Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[kuro_suna]

Can we ever have a political thread without you trolling it?

[piecewise]

The Federal Government should have the power to enforce and create laws personal rights, run a military, and, above all, be able to override the states.

There you go...

If the founders of the US didn't want the US to create laws, they wouldn't have created Congress.

Section 8 - Powers of Congress

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

It's purpose is to create laws to fulfill it's purpose in meeting the requirements set forth by the Constitution, not to create laws to fulfill whatever purpose they want.  This can be read as: "You can create laws that the States must follow in order to maintain the ability to perform the above tasks ("foregoing": which I spoiler-ed to save space) and to allow other branches to perform their tasks."

Edit:  Essentially, Congress makes laws that the states must follow... not laws which the citizens must follow.

The Congress shall have 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; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

It sure sounds like congress has the power to tax you to pay for health care if it's considered fro the general welfare of the country. And it sure sound like they're constitutionally bound to make it uniform throughout the states.

[kuro_suna]

Is it just me or does it seem like constitutional literalism always seems to end up like biblical literalism where you can prove any point you want with the right amount of cherry picking and refusing to ever accept sane compromises between two extremes.

[lumin]

The Congress shall have 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; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

It sure sounds like congress has the power to tax you to pay for health care if it's considered fro the general welfare of the country. And it sure sound like they're constitutionally bound to make it uniform throughout the states.

I think the main issue that the states have with this piece of legislation is the fact that it imposes fines on those individuals who opt out of the coverage.  In all other "welfare" programs like Medicaid, Medicare and SCHIP, there has been penalty free choice for deciding whether or not you want to join the system.

And no, the fine is not a "tax" based on gross earnings, so it can't fall under the "collect Taxes" part of the Constitution.

[piecewise]

The Congress shall have 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; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

It sure sounds like congress has the power to tax you to pay for health care if it's considered fro the general welfare of the country. And it sure sound like they're constitutionally bound to make it uniform throughout the states.

I think the main issue that the states have with this piece of legislation is the fact that it imposes fines on those individuals who opt out of the coverage.  In all other "welfare" programs like Medicaid, Medicare and SCHIP, there has been penalty free choice for deciding whether or not you want to join the system.

And no, the fine is not a "tax" based on gross earnings, so it can't fall under the "collect Taxes" part of the Constitution.

Oh I'm sure they can make it work somehow. The only reason I pointed that part out is to show that you can pretty much make the constitution mean whatever you want if you word it right. Thats why I say we should be flexible because, if not, we'll always be deadlocked by different interpretions.

Your argument is an appeal to emotion, and that's just silly. If individuals want to spend their money to help them, that's awesome (and, FWIW, I donated a good chunk of a paycheck to the Jimmy Fund at their last major drive; the difference between charity, which is voluntary, and taxation for pet causes, which is certainly not, is quite large). I choose to do so out of my own free will; it is no one's obligation to do so and I wholly reject the idea.

In a practical sense, I would actually be quite alright with UHC for anyone under the age of 18 and anyone currently enrolled in an institution of higher learning; the former allows for some basic protections before they are in a place to root, hog, or die (and yes, it's quite important that everyone do so, you are neither special nor entitled to take money from my pocket just as I am neither special nor entitled to take money from yours, but a fair starting point is certainly of benefit to everyone), and the latter encourages an improvement of our workforce's baseline capabilities in a way that, intuitively, seems to pay dividends greater than the relatively small expense. (UHC for everyone does not intuitively show a likelihood for an economic improvement beyond the expenditure, nor have I seen any numbers to suggest it to be the case.)

But if you find it so important, feel free to spend your money on it. Nobody's stopping you. Just don't presume to spend mine without my consent. (This goes for vote-pandering of all stripes, from UHC to farm subsidies.)

EDIT: Mind you, I entirely agree that most of the people complaining over UHC are ones who would benefit. They are morons. I would not benefit from UHC, and it is not my job, nor anyone else's, to save them from themselves. Stupidity is the only capital crime, and there are no appeals.

My example may have been emotionally charged but its an example of what happens under our current system. Personally I think we should extend help to any sick person who needs it, regardless of age, because no matter what you do you can not guarantee that you won't be out of a job tomorrow. Your solution of a fair starting point assumes that from that point everything will go swimmingly and no unavoidable circumstances will intervene. And if we extend help only to those under 18 or in college you're basically saying that "if you're studying to be a lawyer then you're worth that skin graft but if you're just a construction worker getting paid to low to afford health care then your life isn't worth saving." 

At least thats the problem I foresee.

[nil]

What always got lost in the health care debate is that we already had a form of universal health care.  Emergency rooms didn't turn people away, and low income folks qualified for Medicaid.  So anyone could get health care, they just had to wait until they were sick enough for it to be an emergency or broke enough to get Medicaid.  It was basically the least efficient system possible--in many cases it would be far cheaper to give someone preventive care before their problems became emergencies, and constant medical bankruptcies weren't really doing anyone any favors either.

[G-Flex]

Yeah, and even though the emergency rooms can't turn people away, it still leaves the people in debt.


That is definitely something people don't understand, though. Everyone is already paying for poor people's healthcare. They're still going to go somewhere when they get sick, except, as you said, they can't actually afford it, so they wait until the problem is worse, and go to the ER sporadically instead of having an actual primary care physician (which has a host of problems of its own). Everybody else still absorbs that cost, one way or another, except, like you said, it's extremely inefficient.

