For Those That Harp on the Constitution on the subject of Health Care

[Modbert]

FiveThirtyEight: Politics Done Right: Constitutional Chicanery

First, there is the fallacy that anything not specifically prescribed by the Constitution is unconstitutional. True, the Constitution doesn’t mention health care; but neither does it mention air traffic control. Is the FAA’s safeguarding of our skies from commercial crashes therefore unconstitutional? Of course not. First, there is the matter of the “necessary and proper” clause. And second, just because the Founders clearly meant to avoid the whole business of constitutionalizing specifically policies--see point #3, below--doesn't mean they didn't want the government to have any policies. If they did, why create a legislature?

More, after the jump.

Thoughts?

Extra Note: Social Security went through the same thing.

 

[Freedomlover]

The question of Constitutionality of the health care legislation lies primarily in the so-called "public option". The Dems think this is the way to create competition among health insurance companies by providing a lower cost, taxpayer subsidized insurance program.

I wrote an email to the Dem senator from Ohio , Sherrod Brown, and asked him, among other things, where in the Constitution does the ferderal government get the authority to compete directly with the private sector in healthcare, or anything else. He wrote me back providing information on why federal healthcare is needed and what his position is. No where in the email did he even give a hint of the constitutional basis for this legislation.

Since he did not address my questions directly, or indirectly I must presume that he is addmitting there is none, but they, the Dems, are going to go full speed ahead in order to give Obama a victory, and the Consititution is only something they rely on when it suits their purposes. This legislation, if it is signed into law will be just another nail pounded into the coffin of freedom in this country.

If anyone can cite the Article and Section of the Constitution that permits the federal government to compete against the private sector regardless of the issue I would like to see it because I can not find it in my copy of the document.

 

[Oddball]

FiveThirtyEight: Politics Done Right: Constitutional Chicanery

First, there is the fallacy that anything not specifically prescribed by the Constitution is unconstitutional. True, the Constitution doesn’t mention health care; but neither does it mention air traffic control. Is the FAA’s safeguarding of our skies from commercial crashes therefore unconstitutional? Of course not. First, there is the matter of the “necessary and proper” clause. And second, just because the Founders clearly meant to avoid the whole business of constitutionalizing specifically policies--see point #3, below--doesn't mean they didn't want the government to have any policies. If they did, why create a legislature?

More, after the jump.

Thoughts?

Extra Note: Social Security went through the same thing.

So, just because the gubmint ignores the Constitution in other areas, it's OK to keep on doing so when you like it?

Typical.

 

[Modbert]

So, just because the gubmint ignores the Constitution in other areas, it's OK to keep on doing so when you like it?

Typical.

I post a article and you attack me? C'mon Dude.

 

[Modbert]

If anyone can cite the Article and Section of the Constitution that permits the federal government to compete against the private sector regardless of the issue I would like to see it because I can not find it in my copy of the document.

In that case, anything that is public is unconstitutional in your eyes. Social Security, Medicare, Public Education System, Food Stamps, Welfare, Post Office, Prisons, etc. In fact, that would also make police forces and firefighters unconstitutional since they are going against private companies.

Congratulations on not well thought out ideas!

But here, back in reality:

The “Government-Run” Mantra | FactCheck.org

The claim that the House bill would amount to "government-run health care" suffered a blow last week, when the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the so-called "public plan" in the revised bill wouldn’t offer much in the way of competition to private insurers. But that hasn’t stopped Republicans from repeating the claim

Thank You, Come Again.

 

[Oddball]

So, just because the gubmint ignores the Constitution in other areas, it's OK to keep on doing so when you like it?

Typical.

I post a article and you attack me? C'mon Dude.

I used "you" in the general, not the specific.

 

[Modbert]

I used "you" in the general, not the specific.

Well thank you for clarifying then.

 

[MajikMyst]

So, just because the gubmint ignores the Constitution in other areas, it's OK to keep on doing so when you like it?

Typical.

I post a article and you attack me? C'mon Dude.

What do you expect?? He didn't even read the article.. Which makes some very valid points.. Points that the right can't argue with.. They can only deny and spin..

