal political beliefs, and/or delegate responsibility to parties or states to represent people separately.

It may repeal or replace the mandate part with choice by State or Party on how to manage the taxation or exemptions, and what counts as an alternative for paying for health care.

Isn't that better than repealing it? Allowing people to keep the current options, but through their Parties or States that agree to those provisions or revisions thereof.

So everyone gets free choice of their system of health care, without competing with others.

People have multiple options on health insurance. The only option they don't have is not being insured

 

[emilynghiem]

Just what we need...an amendment that says photographers don't have to work at fag weddings

Don't conservatives have anything better to do with their time? Don't you have some Repeal Obamacare Amendments?

Hi RW
instead of repealing, this Amendment would require of Congress to resolve conflicts with respect to equal political beliefs, and/or delegate responsibility to parties or states to represent people separately.

It may repeal or replace the mandate part with choice by State or Party on how to manage the taxation or exemptions, and what counts as an alternative for paying for health care.

Isn't that better than repealing it? Allowing people to keep the current options, but through their Parties or States that agree to those provisions or revisions thereof.

So everyone gets free choice of their system of health care, without competing with others.

People have multiple options on health insurance. The only option they don't have is not being insured

And what is wrong with retaining the same freedom and responsibilities we had before?

Of paying for our own health care, and choosing either plans of insurance or OTHER FORMS OF INVESTMENT to be most effective in covering costs?

Not just for ourselves but helping others, too, as we still need our FULL freedom and responsibility to manage help for ourselves and others whose costs STILL aren't covered.

What crime was committed and where was the due process before depriving law abiding citizens of our liberty?

If we did not commit any crime, nor have any deceitful intent not to pay our own costs, why not set up the system to go after the people who do rack up costs?

If the point is to ensure responsibility for costs, why punish the people who ARE responsible, and who DO believe in paying our own costs without federal mandates, by making US lose our freedoms because of the debts of other people who abused theirs?

If deadbeat parents rack up debts and welfare expenses from not paying child support,
would you EVER support "federal mandates" compelling ALL PARENTS
to show proof of child savings plans or pay into government fund to manage
their CHILD CARE for them?

Why punish lawabiding taxpayers, who didn't abuse the system, instead of reforming government to go after the deadbeats who did?

Where is laziness or ineptitude of government a "compelling" excuse for punishing citizens
by taking away their liberties without any due process or proof of any crime committed?

Really?

P.S. regarding other options: you left out which people, groups, or companies
are getting exempted from the mandates due to political conflicts of interest.

if you are going to let "some" opt-out, then give EVERYONE equal freedom to opt-out.
this law is not written or enforced to treat people equally; it favors people who believe
in government health care and penalized people who don't who are forced to pay fines into it anyway.

if we ever forced citizens to pay into a religious program they didn't believe in and choose freely,
liberals would yell "separation of church and state" -- but with political beliefs, they don't treat it equally as religion.
much like Christians who don't see their beliefs as a religion, but as universal law, the right way for all people.

Now the leftwing are doing this with the "right to health care" and imposing this belief as the new "law of the land."
When Christians do that, they get slammed.

And under Constitutional procedures, an amendment should be passed before expanding the federal government to create new systems.
The govt has the right to tax, but not to discriminate on the basis of creed which these mandates have clearly done by political party, similar to clear cut religious lines.

If we can't see those biases for what they are,
we are already blinded by our own biases.

I recognize the Constitutionalist bias, but am dismayed that people of the other bias cannot even recognize they are imposing one equally.

Neither side is perfectly neutral or objective,
that is why I urge people to separate views by party and quit imposing on each other
by threat of legislation or penalty of law that favors one side over the other.

The civil and equal approach would be to separate
and invest in our own solutions and programs, respectively,
where we can keep our differences and don't have to agree
in order to fund what we believe in without fear of imposition.

Thanks, RW!

 

[DriftingSand]

We have more pressing issues in this country

What's more pressing than enacting laws that reduce the power of government over the citizenry?

 

[emilynghiem]

We have more pressing issues in this country

What's more pressing than enacting laws that reduce the power of government over the citizenry?

Empowering people to know the difference, or they don't know it makes any.

 

[healthmyths]

It's always been illegal for the Fed govt to get involved in health care programs, insurance etc., since the power to do that has never been mentioned in the Constitution, and the so-called "General Welfare clause" (better called the Uniformity clause) forbids to the Fed any program that does not benefit all Americans equally - a fact conveniently ignored by our distinguished brethern of the southpaw persuasion.

Now you want to amend the Constitution and insert the phrase "health care program" into it for the first time?

BAD idea.

I agree it is a bad IDEA and more importantly NOT NECESSARY!!!

I am not obsessed with this but WHY the NEED for a "health care program" when nearly 99% of people that are
legal, need and WANT health insurance have it!
The remaining 4 million can be covered at NO cost simply tax lawyers 10% as ACA taxes tanning salons.
Provide the 4 million that really want but can't get insurance with a $5,000 premium per year per uninsured.
Then tie the tax with the reduction of the $850 billion spent simply out of fear of lawsuits... i.e. lawyers !
Once this $850 billion declines payers claim payments reduce.
They reduce it will lower the $850 billion and state insurance regulators will not approve premiums that are not declining!