[bjlong]

So, the problem boils down to this:

There is a 60 year old man named Bob. He's worked at a construction site every day he's had a job, which is most of his life since 16. He works hard, because he has two sons and a daughter he wants to have a good education. He budgets so that the family goes without a lot of things--him most of all. He's been recently diagnosed with cancer, and his life savings aren't enough to foot the bill and send his daughter to college. Without college, she'll just be looking at waitressing at a dead-end restaurant for the rest of her life. He stays up late, cutting more and more from the budget, and it comes down to that choice.

There is a 20 year old man named Jimmy. Jimmy's out of college, out of work, and out enjoying life. By "enjoying life" I mean "smoking pot and doing stupid dangerous things." He's recently been cut off from his parents' money, and is living off of his life savings, which are substantial, thanks to generous family members, but are rapidly dwindling. One day, while drunk and high, he jumps off of a moving van and breaks his leg. He doesn't have enough money to fix the leg and continue living like this for another month, so he's trying to bum some money off of his relatives.

90% of people would give money to Bob. 90% of people wouldn't give money to Jimmy. The difference between supporters and opposers of UHC is who they see when they picture the people who will benefit from this. That, and economic reasoning, which is generally in the backseat of these stories.

[Andir]

The Congress shall have 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; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

It sure sounds like congress has the power to tax you to pay for health care if it's considered fro the general welfare of the country. And it sure sound like they're constitutionally bound to make it uniform throughout the states.

Don't confuse a stipulation that says they must collect uniform taxes to mean uniform health care.  That line basically says they have the right to collect taxes to pay off debts.  The aspect of "General Welfare" is hotly debated though.

These clauses in the U.S. Constitution are exceptions to the description above, and are not considered broad grants of a general legislative power to the federal government since the U.S. Supreme Court has held:

    * the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution "has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the Government of the United States or on any of its Departments";[3][4] and,
    * that Associate Justice Joseph Story's construction of the Article I, Section 8 General Welfare Clause elaborated in Story's 1833 Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States was the correct interpretation.[5][6] Justice Story concluded that the General Welfare Clause was not an independent grant of power, but a qualification on the taxing power which included within it a power to spend tax revenues on matters of general interest to the federal government.

Thomas Jefferson explained the latter general welfare clause for the United States: “[T]he laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They [Congress] are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union. In like manner, they are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose.”[7]

Edit:  Read here for more:  http://www.madisonrecord.com/arguments/220783-was-general-welfare-intended-to-include-health-care

Edit2:  And in case you didn't quite "get" it.  The General Welfare clause relates to the welfare of the union itself, not it's citizens.

[Pillow_Killer]

Loo, what the problem? USA citizens dont want free healthcare? Okay, their decision ,theirp roblems? Broke a leg but dont have money for healthcare? Too bad, but htat was your choice.

[G-Flex]

Edit2:  And in case you didn't quite "get" it.  The General Welfare clause relates to the welfare of the union itself, not it's citizens.

One requires (and to a degree, implies) the other. You cannot provide for a functioning society without providing for functioning members of that society. It's as much about the nation as it is about the individuals.

[lumin]

Loo, what the problem? USA citizens dont want free healthcare? Okay, their decision ,theirp roblems? Broke a leg but dont have money for healthcare? Too bad, but htat was your choice.

I really, honestly want to know.  Do people actually believe that health care is "free" under a nationalized system?  I really hope people that say that are just being facetious.  If you are really this naive, please lie and act like you knew this all along, save yourself the embarrassment.

[Andir]

Edit2:  And in case you didn't quite "get" it.  The General Welfare clause relates to the welfare of the union itself, not it's citizens.

One requires (and to a degree, implies) the other. You cannot provide for a functioning society without providing for functioning members of that society. It's as much about the nation as it is about the individuals.

Did you read the stuff I linked?  The process is this.  General Welfare is a blanket statement.  If you go to the trouble of enumerating powers that someone has then you give them the ability to tax to improve the "general welfare" they can argue it away as total consuming power.  This is why the judge stated that this clause only applies to the welfare of the union but not extending to it's citizens.  If I gave you the ability to provide for the general welfare, you could argue that putting me in chains and making me slave all day long is better for the overall welfare of the union so you should be able to tax the living daylights out of me, then lock me up.

Do you see why this interpretation of "General Welfare" includes the citizens WON'T work?

[Leafsnail]

Lumin - it's not funny.  Please stop trolling.

Andir... You suggest having state funded healthcare on a state level... but healthcare is not something that can be done on that level.  If one state introduces it, sick people from other states are likely to flock their, crippling their finances.  The whole country needs to introduce it or it is useless.

As for chaining you up... No, that'd obviously violate multiple other points of the constitution.  Basically, if you really want to, you can declare ANYTHING unconstitutional by selective quoting.

In terms of cost, I'd say the question is more "Can America afford not to reform it's healthcare system?".  America spends twice as much on its healthcare as, for instance, Great Britain, and generally gets worse results.  I can see the arguments for individualism, but I don't see how you can defend such a horribly inefficient system.

[Pillow_Killer]

Loo, what the problem? USA citizens dont want free healthcare? Okay, their decision ,theirp roblems? Broke a leg but dont have money for healthcare? Too bad, but htat was your choice.

I really, honestly want to know.  Do people actually believe that health care is "free" under a nationalized system?  I really hope people that say that are just being facetious.  If you are really this naive, please lie and act like you knew this all along, save yourself the embarrassment.

Stop being stupid. Increased taxes are nothing compared to prices of healthcare in USA.