CDZ A New and Improved Constitution for the USA

[dblack]

You happily empower the private sector to deny you benefits even though your only recourse is more expensive than what you were denied.

I'm not quite sure I understand what that sentence is supposed to mean, but I've noticed you have an odd sense of "denied". You can't be denied something that wasn't yours to begin with, or otherwise owed to you by mutual agreement. If an insurance company refuses to pay for health care expense that a policy holder is promised, they've committed fraud and legal action is warranted. Also, who exactly do you think populates "the private sector"? The private sector IS 'we the people'.

With the government you have the right to lobby those in power directly and to fire them if you don't get what you want.

If your interests don't enjoy majority support, this is only effective if you're politically connected or very wealthy.

Greedy HMO's are exempt from law suits so no, you can't sue them for denying you health care.

Corporatism in action. FWIW, I'll join you in any effort to repeal such an exemption.

Plenty of grass roots movements have ousted politicians from power. Why can't you do the same thing if they refuse to address your legitimate grievances?

When we talk of protecting rights, it's not generally the rights of the majority that are in question. Democracy takes care of them just fine. It's the folks not in the majority whose rights most need protecting. That's where clear constitutional limits on government come into play.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The Federal government does not "control" anyone and it doesn't infringe upon your "liberty".

10000% stupid and typically liberal. The Feds take 50-75% of everyone's income at the point of a gun and you think that does not infringe on liberty?

See why we have to be 100% positive that liberalism is based in pure ignorance?

 

[Olde Europe]

But let me ask you this. On what basis do you argue that the ACA is doing a better job of healthcare delivery than pre-ACA? How is forcing people to prepay for healthcare a better plan than the option to have medical savings accounts that would accomplish the same thing but remain in the control of the people who established them?

Can you say for a fact that it was NOT government meddling and mandates that has contributed dramatically to healthcare costs becoming unaffordable for those without insurance? If so, how do you explain the dramatic increase in medical costs that occurred at precisely the same time that Medicare and Medicaid went into effect in the 1960s?

Can you say for a fact that it is necessary to force everybody into a government controlled and mandated system rather than to focus on the relatively very few who really could not afford healthcare insurance?

Can you explain how and why some people support a program that has now been exposed to produce almost none of the benefits it was supposed to produce and they KNEW that it would not when they advertised it? And that it is now a fact that it was sold to us with a whole bunch of intentional lies? How does any American condone that?

Can you say for a fact that the federal government that requires an enormous bureaucracy on top of the delivery system will provide better and more affordable healthcare than that same delivery system would have done privately without the additional expense of that enormous bureaucracy?

Nice little rhetorical trickery you got here. Let me return the favor.

Where have I argued that the ACA is doing a better job than HSAs?

On what basis do you insinuate that government meddling in general, and Medicaid and Medicare in particular are responsible for rising healthcare costs?

Why would you argue that the ACA forces everybody into a government controlled and mandated system? (Have you been forced to buy health insurance?)

Why would you ask me why "some people" support a program, and on what grounds do you assert that the ACA "produce[d] almost none of the benefits it was supposed to produce"?

On what basis do you assert that the ACA requires an "enormous" bureaucracy, and maybe even a bigger bureaucracy than is employed by the myriad of private insurers?

____________________________________________

See how that goes? Please, if you try to shove the duty of supporting / disproving your argument into my lap, could you please at least go about it somewhat less transparently?

BTW...

HSAs are just another way to leave the poor out there in the cold if they happen to exceed their limit, in addition to all those who wouldn't have dime to spare on their HSA. Why are you righties so addicted to that? Why is it that cannot stand the thought that the poor might be visiting the same hospitals, the same physicians, accessing the same healthcare according to the same standards, so that you'd do just about everything to prevent that from happening? Why is that distinction between you and "those people" so utterly important?

Rising healthcare costs in the US are due to two reasons: Technical advances, and Big Pharma and insurers are soaking you dry.

Most Americans have decent insurance via their employers, and do not fall under ACA provisions.

ACA produced, even exceeded, the predicted benefits, except for the recalcitrant, rightarded States that didn't extend Medicaid. Why informed folks would support it is as clear as can be. Why uninformed and delusional, or misinformed people would oppose it is equally clear.

Private insurers are notorious for their enormous overhead costs, a fault from which its public pendants do not suffer. That has been explained to you several times now, but you wouldn't listen.

 

[Derideo_Te]

But let me ask you this. On what basis do you argue that the ACA is doing a better job of healthcare delivery than pre-ACA? How is forcing people to prepay for healthcare a better plan than the option to have medical savings accounts that would accomplish the same thing but remain in the control of the people who established them?

