|
Marc2b -> RE: I found It! I found it!! Where healthcare is a "Right" in the US... (5/15/2009 1:09:59 PM)
|
quote:
So you cannot make a case that a single payer system does not promote the general welfare. You do make an admirable attempt at erecting some strawman about ensuring individual welfare but that isn't what the discussion was supposed to be about.
See. I was right. I knew it was preordained that it wouldn’t cut it with you.
quote:
The US Constitution says one of the jobs of the federal government is to promote the general welfare. The billions of dollars of unnecessary costs, to private individuals, businesses and various levels of government (resulting in higher taxes), indicates that the present system is detrimental to the general welfare of the nation. So it is incumbent on the federal government to take some action. We've tried tweaking the laws and regulations that govern the for profit health insurance industry and the number of un and under insured continues to grow, both in reals numbers and as percent of the general population. This is a particular problem with children which obviously has knock on effects that will last for decades.
So the current system is broken and tweaking it has not improved the situation. A number of possibilities exist. One would be to ban for profit companies from selling health insurance, IOW return the US to a system that worked fairly well. Another would be to institute a single payer federal system, with the benefit of not directly forcing anyone out of business. Finally we could actually nationalize health care, the feds own the hospitals and employ the docs etc., which sounds like a nightmare.
Therefore the single payer system has the advantage of not legislating any companies out of business and keeps providers essentially unchanged while likely greatly simplifying many aspects of the health care delivery system and the federal government would be fulfilling one of its basic roles.
Once again: the Federal Government does not have the authority. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that the Federal Government has any authority over our health care – therefore it has no such authority. You are doing exactly what I knew you would do – using the phrase General Welfare as a cheap excuse to expand the power of the Federal Government over the people. With this “logic” the Federal Government can do anything it wants. With this “logic” it is perfectly okay to torture terrorist suspects. After all, protecting the nation from terrorist attack could be considered part of the general welfare. You could argue that it is in the nation’s general welfare to protect our children from perverts so why wait until after a crime happens, why not just ban all that perverted material (you know, like BDSM websites) that gives people naughty ideas in the first place? It is in the nation’s general welfare that people eat right and exercise regularly so why not just pass laws banning certain foods and requiring people to walk a mile a day?
The phrase “promote the general welfare” is not a loop hole for the Federal Government to micromanage the live of citizens. It is located in the Preamble of the Constitution and its purpose is to explain one of the reasons why the Constitution was written. In other words, the purpose of the constitution itself is to promote the general welfare (as well as establish justice, promote domestic tranquility, etc).
The irony of all this is that if we actually obeyed the Constitution and used the system of powers we have it would turn out much better. As I said earlier, the State governments are perfectly within their rights to institute State wide health insurance if they want to. The added benefit is that States which are successful will be examples to the State that are not successful which can then change their systems if they want to. Another benefit is that it is easier to implement change at the State and local level than it is at the Federal level. Yet another benefit is that if somebody doesn’t like the way things are run in their State – and they are the minority opinion and thus are unlikely to effect change – they have forty-nine other States to choose from.
One size does not fit all yet so many people, whenever they perceive a problem, want to go straight to the top (regardless of whether the Constitution says they can or not) and impose a one size fits all “solution.” That is incompatible with the concept of freedom.
|
|
|
|