 

[Charles Stucker]

In that case, anything that is public is unconstitutional in your eyes. Social Security, Medicare, Public Education System, Food Stamps, Welfare, Post Office, Prisons, etc. In fact, that would also make police forces and firefighters unconstitutional since they are going against private companies.

Thank You, Come Again.

Social Security and Medicare are unconstitutional and should be abolished.
Check your facts - the Post Office is covered under the Postal Clause Article I, section 8, clause 7.
Public education is a local issue and hence is constitutional because it is a power retained by the states. Only the federal interference is unconstitutional.

Talk about rampant ignorance.
Thank you, try again.

 

[Modbert]

Social Security and Medicare are unconstitutional and should be abolished.
Check your facts - the Post Office is covered under the Postal Clause Article I, section 8, clause 7.
Public education is a local issue and hence is constitutional because it is a power retained by the states. Only the federal interference is unconstitutional.

Talk about rampant ignorance.
Thank you, try again.

I noticed you ignored the rest of which I listed. As for those two being unconstitutional, gee, you mean to say that the Right's "Conservative" Hero Ronald Reagan saved a unconstitutional program?

Public education is a local issue, as is the health of the citizens and making sure they have enough money to get food.

 

[Anguille]

If anyone can cite the Article and Section of the Constitution that permits the federal government to compete against the private sector regardless of the issue I would like to see it because I can not find it in my copy of the document.

So where does it prohibit the government the federal government from competing against the private sector?

It seems to me the federal government is working to enable insurance companies to continue to profit from healthcare. Isn't the idea that everyone will be forced to buy insurance just a big gift to the insurance companies? If Republicans were truly in favor of freedom from taxation they'd be all up in arms against this proposal. But instead they've been bought off by the insurance industry to support it.

 

[Oddball]

Social Security and Medicare are unconstitutional and should be abolished.
Check your facts - the Post Office is covered under the Postal Clause Article I, section 8, clause 7.
Public education is a local issue and hence is constitutional because it is a power retained by the states. Only the federal interference is unconstitutional.

Talk about rampant ignorance.
Thank you, try again.

I noticed you ignored the rest of which I listed. As for those two being unconstitutional, gee, you mean to say that the Right's "Conservative" Hero Ronald Reagan saved a unconstitutional program?

Public education is a local issue, as is the health of the citizens and making sure they have enough money to get food.

For one thing, Canada privatized their ATC. Delays and cancellations almost unheard of now.

 

[Contumacious]

First, there is the fallacy that anything not specifically prescribed by the Constitution is unconstitutional.

IF IT IS NOT SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATED IN THE CONSTITUTION IT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

The examples that you provided are merely evidence that we are being governed by criminals.

 

[Modbert]

For one thing, Canada privatized their ATC. Delays and cancellations almost unheard of now.

Canada also have a public option.

In fact, a high majority of the Canadians love it:

Change of Subject: Never mind the anecdotes: Do Canadians like their health-care system?

By an overwhelming margin, Canadians prefer the Canadian health care system to the American one. Overall, 82% said they preferred the Canadian system, fully ten times the number who said the American system is superior (8%)....from a Harris-Decima poll (.pdf), July 2009. .

The vast majority of Canadians, 91 per cent, felt that Canada's health care system was better than the United States...CTV, a Canadian television network, Jun. 29 2008, reporting on a survey, conducted by the Strategic Counsel for CTV and The Globe and Mail.

In November 2004, Canadians voted Tommy Douglas, Canada's 'father of Medicare'") the Greatest Canadian of all time following a nationwide contest."... CBC

People in Canada and Great Britain are significantly more satisfied with availability of affordable healthcare than their American counterparts ...Gallup Poll, March, 2003

 

[RetiredGySgt]

If anyone can cite the Article and Section of the Constitution that permits the federal government to compete against the private sector regardless of the issue I would like to see it because I can not find it in my copy of the document.

In that case, anything that is public is unconstitutional in your eyes. Social Security, Medicare, Public Education System, Food Stamps, Welfare, Post Office, Prisons, etc. In fact, that would also make police forces and firefighters unconstitutional since they are going against private companies.