ACA policies include medical savings accounts.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Rising healthcare costs in the US are due to two reasons: Technical advances, and Big Pharma and insurers are soaking you dry.

actually one reason: liberalism. If we had capitalist health care prices would be about 20% of what they are now and life expectancy would be up 10-20 years.

 

[Foxfyre]

Okay folks both those on the left and right, a gentle reminder that this is the CDZ. It is not personal but I will ignore posts that focus on blasting one side or another of the political spectrum and the assinine comments about this side or that wanting something hateful as well as other ad hominem and personal insults. I will report the most grevous violations.

I am appreciating the few who are actually focused on the topic and are consciously or naturally following the intended CDZ guidelines. And I suggest that those who take every post they don't agree with as a personal accusation and those who cannot post without using ad hominem or personal insults go elsewhere or start your own thread out of the CDZ where you can say whatever comes to your pointy little heads or fragile sensibilities.

Now back on topic.

I know some of you have insisted that it is an unrealistic hope and will never pass Congress or the White House, but let's explore the pros and cons anyway. This is a thread focused on what we would want in a new and improved Constitution of the USA--what we think would clear up misunderstandings, fuzzy interpretations, and/or makes things better. So let's pretend it could be possible.

PROPOSAL:

Except for immediate response to provide security and help prevent immediately loss of life, the federal government will be prohbited from using the taxpayers money or obligating the tax payer to provide any form of charity or benevolence or entitlement to any person, group, entity, or demographic. Any such government activity would be initiated and managed at the state or local level only.

This provision would not prevent the federal government from receiving, coordinating, and dispensing personnel, services, and provisions donated by the states or private sector for ongoing relief efforts following large scale domestic or international disasters.

Pros and cons of this proposal?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Okay folks both those on the left and right, a gentle reminder that this is the CDZ. It is not personal but I will ignore posts that focus on blasting one side or another of the political spectrum and the assinine comments about this side or that wanting something hateful as well as other ad hominem and personal insults. I will report the most grevous violations.

I am appreciating the few who are actually focused on the topic and are consciously or naturally following the intended CDZ guidelines. And I suggest that those who take every post they don't agree with as a personal accusation and those who cannot post without using ad hominem or personal insults go elsewhere or start your own thread out of the CDZ where you can say whatever comes to your pointy little heads or fragile sensibilities.

Now back on topic.

I know some of you have insisted that it is an unrealistic hope and will never pass Congress or the White House, but let's explore the pros and cons anyway. This is a thread focused on what we would want in a new and improved Constitution of the USA--what we think would clear up misunderstandings, fuzzy interpretations, and/or makes things better. So let's pretend it could be possible.

PROPOSAL:

Except for immediate response to provide security and help prevent immediately loss of life, the federal government will be prohbited from using the taxpayers money or obligating the tax payer to provide any form of charity or benevolence or entitlement to any person, group, entity, or demographic. Any such government activity would be initiated and managed at the state or local level only.

This provision would not prevent the federal government from receiving, coordinating, and dispensing personnel, services, and provisions donated by the states or private sector for ongoing relief efforts following large scale domestic or international disasters.

Pros and cons of this proposal?

if the Feds do it all then any serious blunder, like federal welfare, will destroy the entire nation whereas if a state does it a blunder will be limited to one state.

 

[DonaldFG]

Just as a new member browsing around, I think the suggestion sounds reasonable for the preamble. It sounds more like today's language than the original.

 

[Foxfyre]

Just as a new member browsing around, I think the suggestion sounds reasonable for the preamble. It sounds more like today's language than the original.

Hi Donald and welcome to USMB and the thread.

As a devout 'originalist' when it comes to the Constitution, my hopes for the thread were a thoughtful and reasoned discussion of how the original wording is sometimes problematic in modern vernacular plus the fairly recent development of entitlement mentality coupled with the realities of technologies the Founders could not have even imagined and therefore did not anticipate..

I want to retain all the time proved virtues of the original and the brilliance of its concept while eliminating any vagueness that opportunistic politicians, bureaucrats, and lawyers have been able to exploit.

 

[whitehall]

Only the lazy victims of propaganda and the truly ignorant and possibly neo-anarchists actually believe that today's bureaucrats are as capable of creating a Constitution as the Founding Fathers were. The rest of us concentrate our efforts to work within the system and make sure that our elected officials abide by the existing Constitution.

 

[dblack]

Only the lazy victims of propaganda and the truly ignorant and possibly neo-anarchists actually believe that today's bureaucrats are as capable of creating a Constitution as the Founding Fathers were. The rest of us concentrate our efforts to work within the system and make sure that our elected officials abide by the existing Constitution.

