Historical Question - Has anyone ever tried to add a right to healthcare as a constitutional amend.?

[TNHarley]

Hi AndyT while I believe that is the correct process required
to expand jurisdiction of federal govt,
unfortunately it seems the very people who believe that health care is a right
tend not to be Constitutionalists, and don't believe they need to go through
this Constitutional step. Because it is such an engrained belief, advocates
believe this is a natural right, any laws obstructing it are violations of basic human rights,
and thus can be 'struck down' merely by voting by majority rule or overruling by courts.

The Constitutionalists who would support the process of passing
a Constitutional Amendment first tend NOT to believe that health care is
a human right. I believe this explains why the push for health care reform
took this direction: conservatives believe in limited govt where things must be Constitutional for govt to do them; liberals believe in using govt to establish the will of the people, so their beliefs and agenda are pushed through the political and legal system UNTIL they are proven and struck down as unconstitutional "after the fact."

The next best alternative I've run across, is someone suggested on another forum:
why not hold a vote in Congress BEFORE such innovative or contested legislation
is passed whether or not that bill is within the Constitutional powers and limits on federal govt.

That seems a logical way to approach this.

Had Congress first voted on whether ACA was even Constitutional or not,
it could be voted down. Then the advocates of ACA can take that vote NO
as a STEP that then calls for passing a Constitutional Amendment in order
to ADD that power to govt. The opponents can then express their opinion
more clearly that the DUTY itself is outside Constitutional powers of federal govt,
and THAT is the reason for objection (NOT because of the actual content
and purpose promoted as to provide more affordable accessible health care)

Obamacare was Constitutional

SCOTUS already declared it

They had to make it a tax. What you said, is about as far off as comparing banana DNA to a plant found on Nibiru

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Has someone already posted about this?

Not exactly what the OP asked the US has never invested in our own people.
And - would never be very popular because it would not enrich the 1%. We've already seen trump get a damn good start on what the Rs want - take safety away from Americans. Poison the water, the food, the air and tough shit finding a way to take care of your family.

The 28th Amendment Project

Giving all Americans the right to be born into a healthy environment that does not cause chronic disease.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Hi AndyT while I believe that is the correct process required
to expand jurisdiction of federal govt,
unfortunately it seems the very people who believe that health care is a right
tend not to be Constitutionalists, and don't believe they need to go through
this Constitutional step. Because it is such an engrained belief, advocates
believe this is a natural right, any laws obstructing it are violations of basic human rights,
and thus can be 'struck down' merely by voting by majority rule or overruling by courts.

The Constitutionalists who would support the process of passing
a Constitutional Amendment first tend NOT to believe that health care is
a human right. I believe this explains why the push for health care reform
took this direction: conservatives believe in limited govt where things must be Constitutional for govt to do them; liberals believe in using govt to establish the will of the people, so their beliefs and agenda are pushed through the political and legal system UNTIL they are proven and struck down as unconstitutional "after the fact."

The next best alternative I've run across, is someone suggested on another forum:
why not hold a vote in Congress BEFORE such innovative or contested legislation
is passed whether or not that bill is within the Constitutional powers and limits on federal govt.

That seems a logical way to approach this.

Had Congress first voted on whether ACA was even Constitutional or not,
it could be voted down. Then the advocates of ACA can take that vote NO
as a STEP that then calls for passing a Constitutional Amendment in order
to ADD that power to govt. The opponents can then express their opinion
more clearly that the DUTY itself is outside Constitutional powers of federal govt,
and THAT is the reason for objection (NOT because of the actual content
and purpose promoted as to provide more affordable accessible health care)

Obamacare was Constitutional

SCOTUS already declared it

And in spite of the constant sabotage, it is the law of the land.

 

[dblack]

Hi AndyT while I believe that is the correct process required
to expand jurisdiction of federal govt,
unfortunately it seems the very people who believe that health care is a right
tend not to be Constitutionalists, and don't believe they need to go through
this Constitutional step. Because it is such an engrained belief, advocates
believe this is a natural right, any laws obstructing it are violations of basic human rights,
and thus can be 'struck down' merely by voting by majority rule or overruling by courts.