Congratulations on not well thought out ideas!

But here, back in reality:

The “Government-Run” Mantra | FactCheck.org

The claim that the House bill would amount to "government-run health care" suffered a blow last week, when the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the so-called "public plan" in the revised bill wouldn’t offer much in the way of competition to private insurers. But that hasn’t stopped Republicans from repeating the claim

Thank You, Come Again.

Social Programs are illegal. Prisons are legal , the Post office Might be legal.Police forces at the Federal Level are illegal. That is why there is no National Police Force. Police and fire are all legit Government funded entities at the State and lower level. Fire Fighters for National Parks are Federal and Legal.

I am beyond tired with you liberals inability to understand simple concepts.

The Constitution is a LIMITING document, it is NOT an unlimited grant to the Federal Government. When new needs are found wanting and the Federal Government wants to pay for them, if they are not in the original power grant then an AMENDMENT is required. Social Security is a prime example, it and medicare are UNCONSTITUTIONAL. To allow the Government to use taxpayer money on those programs would require an amendment specifying such. If the Federal Government wants to run Health Care, THEY NEED an AMENDMENT granting that authority.

Federal tax dollars should not be spent on Education, housing or any other SOCIAL program with out an Amendment granting that power to the Federal Government.

FAA is covered by commerce. The Federal Government has sole power to control interstate Commerce. And with in the Constitution is a paragraph that states if the Government has the authority they have the power to ensure they can exercise that authority.

The FBI originally was not armed and had no arrest authority because it was felt it was unconstitutional. However since they are restricted to ONLY Federal cases they can arrest and be armed. Again that pesky part that States if the Constitution grants an authority the Federal Government has the power to ensure that authority can be carried out.

The Secret Service falls under Treasury. And is not a Law enforcement branch. The CIA has no authority with in the US so is a Federal entity because of power of the Federal Government to conduct business with foreign Governments and the right of the Government to keep informed on foreign Government activities.

Go ahead dredge up a few more strawmen.

 

[Modbert]

IF IT IS NOT SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATED IN THE CONSTITUTION IT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

The examples that you provided are merely evidence that we are being governed by criminals.

So everything I listed is prove that the people we put in charge are criminals?

 

[Contumacious]

IF IT IS NOT SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATED IN THE CONSTITUTION IT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

The examples that you provided are merely evidence that we are being governed by criminals.

So everything I listed is prove that the people we put in charge are criminals?

That's a big 10-4.

Why the fuck adopt a Constitution if the scumbags can ignore it or amend it willy nilly?

 

[Modbert]

That's a big 10-4.

Why the fuck adopt a Constitution if the scumbags can ignore it or amend it willy nilly?

So what else do you consider illegal considering what we have today that is considered a Government program.

 

[saveliberty]

If anyone can cite the Article and Section of the Constitution that permits the federal government to compete against the private sector regardless of the issue I would like to see it because I can not find it in my copy of the document.

In that case, anything that is public is unconstitutional in your eyes. Social Security, Medicare, Public Education System, Food Stamps, Welfare, Post Office, Prisons, etc. In fact, that would also make police forces and firefighters unconstitutional since they are going against private companies.

Congratulations on not well thought out ideas!

But here, back in reality:

The “Government-Run” Mantra | FactCheck.org

The claim that the House bill would amount to "government-run health care" suffered a blow last week, when the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the so-called "public plan" in the revised bill wouldn’t offer much in the way of competition to private insurers. But that hasn’t stopped Republicans from repeating the claim

Thank You, Come Again.

Posting junk again I see. Powers granted to the federal government ARE specific. Those not listed are reserved for states and the individual. The CBO makes their predictions based on a model of the proposed bill. If you give them a flawed model, you will get flawed results.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

IF IT IS NOT SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATED IN THE CONSTITUTION IT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

The examples that you provided are merely evidence that we are being governed by criminals.

So everything I listed is prove that the people we put in charge are criminals?

That's a big 10-4.

Why the fuck adopt a Constitution if the scumbags can ignore it or amend it willy nilly?

Amending it is legal dumb ass. It is what provides the people with the ability to empower the Federal Government with new powers as needed.