I certainly wouldn't trust existing "bureaucrats" with a new constitution, but we might be able to elect delegates who could the job.

 

[The Irish Ram]

Thing is, we have to stop shaking our heads up and down whenever Obama tells us something is broken.
He said our immigration policies were broken, and he knew how to fix it. He removed the borders and granted citizenship to anyone who touched base.
We had the best health care in the world. No one was denied care, and we enjoyed Dr./ patient confidentiality. Nothing was broken. But Obama told us it was and he knew how to fix it. Now we have out of reach insurance, hospitals that can turn you away, and millions in hidden fees and taxes, our patient records are fodder for any hack with a computer, and the government has taken control of 1/6 of our economy.

Now he wants you to believe our very foundation, what constitutes America's way of life is broken and he knows how to fix it.
He's a take control kind of guy. Your basic civil rights are what he wants to control next.

There is nothing wrong with the Constitution of the United States that blowing the dust off of and putting it back into operation won't fix. If you give him an inch he'll take it as a referendum to dismantle the whole thing and replace it with his own. Please don't.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The Founding Generation – the American people themselves who debated and ratified the Constitution – were already familiar with most of the tenets and principles codified in the Document, from the existing laws and constitutions that governed the states to the English common law the people already knew.

The Constitution was therefore a reaffirmation of these tenets and principles rather than revelation, not the creation of something 'new' but the acknowledgment of a republican form of government with the people's liberties safeguarded by the existing rule of law.

 

[Olde Europe]

PROPOSAL:

Except for immediate response to provide security and help prevent immediately loss of life, the federal government will be prohbited from using the taxpayers money or obligating the tax payer to provide any form of charity or benevolence or entitlement to any person, group, entity, or demographic. Any such government activity would be initiated and managed at the state or local level only.

This provision would not prevent the federal government from receiving, coordinating, and dispensing personnel, services, and provisions donated by the states or private sector for ongoing relief efforts following large scale domestic or international disasters.

Congress shall make no law that does not alleviate the living and income conditions of those on the lower rungs of society most. Congress shall from time to time request and receive, from institutions with the required scientific skills, information on both the implementation of the foregoing principle, and the actual state of income and wealth inequality, and inequalities related to living conditions, as well as suggestions as to possible remedies to any inequalities, persisting or worsening, found to be detrimental to the General welfare. Congress is required to respond to, and act upon, this information and recommended remedies. Congress shall lay significant, progressive taxes on incomes above thrice the poverty level in order to narrow any persistent and widening gaps, and to correct historical and still persisting historical wrongs, particularly those arising, both historically and currently, from racism. Any federal spending to the benefit of any demographic shall go to the worst-off sections of society, or the worst-off quarters of the country, first and foremost, and to better-off sections or quarters only in inverse proportion to their being better-off.

 

[Foxfyre]

PROPOSAL:

Except for immediate response to provide security and help prevent immediately loss of life, the federal government will be prohbited from using the taxpayers money or obligating the tax payer to provide any form of charity or benevolence or entitlement to any person, group, entity, or demographic. Any such government activity would be initiated and managed at the state or local level only.

This provision would not prevent the federal government from receiving, coordinating, and dispensing personnel, services, and provisions donated by the states or private sector for ongoing relief efforts following large scale domestic or international disasters.

Congress shall make no law that does not alleviate the living and income conditions of those on the lower rungs of society most. Congress shall from time to time request and receive, from institutions with the required scientific skills, information on both the implementation of the foregoing principle, and the actual state of income and wealth inequality, and inequalities related to living conditions, as well as suggestions as to possible remedies to any inequalities, persisting or worsening, found to be detrimental to the General welfare. Congress is required to respond to, and act upon, this information and recommended remedies. Congress shall lay significant, progressive taxes on incomes above thrice the poverty level in order to narrow any persistent and widening gaps, and to correct historical and still persisting historical wrongs, particularly those arising, both historically and currently, from racism. Any federal spending to the benefit of any demographic shall go to the worst-off sections of society, or the worst-off quarters of the country, first and foremost, and to better-off sections or quarters only in inverse proportion to their being better-off.

Who in Congress do you deem wise enough to determine who is and who is not 'worse off'?

And how do you equate liberty with giving the federal government ability to takes whatever it wants from private resources in order to remedy wealth inequalities?