The Constitutionalists who would support the process of passing
a Constitutional Amendment first tend NOT to believe that health care is
a human right. I believe this explains why the push for health care reform
took this direction: conservatives believe in limited govt where things must be Constitutional for govt to do them; liberals believe in using govt to establish the will of the people, so their beliefs and agenda are pushed through the political and legal system UNTIL they are proven and struck down as unconstitutional "after the fact."

The next best alternative I've run across, is someone suggested on another forum:
why not hold a vote in Congress BEFORE such innovative or contested legislation
is passed whether or not that bill is within the Constitutional powers and limits on federal govt.

That seems a logical way to approach this.

Had Congress first voted on whether ACA was even Constitutional or not,
it could be voted down. Then the advocates of ACA can take that vote NO
as a STEP that then calls for passing a Constitutional Amendment in order
to ADD that power to govt. The opponents can then express their opinion
more clearly that the DUTY itself is outside Constitutional powers of federal govt,
and THAT is the reason for objection (NOT because of the actual content
and purpose promoted as to provide more affordable accessible health care)

Obamacare was Constitutional

SCOTUS already declared it

And in spite of the constant sabotage, it is the law of the land.

The Republicans in Congress like the power that ACA gives them, just as much as much as the Democrats do. They'll never let go of it

 

[Spare_change]

Has someone already posted about this?

Not exactly what the OP asked the US has never invested in our own people.
And - would never be very popular because it would not enrich the 1%. We've already seen trump get a damn good start on what the Rs want - take safety away from Americans. Poison the water, the food, the air and tough shit finding a way to take care of your family.

The 28th Amendment Project

Giving all Americans the right to be born into a healthy environment that does not cause chronic disease.

Let's tell the truth -----

The 28th Amendment Project is simply another naked attempt by the liberal left to grab control of our society. Hiding behind a quasi-logical curtain, they want to impose an impossible set of criteria that can be molded into a cudgel against anyone who has the temerity to challenge their right to rule.

It ain't about health - it's about power.

 

[MadChemist]

Some advanced countries already have it

Our Declaration of Independence called out.......Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness

1. Healthcare is not used in there.
2. If you think it refers to healthcare, then you likely think you have a right to sex.
3. The Declaration of Independence is NOT the constitution.
4. Some have it at the federal level. Many don't.

 

[MadChemist]

Nothing is more important to We the People than our health

It is great for our General Welfare

Ho hum.....

The General Welfare clause of the U.S. Constitution only applies to those powers granted it (specifically enumerated) in the Constitution.

Obamacare isn't great for anyone, but you know that despite your little disingenuous piddle.

 

[MadChemist]

Dr. Ron Paul, the champion of the constitution, on why healthcare is not a right...

LOL...Ron Freak'n Paul???

The man who when asked about someone who didn't have healthcare replied....Let him die, he made his choice

Yes, Ron Paul.

A great man who understands how things work.

Some with healthcare skips a colonoscopy because he does not like the procedure. Never gets one even after 50. At 55 he is diagnosed with colon cancer. Now, his insurance is going to pay big money for his treatment and care. They do, but it's to far along. Insurance spends more time fighting other cancers and finally providing Hospice while he dies.

He made his choice. And he died.

 

[MadChemist]

Dr. Ron Paul, the champion of the constitution, on why healthcare is not a right...

LOL...Ron Freak'n Paul???

Yes. Someone who understands both the Constitution and health care.

The man who when asked about someone who didn't have healthcare replied....Let him die, he made his choice

That's an oft-repeated, but utterly untrue, claim. Shall we whip out the video and rub your nose in it once again?

Please share the video....I am about 60 posts into the board and it is already apparent who the hacks are.

 

[rightwinger]

Like most of Pauls rants...I ignore them

Well, freedom isn't popular. I understand.

.

Freedoms just another word for nothing left to lose

 

[rightwinger]

Dr. Ron Paul, the champion of the constitution, on why healthcare is not a right...

LOL...Ron Freak'n Paul???

The man who when asked about someone who didn't have healthcare replied....Let him die, he made his choice

Yes, Ron Paul.

A great man who understands how things work.

