The federal government is expressed in this fashion: “Enumerated in Article One, Section 8, these include the powers to levy and collect taxes, provide for common defense and promote the pursuit of liberty; to coin money and regulate its value; provide for punishment for counterfeiting; establish post offices and roads, promote progress of science by issuing patents, create federal courts inferior to the Supreme Court, define and punish piracies and felonies, declare war, raise and support armies, provide and maintain a navy, make rules for the regulation of land and naval forces, provide for, arm, and discipline the militia, exercise exclusive legislation in the District of Columbia, and make laws necessary and proper to execute the powers of the Congress.”
All powers not expressly assigned to the federal government are reserved to the states or to the people.”
Doctors were making mistakes in up to 15 per cent of cases because they were too quick to judge patients’ symptoms, they said, while others were reluctant to ask more senior colleagues for help.
While in most cases the misdiagnosis did not result in the patient suffering serious harm, a sizeable number of the millions of NHS patients were likely to suffer significant health problems as a result, according to figures. It was said that the number of misdiagnoses was “just the tip of the iceberg”, with many people still reluctant to report mistakes by their doctors.
I saw a poll today that said more than 80% of Americans think health care is a RIGHT…….
I guess it goes along with driving a car, huh?
No, thanks….no DMV style healthcare for me. Unless they force us to. Which they will.
DOWN with big gov’t…down with the lies. And they keep on a’comin’…….
The current Baccus bill is the Big Insurance wetdream. No public option, fines for not buying insurance, and no real changes as far as pre-existing conditions or retroactive policy cancellation until 2013!
Basically, they get 47,000,000 new customers and Uncle Sugar pays for it. Just like the bank bailout the big money boys ride in and scoop up all the money and you and I get it in the keester. It’s the Republican way. Turning millionares into billionares at the expense of the middle class while deflecting blame to the “lazy” poor people.
Z said: “I saw a poll today that said more than 80% of Americans think health care is a RIGHT…”
Nope. It’s not, no matter WHAT people think. driving a car isn’t a right either. Its a privelege. But, if you want to drive, you have to pay to do it. Pay to play.
Tim’s point is right on: the Baucus bill is as worthless as the paper its written on. Probably worth LESS, even. Whatever, it sure isn’t the solution to the health care dilemma.
“Democratic Senator Max Baucus introduced his health care plan this week, to make it mandatory to get health insurance and … you would fine people if you didn’t get it. And if you didn’t pay the fine, you’d go to jail. But the good news is, once you’re in jail, free health care!” –Jay Leno
Two, or three, good reasons not support it.
1. It’s unconstitutional.
2. It’s unworkable.
3. The reason Tim gives. Except this “Republican Way” is being foisted by the so-called Party of the Little Guy.
I do not think it is unconstitutional. In the preamble it mentions both “insure domestic tranquility” and “promote the general welfare”
Article 1, Section 8.
Congress shall have the power
To lay taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States…
I am no lawyer, but healthcare for US citizens would definately promote the general welfare.
I agree with SR that the current bill is, if not unworkable, certainly problematic.
Sr is also right when he says this garbage is being foisted on us by the Democratic Party. It’s like they are trying to to Republican the Republicans to get them to go along with it. Now that they have said no (and let’s face it, there will refuse to participate in ANY bi-partisan effort on anything until they lose even more seats in 2010)they can go back to the drawing board and draft a bill that actually tries to solve this problem without Republican support. If it is a popular program and Republicans voted against it, they are dogmeat in 2010. If they draft something that everybody hates and raises taxes and the debt, then maybe things will work out in favor for Republicans. The sad thing to me is that the Republicans seem to care more about their party than the country.
Tim: “public option.” Why? Just tell me: why would you want the Government even reMOTEly associated with life and death decisions regarding your personal health?
BZ
Madison, Federalist 41:
“Some who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution, on the language in which it is defined. It has been urged and echoed that the power “to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,” amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction.
Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms “to raise money for the general welfare.”
But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon? If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded as to give meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions be denied any signification whatsoever? For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity, which, as we are reduced to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection or on the authors of the Constitution, we must take the liberty of supposing had not its origin with the latter.”
The full general welfare for all individuals is held by the people. The subset of the general welfare for the Nation, as a whole, is granted to the federal government. It is as that whole Congress must address its power, otherwise it usurps the more general retained by the people. Otherwise Congress could do ANYTHING under the general welfare clause. Therefore it is a limited power, not unlimited, and its limitations are for the Nation as a whole, not per individual. Per individual is unlimited and retained by the people, otherwise you have no liberty at all.
AJ- I find nothing in your quote that would preclude healthcare for Americans. There are many other functions performed by government that are not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution or Federalist Papers.
BZ- Government makes life and death dicisions for each of us all of the time. Do you think a private insurance company would be any more generous? Besides, I have insurance and probably would not participate unless the PUBLIC OPTION was the better plan. So if the PUBLIC OPTION sucked, I would not use it. Other people may not have the choices that middle class Americans like ourselves have. If you can pay, you will be taken care of, no?
