quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b

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:

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. 

quote:

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. 

quote:

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?

quote:

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?

quote:

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).

quote:

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.

quote:

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.

quote:

It doesn't cut it when you try and argue "ensure individual welfare" when the deiscussion was "promote the general welfare". What you did is called erecting a strawman.

quote:

Based on this literalist interpretation of the Constitution, the USAF is unconstitutional.

quote:

violates the 8th amendment.

quote:

Guess you missed th e1st amendment.

quote:

Requiring exercise would violate a whole host of rights both explicit and implicit in the Constitution. Some 'foods' are banned by the federal government quite legally under regulation of interstate trade, import control and promoting the general welfare as well as obeying ratified treaties.

quote:

I've read the federalist papers and a large amount of Madison and Hamilton's collected writings on the subject. They meant the preamble, which they wrote, to describe the basic roles of the federal government.

quote:

Of course the laws preventing for profit health insurance were state level laws, that's the reason Blue Cross is a seperate corporation in each state. The major problem at this point for a state to go single payer it would almost certainly be faced by a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the law on regulation of interstate trade grounds which the state might win but would be a major expense. No such suit is possible if the feds do it.

quote:

It's not incompatible with actual freedom. It took the SCOTUS and the 14th amendment to get rid of institutional racism.

quote:

Notice that a single payer system won't restict you in any way. No one is talking about single payer making private insurance illegal so if you can't bear getting the same health care as everyone else you will be free to pay for it yourself and get whatever care you feel will make you most free.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b

quote:

Of course the laws preventing for profit health insurance were state level laws, that's the reason Blue Cross is a seperate corporation in each state. The major problem at this point for a state to go single payer it would almost certainly be faced by a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the law on regulation of interstate trade grounds which the state might win but would be a major expense. No such suit is possible if the feds do it.

 

Emphasis mine.  That’s the point.  You say that like it is a good thing.  It is not.  Any government having unlimited power to impose its will unchecked is not a good thing. 

quote:

quote:

It's not incompatible with actual freedom. It took the SCOTUS and the 14th amendment to get rid of institutional racism.

 

Oh right.  I forgot.  The fourteenth amendment eliminated institutional racism.  Black Americans never had any of their rights violated after that. 

quote:

That aside, I am not arguing that the federal government does not have it’s legitimate role and powers.  I am not arguing that there are not some problems best addressed at the federal level.  I am arguing that every problem is not a problem for the federal government to solve because:

A) It doesn't have the authority to adress some problems.

B) Not everbody has the same ideas as to what is a problem and what is not.

C) Some problems can't be solved, we can only accept trade offs. 

quote:

I already made the point which you conveniently ignored that health care for all isn't about individual welfare exclusively but that it does promote the general welfare. You pretending it doesn't is bizarre.

quote:

The fact is you are making wild claims about the 10th amendment which aren't backed up by 220 years of jurisprudence on the issue.

quote:

As I pointed out you made claims, more strawmen, that because you assert something promotes the general welfare it would be constitutional.

quote:

I point out the actual real reasons that you strawmen aren't real arguments and you tried to handwave them away. That's not how it works.

quote:

The feds can't be sued on the grounds that they can't regulate interstate trade because it is a power explicitly granted to them by the Constitution. You need to make up your mind, are you in favor of the US Constitution or not?

quote:

Not what I said. I sdaid it took action from the very top of the federal government to stop institutionalized racism. The states had had 100 years to eliminate it and they hadn't done it and in many cases the Jim Crowe laws were being strenghthened. That's what happens when you leave things to the states.

quote:

But in this case the federal government does have the authority to address this issue.

quote:

Even if a compulsory single payer system was unconstitutional, and it probably would be, a volunatary single payer system, as all the plans under consideration are, is definitely not unconstitutional.

quote:

Anybody who claims more than 1 in 4 people in this country unable to access decent health care isn't a problem is either lying or woefully uninformed.

quote:

This problem can be quite easily solved.

quote:

 We are the only major nation in the first world that hasn't solved this problem decades ago.

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b

quote:

Of course the laws preventing for profit health insurance were state level laws, that's the reason Blue Cross is a seperate corporation in each state. The major problem at this point for a state to go single payer it would almost certainly be faced by a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the law on regulation of interstate trade grounds which the state might win but would be a major expense. No such suit is possible if the feds do it.

 

Emphasis mine.  That’s the point.  You say that like it is a good thing.  It is not.  Any government having unlimited power to impose its will unchecked is not a good thing. 

The feds can't be sued on the grounds that they can't regulate interstate trade because it is a power explicitly granted to them by the Constitution. You need to make up your mind, are you in favor of the US Constitution or not?

quote:

And now you want to add ever more things they can’t be sued over thus limiting the ability of the people to fight back against the power of government.  My mind is made up: I am against expanding the power of government beyond the limited powers it is allowed in the Constitution.  I am the one in favor of the Constitution.  You are the one arguing that it should be violated.

quote:

C) Some problems can't be solved, we can only accept trade offs. 

quote:

This problem can be quite easily solved. We are the only major nation in the first world that hasn't solved this problem decades ago.

quote:

As to whether or not other nations have solved this problem - that is debatable.  It is also irrelevant.

quote:

So once more the feds can't be sued over whether they have the power to regulate interstate trade. It is a power explicitly granted the federal government. Your response is at best a non sequitur and appears to be an attempt to deceive.

quote:

When you claim something can't be solved pointing out that the problem has been solved is always relevant.

quote:

As to the rest the best I can say is your interpretation of the 10th amendment is not the interpretation of it made by any SCOTUS.

quote:

Also I find the idea that you truly think a voluntary single payer health insurance plan run by the federal government is unconstitutional is completely nonsensical. There are any number of federal agencies and federally chartered corporations doing that sort of thing right now and they've survived all court challenges.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b
Not when your solution would be illegal.  How other nations conduct their affairs has no bearing on whether a particular idea is Constitutional or not.  I really don’t give a shit whether Canada or Britain or whoever has a national health plan and whether it works or not.  The first question we have to ask is:  is a national healthcare plan for the United States Constitutional.  The answer to that question is: no.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b
That should end the debate but alas...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b
Again, just because they have survived court challenges doesn’t make them right.

quote:

In your opinion, you mean. An opinion which you have thus far been unable to support.

quote:

You keep claiming that a national health care program is unconstitutional because it promotes individual welfare, rather than the general welfare.

quote:

Can you name one single example of something that would promote the general welfare (and thus be constitutional in your eyes), but does not promote individual welfare (and thus be unconstitutional in your opinion)?

quote:

because the more you bang away at this ludicrous and convoluted distinction that only you seem to be able to see, the more it looks like you're just making up whatever you need to make up to validate the opinion you want to hold.

quote:

It might end the debate if you could make a persuasive argument to back up your assertion,

quote:

but as is often the case, you do not. You simply keep repeating the assertion, and declare the argument over because you believe your asseetions to be self-evident.

quote:

  No matter how many times people point out the holes in your logic, you just keep repeating the same argument and insisting that there are no holes. It's a very strange way of arguing, and really never seems to facilitate any sort of forward progress for anyone participating in the discussion.

quote:

Perhaps not, but seeing as how the courts are the final arbiter of the law and the constitution, it does make them legal and constitutional.

quote:

I think you should make up your mind what your argument is going to be. Earlier in your post, you argued that a federal health care program was illegal and unconsititutional. Now in the same post, you're acknowledging that the issue is not whether something is legal and constitutional, but whether it is right or wrong. You should perhaps pick one and stick with it, so people know what it is they're arguing against. Your arguments are always very confusing, because you just go in circles like this.

quote:

As panda has already pointed out you're trying to have your cake and eat it too. By definition things are unconstitutional if the SCOTUS says so. You and I may have opinions but since yours are not based on existing precedent I have trouble giving them any credence. Also you can't keep arguing the Constitution and then when you're nailed on that run over to some vague definition of "right" based on your apparent libertarian belief system.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b

quote:

As panda has already pointed out you're trying to have your cake and eat it too. By definition things are unconstitutional if the SCOTUS says so. You and I may have opinions but since yours are not based on existing precedent I have trouble giving them any credence. Also you can't keep arguing the Constitution and then when you're nailed on that run over to some vague definition of "right" based on your apparent libertarian belief system.

As I have already pointed out to panda - I am under no obligation to agree with every decision the Supreme Court makes.

quote:

No, you're not obligated to agree but you are obligated to not say something is unconstitutional or vice versa if the Supreme Court has ruled the other way.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b

quote:

No, you're not obligated to agree but you are obligated to not say something is unconstitutional or vice versa if the Supreme Court has ruled the other way.

Bullshit.

Pure, one hundred percent, unadulterated bullshit.

If people are not allowed to voice their disagreement then there is no such thing as freedom of speech.

Do you really, honestly, believe that once the Supreme Court has ruled on a matter – any matter – that those who disagree must hence forth speak no more on the subject?  The Supreme Court once ruled in the Dred Scott case that slaves were not legal persons.  Should those who disagreed simply had shrugged their shoulders and said, “oh well, I guess that’s that,” and said no more?

The Supreme Court once ruled that segregation was legal.  If Thurgood Marshall followed your advice there would have been no Brown v. Education decision overturning that previous ruling.  You would be okay with that?

And what about the aforementioned Supreme Court rulings during the Presidential Election of 2000?  I’ve seen more than person criticize those rulings on these boards.  Are you claiming they must now voice agreement with those rulings?

Sorry DomKen but whether you like it or not I, and three hundred million other Americans, have the God given (“are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights”), Constitutionally protected ("Congress shall make no law…"), right to free speech.

If you don’t like that… too damn bad.

quote:

ORIGINAL: servantforuse

Not only will they decide what you are entitled to, they will decide when you can see a Dr. How often you can see a Dr. And who that Dr. will be. When the Federal govt. starts paying the bills, they will take control of your medical history and your private files...

quote:

Bullshit. I didn't say anything about accepting a ruling nor did I say anything about not working to change a ruling but once a ruling is made it defines what is and is not constitutional until such time as that ruling is overturned which has happened so rarely that you were able to name one of the very few cases where it happened.

Your faux outrage and intentional misinterpretations of clear statements is tiresome.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b

quote:

Bullshit. I didn't say anything about accepting a ruling nor did I say anything about not working to change a ruling but once a ruling is made it defines what is and is not constitutional until such time as that ruling is overturned which has happened so rarely that you were able to name one of the very few cases where it happened.

Your faux outrage and intentional misinterpretations of clear statements is tiresome.

I think the only thing you find tiresome is that somebody actually has the audacity to disagree with you and not back down from it.  You stated in no uncertain terms that I am “obligated to not say something is unconstitutional or vice versa if the Supreme Court has ruled the other way.”  If that is not telling me that I don’t have the right to free speech – that I don’t have the right to dissent - then what the hell are you saying?   

quote:

Exactly what I wrote. Nothing more and nothing less. Never put words in someone else's mouth.

quote:

I mean exactly what I said. I disagree with the SCOTUS ruling in the DC gun case but I don't argue that the DC law was constutional or the SCOTUS interpretation is unconstitutional.

You keep claiming things are unconstitutional even though we have mountains of precedent making clear that those things are constitutional. You may not like it, I may not as well in some cases, but to claim those things are unconstitutional is a misuse of the term.