Some with healthcare skips a colonoscopy because he does not like the procedure. Never gets one even after 50. At 55 he is diagnosed with colon cancer. Now, his insurance is going to pay big money for his treatment and care. They do, but it's to far along. Insurance spends more time fighting other cancers and finally providing Hospice while he dies.

He made his choice. And he died.

Exactly why Ron Paul was laughed off the stage

A doctor who says....Let em die

Some doctor

 

[rightwinger]

Hi AndyT while I believe that is the correct process required
to expand jurisdiction of federal govt,
unfortunately it seems the very people who believe that health care is a right
tend not to be Constitutionalists, and don't believe they need to go through
this Constitutional step. Because it is such an engrained belief, advocates
believe this is a natural right, any laws obstructing it are violations of basic human rights,
and thus can be 'struck down' merely by voting by majority rule or overruling by courts.

The Constitutionalists who would support the process of passing
a Constitutional Amendment first tend NOT to believe that health care is
a human right. I believe this explains why the push for health care reform
took this direction: conservatives believe in limited govt where things must be Constitutional for govt to do them; liberals believe in using govt to establish the will of the people, so their beliefs and agenda are pushed through the political and legal system UNTIL they are proven and struck down as unconstitutional "after the fact."

The next best alternative I've run across, is someone suggested on another forum:
why not hold a vote in Congress BEFORE such innovative or contested legislation
is passed whether or not that bill is within the Constitutional powers and limits on federal govt.

That seems a logical way to approach this.

Had Congress first voted on whether ACA was even Constitutional or not,
it could be voted down. Then the advocates of ACA can take that vote NO
as a STEP that then calls for passing a Constitutional Amendment in order
to ADD that power to govt. The opponents can then express their opinion
more clearly that the DUTY itself is outside Constitutional powers of federal govt,
and THAT is the reason for objection (NOT because of the actual content
and purpose promoted as to provide more affordable accessible health care)

Obamacare was Constitutional

SCOTUS already declared it

They had to make it a tax. What you said, is about as far off as comparing banana DNA to a plant found on Nibiru

Obamacare was legal

Only the penalties were declared a tax

 

[TNHarley]

Hi AndyT while I believe that is the correct process required
to expand jurisdiction of federal govt,
unfortunately it seems the very people who believe that health care is a right
tend not to be Constitutionalists, and don't believe they need to go through
this Constitutional step. Because it is such an engrained belief, advocates
believe this is a natural right, any laws obstructing it are violations of basic human rights,
and thus can be 'struck down' merely by voting by majority rule or overruling by courts.

The Constitutionalists who would support the process of passing
a Constitutional Amendment first tend NOT to believe that health care is
a human right. I believe this explains why the push for health care reform
took this direction: conservatives believe in limited govt where things must be Constitutional for govt to do them; liberals believe in using govt to establish the will of the people, so their beliefs and agenda are pushed through the political and legal system UNTIL they are proven and struck down as unconstitutional "after the fact."

The next best alternative I've run across, is someone suggested on another forum:
why not hold a vote in Congress BEFORE such innovative or contested legislation
is passed whether or not that bill is within the Constitutional powers and limits on federal govt.

That seems a logical way to approach this.

Had Congress first voted on whether ACA was even Constitutional or not,
it could be voted down. Then the advocates of ACA can take that vote NO
as a STEP that then calls for passing a Constitutional Amendment in order
to ADD that power to govt. The opponents can then express their opinion
more clearly that the DUTY itself is outside Constitutional powers of federal govt,
and THAT is the reason for objection (NOT because of the actual content
and purpose promoted as to provide more affordable accessible health care)

Obamacare was Constitutional

SCOTUS already declared it

They had to make it a tax. What you said, is about as far off as comparing banana DNA to a plant found on Nibiru

Obamacare was legal

Only the penalties were declared a tax

 

[danielpalos]

I'm just curious. There's been thousands of ideas for amendments discussed, but has anyone ever in US history tried to go through the proposal/ratify method and actually amend the Constitution to add a right to health care? Thanks so much.

Health care is part of the general welfare. It is only about politics.

The right wing only complains when the poor may benefit.

Where Is The Outrage Over Corporate Welfare?

 

[dblack]

Dr. Ron Paul, the champion of the constitution, on why healthcare is not a right...

