National Health Care and the Constitution?
Question:
Answer:
It is government overstepping its extremely limited powers.
"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constitutents." - James Madison, regarding an appropriations bill for French refugees, 1794
"With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." - James Madison, Letter to James Robertson, April 20, 1831 _Madison_ 1865, IV, pages 171-172
"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated." - Thomas Jefferson
"Commentators virtually agree on the answer Madison proposed and defended in Federalist 41, namely, that the general welfare clause is neither a statement of ends nor a substantive grant of power. It is a mere "synonym" for the enumeration of particular powers, which are limited and wholly define its content."
- http://publius.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/co...
Doesn't matter - it isn't gonna happen - the votes aren't there now and they aren't gonna be there later because major Democrat Party constituencies like the NAACP and AARP are dead set against the changes require to make it happen.
I don't favor a "National Health Care" system that eliminates the private sector.
But--yes, it would be covered under the "promote the general welfare" clause. Also, if it were structured as is Social Security (which does not exclude private retirement pllans), there's no question it would pass a Constitutional challenge.
no, i do not believe we can assign a particular section of the constitution for this purpose. i do think, however, it would be another disaster for our economy, if it comes to pass.
Many believe the equal protection clause covers this idea. If the only purpose of government is to protect its citizens, then there is a clear corelation between equal protection to all and national health care. I see many arguments for this. We see education, law enforcement and even emergency medical serivce as services that the government should provide. We even have laws that require emergency rooms to treat people irregardless of their ability to pay. At one time all those things were taboo and new ideas introduced into society. This is just another step in progress. We will see this as a new and foreign idea, but if we do it, a hundred years later it will just be normal.
A sixth grade reading competenceof the constitution doesn't says our government is mandated or authorized to implement...
1) taxes
2) social security
3) national health insurance
Regardless of this fact Big Brother will turn our republic - represented government in to socialism - Thank Big Ears Johnson & Drunken Murder Teddy
well whether not it is pertainable, the fact is lack of health care as stated by an administrator in California is costing America more money in Health Care Costs, if there was a form of National Health Care like in Canada or other countries (even in Mexico take antibiotics to people door to door who need for free), a $2 or $3 bottle of antibiotics could prevent a person from becoming critical who then has to go to the emergency room (costing much more in money and resources not only to the American people but to the Hospitals and Health Care in general)
really, I don't remember education being in there either...
I really consider them both to be in the same boat... not guaranteed by the constitution, but vital to the development of the masses and a strong workforce...
both are basically social programs, but without them what do you have? a third world nation where half the nation is dumb and sick...
have you ever looked at how much our corperations are weakened by healthcare costs?
More Questions & Answers...