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

[beowolfe]

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.

Actually, it doesn't. The constutionality question is used by those who wish to defeat health insurance reform. If the public option is unconstitutional, then so is Medicare and Medicaid.

 

[Darkwind]

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.

Actually, it doesn't. The constutionality question is used by those who wish to defeat health insurance reform. If the public option is unconstitutional, then so is Medicare and Medicaid.

No, that is incorrect.

the Constitutionality question is used by those who would honor that document as it is the entire framework of our society.

 

[Oddball]

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.

Actually, it doesn't. The constutionality question is used by those who wish to defeat health insurance reform. If the public option is unconstitutional, then so is Medicare and Medicaid.

Which they are.

Just because you ignored the Constitution to create yesterday's handouts doesn't mean you're not ignoring it to create today's handouts.

 

[Intense]

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.

You know that the Post Office is Constitutional. Police and Fire Department are local, Dogbert. Did You start celebrating early?

 

[beowolfe]

Clause 18. The Congress shall have Power *** To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Here is one section of the constitution that would allow for a public option. Heck, it would even allow for a single payer system.

 

[Intense]

You think the Fed's can buy Loyalty through bribes? Or just the DNC? Your Taxing and spending is out of Phase Dogbert. The Weight of Government Payroll and Compensation is very damaging to The Republic. When China catches on to the scheme, what's next? What haven't You destroyed already?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Clause 18. The Congress shall have Power *** To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Here is one section of the constitution that would allow for a public option. Heck, it would even allow for a single payer system.

Actually it wouldn't. They only have the power to carry out the explicitly listed FOREGOING powers, which you conveniently left out.

 

[Contumacious]

This is why I support the inclusion of the specific part of the Constitution which grants congress the power to enact any bill. If they had to include that, then we would all be clear what is or is not Constitutional. If the government wants to do something that does not fit within the Constitution, then 'We, The People', have the right to decide whether or not to grant them that power.

I am for smaller federal government, and more power to individual states - because that way, 'We, The People' maintain closer control of what is done in our name.

It's not hard.

So those who oppose you are not "we the people"?

.

 

[Contumacious]

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

99.9% of what the federal government does. But I am guessing, it could be more.

.

Well there you have it.. That is why neotards don't want to fund anything.. They want their taxes brought down to zero.. That is why our education is underfunded.. That is why all or most civil programs are under funded.. That is why they don't want a public option for medical reform.. And still these morons call themselves a patriot..

You all are sick!! How about being a part of the solution and not the problem.. That is what a true patriot would do..

Do I tell you how to invest or spend your money?

.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Clause 18. The Congress shall have Power *** To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Here is one section of the constitution that would allow for a public option. Heck, it would even allow for a single payer system.

NO it does not, it grants power IF the Federal Government has authority. Or did you miss the "forgoing powers" part?

 

[alan1]

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.

How the **** is air traffic and medical services even remotely similar?
Did airplanes exist when the constitution was written? Did medical care exist? Don't strain yourself thinking too hard on that one.
The things you idiots try and use for analogies is retarded.

 

[California Girl]

This is why I support the inclusion of the specific part of the Constitution which grants congress the power to enact any bill. If they had to include that, then we would all be clear what is or is not Constitutional. If the government wants to do something that does not fit within the Constitution, then 'We, The People', have the right to decide whether or not to grant them that power.

I am for smaller federal government, and more power to individual states - because that way, 'We, The People' maintain closer control of what is done in our name.

It's not hard.

So those who oppose you are not "we the people"?

.

Are you stupid?

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Possibly you could READ the Constitution before commenting on it. The US Postal Service is explicitly mentioned in Article I, Section 8: To establish Post Offices and post Roads. Likewise, federal prisons are both explicit and implicit in the same Article and Section: To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States; To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations; To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

You can't punish things - mentioned several times - without prisons. And it's pretty hard to secure the specific rights they're charged with securing WITHOUT being able to punish those who violate them.

The rest of it is, in fact, Unconstitutional. Thanks for noticing.

 

[Avatar4321]

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.

Actually, it doesn't. The constutionality question is used by those who wish to defeat health insurance reform. If the public option is unconstitutional, then so is Medicare and Medicaid.

You're finally starting to catch on and recognize the corruption and over extension that has occured in our federal government.

 

[alan1]

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.

Actually, it doesn't. The constutionality question is used by those who wish to defeat health insurance reform. If the public option is unconstitutional, then so is Medicare and Medicaid.

Yes, yes they are.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

When something is UNCONSTITUTIONAL, does that mean that it is illegal?

Insofar as the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, with which all other laws must be in accord, I'd say that's a "yes".