LOL...Ron Freak'n Paul???

The man who when asked about someone who didn't have healthcare replied....Let him die, he made his choice

Yes, Ron Paul.

A great man who understands how things work.

Some with healthcare skips a colonoscopy because he does not like the procedure. Never gets one even after 50. At 55 he is diagnosed with colon cancer. Now, his insurance is going to pay big money for his treatment and care. They do, but it's to far along. Insurance spends more time fighting other cancers and finally providing Hospice while he dies.

He made his choice. And he died.

Exactly why Ron Paul was laughed off the stage

Paul was laughed off the stage for the same reason that Trump was elected.

 

[danielpalos]

Hi AndyT while I believe that is the correct process required
to expand jurisdiction of federal govt,
unfortunately it seems the very people who believe that health care is a right
tend not to be Constitutionalists, and don't believe they need to go through
this Constitutional step. Because it is such an engrained belief, advocates
believe this is a natural right, any laws obstructing it are violations of basic human rights,
and thus can be 'struck down' merely by voting by majority rule or overruling by courts.

The Constitutionalists who would support the process of passing
a Constitutional Amendment first tend NOT to believe that health care is
a human right. I believe this explains why the push for health care reform
took this direction: conservatives believe in limited govt where things must be Constitutional for govt to do them; liberals believe in using govt to establish the will of the people, so their beliefs and agenda are pushed through the political and legal system UNTIL they are proven and struck down as unconstitutional "after the fact."

The next best alternative I've run across, is someone suggested on another forum:
why not hold a vote in Congress BEFORE such innovative or contested legislation
is passed whether or not that bill is within the Constitutional powers and limits on federal govt.

That seems a logical way to approach this.

Had Congress first voted on whether ACA was even Constitutional or not,
it could be voted down. Then the advocates of ACA can take that vote NO
as a STEP that then calls for passing a Constitutional Amendment in order
to ADD that power to govt. The opponents can then express their opinion
more clearly that the DUTY itself is outside Constitutional powers of federal govt,
and THAT is the reason for objection (NOT because of the actual content
and purpose promoted as to provide more affordable accessible health care)

Providing for the general welfare is in our Constitution. Providing for the general warfare is not.

Guess what the right wing complains about most, especially if the poor may receive some benefit.

 

[TNHarley]

I'm just curious. There's been thousands of ideas for amendments discussed, but has anyone ever in US history tried to go through the proposal/ratify method and actually amend the Constitution to add a right to health care? Thanks so much.

Health care is part of the general welfare. It is only about politics.

The right wing only complains when the poor may benefit.

Where Is The Outrage Over Corporate Welfare?

our current healthcare system doesnt fit the criteria of a "general welfare"

 

[Dale Smith]

Hi AndyT while I believe that is the correct process required
to expand jurisdiction of federal govt,
unfortunately it seems the very people who believe that health care is a right
tend not to be Constitutionalists, and don't believe they need to go through
this Constitutional step. Because it is such an engrained belief, advocates
believe this is a natural right, any laws obstructing it are violations of basic human rights,
and thus can be 'struck down' merely by voting by majority rule or overruling by courts.

The Constitutionalists who would support the process of passing
a Constitutional Amendment first tend NOT to believe that health care is
a human right. I believe this explains why the push for health care reform
took this direction: conservatives believe in limited govt where things must be Constitutional for govt to do them; liberals believe in using govt to establish the will of the people, so their beliefs and agenda are pushed through the political and legal system UNTIL they are proven and struck down as unconstitutional "after the fact."

The next best alternative I've run across, is someone suggested on another forum:
why not hold a vote in Congress BEFORE such innovative or contested legislation
is passed whether or not that bill is within the Constitutional powers and limits on federal govt.

That seems a logical way to approach this.

Had Congress first voted on whether ACA was even Constitutional or not,
it could be voted down. Then the advocates of ACA can take that vote NO
as a STEP that then calls for passing a Constitutional Amendment in order
to ADD that power to govt. The opponents can then express their opinion
more clearly that the DUTY itself is outside Constitutional powers of federal govt,
and THAT is the reason for objection (NOT because of the actual content
and purpose promoted as to provide more affordable accessible health care)

Providing for the general welfare is in our Constitution. Providing for the general warfare is not.

