Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics' started by KenH, Mar 13, 2008.
No matter what kind of plan they come up with it is going to cost everyone something. Whether it be some out of pocket expenses or higher taxes. The problem is that most Americans want "free" health care and that isnt going to happen. I have an excellent medical plan where I work. I have three options to choose from and I take the middle of the three. It cost $800 a month and I pay half and my employer pays half. How much do you think the average American is willing to shell out for their care? Because it aint gonna be "free". Some of my co-workers opt out of the company paid plan because they dont think they should have to pay anything and I think that is irresponsible.
Any program with regards to health care handled at the federal level is unconstitutional. The framers of the constitution intended for the federal government to be limited.
Herein lies most of the health care problems; as well as education, immigration, energy, etc., etc.!!
If gov't stuck to what is constitutional, we would have a lot less problems in our society.
Thanks to FDR, we started down the socialistic path, and the hill gets steeper every day.
The need for universal health care it the most important issue this election, in my opinion.
I am surprised that no one brought up medicare and medicaid. Fine examples of government run health care.
Further governmental involvement in health care is not the answer. Everyone always uses Canada as an example - but if you want something closer to home (if America is your home), look what a lovely job the State of TX has done with Workers' Compensation. Rates are down, alright, but there are so few doctors who will take Workers' Compensation cases (due to the regulations) that it has caused an even worse crisis than we had to begin with.
Free medical coverage for everyone isn't the answer, either - I have medical insurance, my employer pays 100% of the premium, and I'm fairly healthy. Just the amount that I pay on deductibles/co-pays each year would put non-working people into shock!
But reading the Preamble to the Constitution . . .
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
One could argue that healthcare IS a legitimate function of government, falling under providing for the general welfare of the people.
Those who have jobs with good health coverage available forget how easy it is to lose that job in today's global economy. Sure, you can buy COBRA for a time, but without a job, who could afford that? Tying health care to one's employment is a failed system, and IMO should be tied to us all being one, big insured group plan...that group being U.S. Citizens.
James Madison clearly disagreed with this idea when he vetoed the Federal Public works Bill. In his explanation of his decision he said:
"To refer the power in question to the clause "to provide for common defense and general welfare" would be contrary to the established and consistent rules of interpretation, as rendering the special and careful enumeration of powers which follow the clause nugatory and improper. Such a view of the Constitution would have the effect of giving to Congress a general power of legislation instead of the defined and limited one hitherto understood to belong to them, the terms "common defense and general welfare" embracing every object and act within the purview of a legislative trust. It would have the effect of subjecting both the Constitution and laws of the several States in all cases not specifically exempted to be superseded by laws of Congress, it being expressly declared "that the Constitution of the United States and laws made in pursuance thereof shall be the supreme law of the land, and the judges of every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding." Such a view of the Constitution, finally, would have the effect of excluding the judicial authority of the United States from its participation in guarding the boundary between the legislative powers of the General and the State Governments, inasmuch as questions relating to the general welfare, being questions of policy and expediency, are unsusceptible of judicial cognizance and decision."
I have been in both situations and have acquired large medicals bill as a result. Being a Pastor does not mean you always get medical coverage. However, a legitimate argument could be made to establish a broad health care plan at the state level provided it does not conflict with that states constitution.
No one in this thread has done so but all the accusations of the Presidents excessive spending (while accurate) address only a portion of the real reason this country is in debt. Our debt problems began in the 30's with the knowing and illegal usurpation of our constitution through the "New Deal". James Madison would have vetoed it.
Without arguing the merits of such a health care program at any level, what should be without question here is that provisions by any means by way of the collecting of "taxes" and redistributing that wealth can more efficiently be handled at the state level. The result of this would be less government agents to provide income for ( meaning those monies would actually go to the constituents), less bureaucracy, and better stewardship. Handling these situations at the state level will IMO provide better services such as more product for the money, less time consuming, and better resolution handling for mistakes. The farther away the responsibilities get from us the harder it is to get the job done.
Been there, done that. When I got layed off in Pa. and moved to Fla. I went six months w/o health care. I am still paying off credit cards used to pay off medical bills incurred because my wife had to have surgery during the time I was without insurance. Depleted all my ysavings from selling my house. Cashed in my IRAs and 401k. But thats life. God saw us through and I met my responsibilities and didnt pass the cost on to all of you.
This is true and that system is incapable of lasting a whole lot longer.
Yes and we have gotten to the point where employers are expected to provide health care and may even be mandated if Clinton gets in. Where is that in the Constitution?
FTR, health care is not tied to one's employment. Anyone can get health care, as I know from buying my own.
Some employers offer health care as a part of the compensation package. Other employers offer cash only as the compensation package. So some pay their company to buy it for them, and others buy it for themselves.
First, the preamble to the constitution has no legal standing. It is common practice these days to put a lying title to the laws.
Second, we are goverened by secret signing statements and secret executive orders, not the constitution or congress.
Third, been that way at least since Lincoln.
The greater problem is the two-tier health system. Group plans are significantly better than individual plans.
The price of a group plan is usually better, but the coverage is generally the same, given equal plans. But even this isn't really a problem.
Simple economics. Which is why the reforms that have been shot down by this congress that would allow persons to pool together (through myriad ways) to buy group coverage in a free market sense has harmed average Americans.
BTW, Medicare is tied to employment
And just one more thought - the Veterans Admin is a case study of govt run healthcare. Think about the garbage that went on at Walter Reed last year and the deteriorating conditions/service. Now, anyone else ready to blindly accept Big Brother's medicine?
True, generally because if you are employed you can't get it, even though you pay for it.
The term "General Welfare" is also used in Title 1 section 8.
And is unbearably strained beyond the founders' intent, so as to justify all manner of govt action.