 

[Cecilie1200]

This is why I support the inclusion of the specific part of the Constitution which grants congress the power to enact any bill. If they had to include that, then we would all be clear what is or is not Constitutional. If the government wants to do something that does not fit within the Constitution, then 'We, The People', have the right to decide whether or not to grant them that power.

I am for smaller federal government, and more power to individual states - because that way, 'We, The People' maintain closer control of what is done in our name.

It's not hard.

You make a good point.. And in a perfect world.. It would work.. But states don't have the money to go it alone and provide for their own people.. California is flat broke and you should know that.. A number of states are in the same boat.. Should the people suffer because their state is broke and can't afford to help anyone?? It also helps to remember that we are one nation and not 50 states.. We all need to work together.. United we stand, divided we fall..

So basically, your theory is that because some people are dumbasses who can't manage their own state governments, we should just make a bonfire out of the US Constitution? It's only the law when it's convenient?

Why should I suffer because THEY let their state go broke through mismanagement?

Don't get me wrong.. States have rights.. But the founders designed it so that the states would work under the umbrella of the federal government.. If you look at any state constitution, it will declare the U.S. constitution as the supreme law of the land.. That alone should tell you how it is supposed to work.. I agree that states should have the right to make and have local laws.. As long as they aren't unconstitutional.. No state can legalize slavery..

Misdirection. What does this have to do with anything?

As for healthcare?? If I am not mistaken, all states have some form of state healthcare plan often called Medicaid.. This reform would actually save the states money as now the medicaid people would fall into the public option.. It could come out of federal taxes instead of state taxes.. Which means that more could go toward education, or other infrastructure projects.. Yet for some reason conservatives are against it and make the arguement it isn't constitutional.. Which is a null issue..

Completely aside from whether or not I believe your pie-in-the-sky estimates of how splendiferous this plan will be, "But it's such a good idea!" does NOT make something Constitutional. Learn to separate "good" from "Constitutional".

The issue is whether or not you believe healthcare is a right or a privilege..

I think in this thread, the issue is whether or not health care is in the Constitution. Don't strain your eyes looking. It's not.

Fundamentally, it is a right as it would come under life, liberty and the persuit of happiness.. I know that isn't the constitution, but that is the philosophy of our founding fathers.. For someone to have life they need good healthcare..

Your "arguments" - for want of a better word - would have more weight if you would trouble yourself to READ the nation's historical documents before presuming to expound upon them. No one is interested in how you think the "Founding Fathers' philosophy" should be interpreted. What matters is what they ACTUALLY WROTE DOWN AND VOTED INTO LAW. Make a note of that somewhere.

Oh, by the way, the right to life means the right not to be actively killed. It doesn't mean the right to have your life medically prolonged at the expense of others. Duhhh.

Should the government provide that?? Why not??

Because I don't want to pay for it, for starters. In fact, the more you talk, the more vehemently I'm opposed to being forced to do ANYTHING to extend your time on Earth. If you want to hang around and be stupid, do it on your own dime.

Government on it's fundemental level is there to take care of the people it governs..

You have government confused with your babysitter.

It builds our highways, takes care of our parks, pays for 911 service and our police and fire departments.. All of those things take care of us.. Our military protects us.. What else is government to do if not provide us with healthcare??

Okay, now you're not only confusing types of governments, you're also confusing public concerns with private. I can't build my own Interstate highway system. I also have no use for YOUR healthcare, especially since I have no interest whatsoever in you hanging around. The first is public use, the second is private.

Rebuttlicans are just going to have to get over the idea that they are patriots when they constantly strip funding from our government.. They are not patriots and they are making our nation worse for themselves and everyone else..

Leftists are just going to have to get over the idea that they're thinking, intelligent adults and get jobs, move out of their moms' basements, and stop expecting the rest of us to coddle them forever.

And no, we don't make the nation worse for ourselves. Just you, and we like that. Get a job, loser.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Actually, it doesn't. The constutionality question is used by those who wish to defeat health insurance reform. If the public option is unconstitutional, then so is Medicare and Medicaid.

May I ask when it was that any of us said they WEREN'T? I haven't noticed anyone objecting to health care "reform" on Constitutional grounds championing Medicare and Medicaid as either wonderful programs OR shining examples of Constitutionality. Perhaps you could point me toward this phenomena?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Clause 18. The Congress shall have Power *** To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Here is one section of the constitution that would allow for a public option. Heck, it would even allow for a single payer system.

What part of "the foregoing Powers" did you have trouble with, doofus? It doesn't say, "Congress shall have power to make any other laws it cares to aside from the foregoing stuff". So you're STILL stuck with finding your precious public option in the listed powers, and it isn't there.

 

[Contumacious]

.. California is flat broke and you should know that.. A number of states are in the same boat.. Should the people suffer because their state is broke and can't afford to help anyone??l:

How many state functions are legal? How many are constitutionally authorized?

.