Guess what the right wing complains about most, especially if the poor may receive some benefit.

As our hospitals are overrun with illegals squirting out anchor babies and come over for treatment that their own government will not provide for them? Somehow it is MY responsibility to pay more in taxes and higher premiums to subsidize those that abuse the system. You really are a naive little fuckwad.......probably one of those that suck off the public teat as well.

 

[rightwinger]

Hi AndyT while I believe that is the correct process required
to expand jurisdiction of federal govt,
unfortunately it seems the very people who believe that health care is a right
tend not to be Constitutionalists, and don't believe they need to go through
this Constitutional step. Because it is such an engrained belief, advocates
believe this is a natural right, any laws obstructing it are violations of basic human rights,
and thus can be 'struck down' merely by voting by majority rule or overruling by courts.

The Constitutionalists who would support the process of passing
a Constitutional Amendment first tend NOT to believe that health care is
a human right. I believe this explains why the push for health care reform
took this direction: conservatives believe in limited govt where things must be Constitutional for govt to do them; liberals believe in using govt to establish the will of the people, so their beliefs and agenda are pushed through the political and legal system UNTIL they are proven and struck down as unconstitutional "after the fact."

The next best alternative I've run across, is someone suggested on another forum:
why not hold a vote in Congress BEFORE such innovative or contested legislation
is passed whether or not that bill is within the Constitutional powers and limits on federal govt.

That seems a logical way to approach this.

Had Congress first voted on whether ACA was even Constitutional or not,
it could be voted down. Then the advocates of ACA can take that vote NO
as a STEP that then calls for passing a Constitutional Amendment in order
to ADD that power to govt. The opponents can then express their opinion
more clearly that the DUTY itself is outside Constitutional powers of federal govt,
and THAT is the reason for objection (NOT because of the actual content
and purpose promoted as to provide more affordable accessible health care)

Obamacare was Constitutional

SCOTUS already declared it

They had to make it a tax. What you said, is about as far off as comparing banana DNA to a plant found on Nibiru

Obamacare was legal

Only the penalties were declared a tax

Its true
Healthcare exchanges are perfectly legal.

 

[rightwinger]

Hi AndyT while I believe that is the correct process required
to expand jurisdiction of federal govt,
unfortunately it seems the very people who believe that health care is a right
tend not to be Constitutionalists, and don't believe they need to go through
this Constitutional step. Because it is such an engrained belief, advocates
believe this is a natural right, any laws obstructing it are violations of basic human rights,
and thus can be 'struck down' merely by voting by majority rule or overruling by courts.

The Constitutionalists who would support the process of passing
a Constitutional Amendment first tend NOT to believe that health care is
a human right. I believe this explains why the push for health care reform
took this direction: conservatives believe in limited govt where things must be Constitutional for govt to do them; liberals believe in using govt to establish the will of the people, so their beliefs and agenda are pushed through the political and legal system UNTIL they are proven and struck down as unconstitutional "after the fact."

The next best alternative I've run across, is someone suggested on another forum:
why not hold a vote in Congress BEFORE such innovative or contested legislation
is passed whether or not that bill is within the Constitutional powers and limits on federal govt.

That seems a logical way to approach this.

Had Congress first voted on whether ACA was even Constitutional or not,
it could be voted down. Then the advocates of ACA can take that vote NO
as a STEP that then calls for passing a Constitutional Amendment in order
to ADD that power to govt. The opponents can then express their opinion
more clearly that the DUTY itself is outside Constitutional powers of federal govt,
and THAT is the reason for objection (NOT because of the actual content
and purpose promoted as to provide more affordable accessible health care)

Providing for the general welfare is in our Constitution. Providing for the general warfare is not.

Guess what the right wing complains about most, especially if the poor may receive some benefit.

As our hospitals are overrun with illegals squirting out anchor babies and come over for treatment that their own government will not provide for them? Somehow it is MY responsibility to pay more in taxes and higher premiums to subsidize those that abuse the system. You really are a naive little fuckwad.......probably one of those that suck off the public teat as well.

I hear those illegals are responsible for Chem Trails