Universal health care

Do you have it in Australia?

Yes we do. It started out as Medibank under the Whitlam government which was elected in 1972. It morphed into Medicare (not to be confused with the US one) and it has remained every since. Despite attempts by several conservative governments to play with it, it's still here. If any government of any persuasion tried to remove it they would be driven out by the electorate.

Medicare Australia
 
Universal health care is a hoax.......the word "universal" is a clue.......first free medical care for illegals, visitors from the mid east posing as destitute (another joke), next it will be for aliens from outer space. What is it that libs dont get and conservatives refuse to define "lib talk"........no health care, no education programs without the statement "for citizens and legal residents only"
 
Universal health care is a hoax.......the word "universal" is a clue.......first free medical care for illegals, visitors from the mid east posing as destitute (another joke), next it will be for aliens from outer space. What is it that libs dont get and conservatives refuse to define "lib talk"........no health care, no education programs without the statement "for citizens and legal residents only"

Uh-oh. Don't take this the wrong way but are you mentally ill?
 
I don't know Turbo I could make a pretty good arguement under the Commerce Clause where congress does have the power to do just that.

Justice Rehnquist echoed this point in his opinion in United States v. Lopez, stating: Since (Wickard), the Court has ....undertaken to decide whether a rational basis existed for concluding that a regulated activity sufficiently affected interstate commerce. See, e.g., Hodel v. Virginia Surface Mining & Reclamation Assn., Inc., 452 U.S. 264, 276-280 (1981); Perez v. United States, 402 U.S. 146, 155-156(1971); Katzenbach v. McClung, 379 U.S. 294, 299-301(1964); Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States, 379 U.S. 241, 252-253(1964)

Rational basis review begins with establishing the factual predicate upon which the exercise of Congressional power is based. This factual basis might come from a variety of sources. It might come from factual determinations made by Congress, passed in the legislation itself, or found in the Congressional Reports issued to accompany the legislation. It might come from the record of testimony complied in Committee Hearings. It might come from facts posited by proponents in their briefs in support of the legislation. For example, in Katzenbach v. McClung, the Court referenced extensive testimony presented in hearings in support of the conclusion that discrimination in public accommodations has a deleterious impact on interstate commerce. The Court wrote:

Of course, the mere fact that Congress has said when particular activity shall be deemed to affect commerce does not preclude further examination by this Court. But where we find that the legislators, in light of the facts and testimony before them, have a rational basis for finding a chosen regulatory scheme necessary to the protection of commerce, our investigation is at an end.

Similarly, the Court upheld a ban on the growth of marijuana intended for medical use on the grounds that Congress could rationally conclude that this growth might make enforcement of drug laws more difficult by creating an otherwise lawful source of marijuana that could be diverted into the illicit market:

In assessing the scope of Congress' authority under the Commerce Clause, we stress that the task before us is a modest one. We need not determine whether respondents' activities, taken in the aggregate, substantially affect interstate commerce in fact, but only whether a “rational basis” exists for so concluding. Given the enforcement difficulties that attend distinguishing between marijuana cultivated locally and marijuana grown elsewhere, 21 U.S.C. § 801(5), and concerns about diversion into illicit channels, we have no difficulty concluding that Congress had a rational basis for believing that failure to regulate the intrastate manufacture and possession of marijuana would leave a gaping hole in the CSA. Gonzales v Raich

Your talking about regulating interstate commerce which congress is well within it's constitutional power to do. What it can't do is use the commerce clause to tell states what insurance programs they will and will not choose though. However, it can regulate the insurance industry under this.

:eusa_whistle:Bang, you got me. Been a while since I took that class:clap2:
 
Mark my words. The next bubble in this country is going to be related to the health industry.
 
Mark my words. The next bubble in this country is going to be related to the health industry.

I think you're right Paul.

NCHC | Facts About Healthcare - Health Insurance Costs

By several measures, health care spending continues to rise at the fastest rate in our history.

In 2007, total national health expenditures were expected to rise 6.9 percent — two times the rate of inflation. Total spending was $2.3 TRILLION in 2007, or $7600 per person. Total health care spending represented 16 percent of the gross domestic product (GDP).

U.S. health care spending is expected to increase at similar levels for the next decade reaching $4.2 TRILLION in 2016, or 20 percent of GDP.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top