BZ, I don’t understand why you hate government and yet make your living working for the government. Why not be a private security consultant? Wouldn’t that be more rewarding?
Government is needed. I for one would not have to hire my own security, fire brigade, etc. Highways would be like the Road Warrior. Society would be reduced to tribalism and the vendetta would replace the rule of law. It is ironic that fierce anti-government types quote laws. Laws would not exist if government did not exist first.
Tim brings up valid points in the sense of the deeper debate, which is whether health care is a fundamental right. At this point, I don’t think it wise to get caught up in paradigms from the past. We are in a new century and I would like to see government emphasize the WILL of the people, which is has NOT been doing for quite some time.
With that said, the states should figure out how to care for their citizens in this area because all his plan will do is add to the federal debt and basically cost shift and I’ll trip when we will be worrying about its solvency in twenty years or so.
Health care isn’t a right. Rights confer no obligation on anyone else. Someone has to pay for Obamacare.
Guess who.
By calling it a right they are basically saying they have a right to reach in to another persons wallet.
Why not be a private security consultant? Wouldn’t that be more rewarding?
******************
Just like me, he’s too old, BUT, Xe is hiring, and I know the guys to talk to…
Tim, government IS needed, but OPPRESSIVE government is an entirely different matter, and what we have now is not nearly as oppressive as what the bastards have planned if they can ever take away the guns!
Man if you guys had a clue, you’d all be dangerous.
Tim – Healthcare is an exercise of liberty, not a right. You cannot tell anyone how to exercise their liberty, only restrict it via law so as not to harm society. Government that can mandate how you use your liberty is tyrannical: that is the definition of tyrannical government.
As Madison points out the Constitution does not give that ability to the federal government: the people retain all rights and liberty save those few handed over to government. Thus the negative liberty of Personal Warfare is given to the federal government to administer under Art. I, Sec. 8 under the Letters language. We agree to allow that administration for the protection of all citizens. That does not, however, give up the positive liberty of the right to self-defense, which is retained by the people. To construe health care as something that is given up requires it explicitly, like the Letters language. If you try to expand ‘general welfare’ to include health care, then what is the protection against government denying you health care? That is what happens when individual liberty is placed into the government fold – government can deny you exercise of your liberty as you see fit.
Where is the end to expansion of ‘general welfare’ if it can tell you that you must have health care? Would it be fine to have government determine which doctor you saw? When you see them? For how long? Determine which treatment you must have? And what, exactly, do you do if government says that you cannot have treatment because you would cost too much to society to keep alive? At that point government truly is deciding who is born, who dies and when. That is the door opened by that expansion. It would be very strange if that was the meaning of the Constitution as it was meant to preserve liberty for the people and restrict government from becoming tyrannical.
What is the restriction on ‘general welfare’ if it is NOT limited to the Nation as a whole and not applied to individuals? That would be the equivalent of saying that the power to mint currency then allows government to deny some people currency and give it only to those it selects as individuals. That would be tyrannical, yet by the illogic of expanding a power to its broadest extent that would be the end result of that. Mind you that would not be as a punishment for a crime, but by fiat. Similarly is the health care issue where you are doing not breaking a law by not having health insurance. Mandating health care is criminalizing not having health insurance.
Is that really where people want to go with this? Criminalizing not having health insurance?
AJ- How is having a PUBLIC OPTION in competition with PRIVATE INSURANCE a challenge to liberty? I still have the liberty to eschew the PUBLIC OPTION.
I must have car insurance in Michigan. It is a misdemenor punishable by 90 days and $500 to operate a vehicle without insurance. You can say that driving is not a right, but without one your liberty is severely curtailed in most of America. I suspect that they will only fine you if you are caught trying to access the healthcare system. I do not favor making it a criminal offense, but a civil infraction (fine only, no criminal record). If you got a criminal record from not participating that would be wrong.
I would like to see them criminalize retroactively revoking a health insurance policy when someone is sick, or denying a policy for a pre-existing condition. Throw a few insurance executives (and some bankers, but that is another subject) in the can for life and see how quickly this whole thing would be ironed out.
Healthcare is a liberty and not a right? Then why do you suppose so many people feel sorry for little poor children who need surgeries and raise hell with the government and also solicit charitable donations? In our society, we act in a contradictory fashion when it comes to healthcare. For those who can afford to pay, they pay out of pocket and its a fee for service thing. But for the poor, it absolutely is a right according to our government. We cannot have it both ways. Now I don’t want bureaucrats running healthcare at all, but according to what I’ve read many insurance companies are lobbying for ObamaKare because they will get contracts to act in administrative capacity once his plan is implemented.
As much as I talk about a welfare mentality, I sure was happy when I got pregnant and husband recently laid off with no insurance, well we qualified for a county program for prenatal and wellness checkups. That was great. OF course my husbands tax dollars and mine had paid for such services but it was good that they were around.
I will say that its easy to be libertarian minded when you are not broke and unemployed with a depleted retirement plan and leveraged to the hilt.
Lucky for us, his unemployment period did not last long and he picked up another gig at an insurance company with great benefits:) I shutter to think what might have happened if he did not get hired there. UGH!