 

[Foxfyre]

Thing is, we have to stop shaking our heads up and down whenever Obama tells us something is broken.
He said our immigration policies were broken, and he knew how to fix it. He removed the borders and granted citizenship to anyone who touched base.
We had the best health care in the world. No one was denied care, and we enjoyed Dr./ patient confidentiality. Nothing was broken. But Obama told us it was and he knew how to fix it. Now we have out of reach insurance, hospitals that can turn you away, and millions in hidden fees and taxes, our patient records are fodder for any hack with a computer, and the government has taken control of 1/6 of our economy.

Now he wants you to believe our very foundation, what constitutes America's way of life is broken and he knows how to fix it.
He's a take control kind of guy. Your basic civil rights are what he wants to control next.

There is nothing wrong with the Constitution of the United States that blowing the dust off of and putting it back into operation won't fix. If you give him an inch he'll take it as a referendum to dismantle the whole thing and replace it with his own. Please don't.

The problem as I see it is much more systemic than what the Obama administration does. It is the system that has developed that has made it possible for the current government to do what it does, and for those of us who see that as a bad thing, that is what prompted a discussion on repairing the constitution so that it cannot happen again with a different and possibly worse administration. There were those who thought the previous administration was the worst and most destructive in human history.

The problem is not that our current constitution is inadequate or flawed as it was INTENDED. The problem is that the language has allowed extreme interpretation that over the decades has eroded our liberties, choices, options, and opportunities and will continue to diminish the USA as the the world's greatest nation unless we turn that around.

 

[Foxfyre]

Repeating the one proposal that I believe is critical and, while is not the ONLY important issue that needs to be repaired in the current Constitution, I believe it is the most important:

PROPOSAL RE GOVERNMENT BENEVOLENCE:

Except for immediate response to provide security and help prevent immediately loss of life, the federal government will be prohbited from using the taxpayers money or obligating the tax payer to provide any form of charity or benevolence or entitlement to any person, group, entity, or demographic. Any such government activity would be initiated and managed at the state or local level only at the discretion of the state and/or local communities.

This provision would not prevent the federal government from receiving, coordinating, and dispensing personnel, services, and provisions donated by the states or private sector for ongoing relief efforts following large scale domestic or international disasters.

Pros and cons of this proposal?

 

[Foxfyre]

A second proposal for inclusion in an improved Constitution would be this:

PROPOSAL RE WAR POWERS:

The President, as commander in chief, will have authority to deploy the U.S. military and/or other security personnel as necessary and prudent to protect the U.S. citizens and/or their property from immediate threat or attack from foreign aggressors or domestic terrorism. Congress should be notified immediately of such action, and must give consent for other than immediate defensive action.

Any deployment of American troops into combat or hostile situations other than immediate defensive action will require consent of Congress, and no troops may be ordered into combat without a declaration of war from Congress.

In other words, there will be no more Afghanistans or Iraqs or Somalias or other engagement in hostilities by Americans without a formal declaration of war by Congress.

Pros and cons for this proposal?

 

[Olde Europe]

Who in Congress do you deem wise enough to determine who is and who is not 'worse off'?

And how do you equate liberty with giving the federal government ability to takes whatever it wants from private resources in order to remedy wealth inequalities?

Just about everyone not suffering from the impairments of, say, Gomert, or Cruz, or Graham, in a word, just about everyone who wouldn't consider reality an obstacle to their ideological agenda.

As to the latter, I plainly don't.

________________________________________________

The President, as commander in chief, will have authority to deploy the U.S. military and/or other security personnel as necessary and prudent to protect the U.S. citizens and/or their property from immediate threat or attack from foreign aggressors or domestic terrorism. Congress should be notified immediately of such action, and must give consent for other than immediate defensive action.

Any deployment of American troops into combat or hostile situations other than immediate defensive action will require consent of Congress, and no troops may be ordered into combat without a declaration of war from Congress.

The former paragraph I would edit as follows, and agree (deleted passaged in red):

"The President, as commander in chief, will have authority to deploy the U.S. military and/or other security personnel as necessary and prudent to protect the U.S. citizens and/or their property from immediate threat or attack from foreign aggressors or domestic terrorism. Congress should be notified immediately of such action, and must give consent for other than immediate defensive action."

The latter paragraph would render any humanitarian or peace-keeping mission in any area, where there might be even a hint of hostility, unconstitutional, and thus I would reject it as it is currently worded. If you wanted to express that the President should not be allowed to sent troops into a war in which the U.S. is one of the combatants (as opposed to, say, a mediating force or providing humanitarian relief) without a declaration of war from Congress, I would go along with that.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

make sure that our elected officials abide by the existing Constitution.

liberals spied for Stalin and want a liberal soviet intrepretation of the Constitution and have no intention of abiding by the current Constitution.