Healthcare debate: "to provide for the general welfare"

[CADsortaGUY]

I said universal health coverage, not UHC.
You are entitled to your opinion, just don't confuse it with what the Constitution actually says.

universal coverage is not a power granted to the Federal gov't by the Constitution. There is no way- no how it does. "general welfare" just doesn't cut it. If it did, then why can't/shouldn't the fed mandate/provide a house for everyone - that is WAY more important to one's welfare than health "coverage" (whatever your meaning for that is today).

My opinion is based on the original intent of the Constitution and what it was set up to do. No rational person looking at it's Construction and intent can be of the opinion that "general welfare" was meant to be the catch all as you are trying to claim.

Meh, continue on with the comedy though.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Meh, I suggest we all get rid of mandatory schooling. Since schools are not welfare as the original fathers intended.

I agree. Schools run by the Federal gov't have been a disaster. Each state should be allowed to run their own without the Fed's interference. If the states want to be part of nation wide standards group - fine, but keep the Fed gov't out of it.

 

[quikah]

My opinion is based on the original intent of the Constitution and what it was set up to do. No rational person looking at it's Construction and intent can be of the opinion that "general welfare" was meant to be the catch all as you are trying to claim.

This is a specious argument. The interpretation of this section of the Constitution has been debated since the signing. Thomas Jefferson considered it one of the most important differences between the Federalists and the Republicans. Alexander Hamilton is probably the most notable proponent of the view you claim to be irrational.

The "original intent" will depend on who you ask. The Constitution is not a single person's manifesto. It is a collection of compromises written by a committee.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

This is a specious argument. The interpretation of this section of the Constitution has been debated since the signing. Thomas Jefferson considered it one of the most important differences between the Federalists and the Republicans. Alexander Hamilton is probably the most notable proponent of the view you claim to be irrational.

The "original intent" will depend on who you ask. The Constitution is not a single person's manifesto. It is a collection of compromises written by a committee.

Even Hamilton would not advocate what the current liberals like seasnap are (re: general welfare).

 

[sandorski]

Even Hamilton would not advocate what the current liberals like seasnap are (re: general welfare).

Maybe, maybe not.

 

[theeedude]

universal coverage is not a power granted to the Federal gov't by the Constitution. There is no way- no how it does. "general welfare" just doesn't cut it. If it did, then why can't/shouldn't the fed mandate/provide a house for everyone - that is WAY more important to one's welfare than health "coverage" (whatever your meaning for that is today).

My opinion is based on the original intent of the Constitution and what it was set up to do. No rational person looking at it's Construction and intent can be of the opinion that "general welfare" was meant to be the catch all as you are trying to claim.

Meh, continue on with the comedy though.

It is general welfare if that's what the people through their elected representatives decide. Just like we decided to create Medicare and it was upheld as constitutional. You don't have to like it, but them's the breaks.

 

[Fenixgoon]

It is general welfare if that's what the people through their elected representatives decide. Just like we decided to create Medicare and it was upheld as constitutional. You don't have to like it, but them's the breaks.

i can understand medicare being held up via "general welfare" because it is a federal program designed to assist people.

the reason why i find fault with the healthcare bill is that it is not the government providing the healthcare service, but subsidizing your purchase of a 3rd party product which it has mandated. the government is NOT providing the service as in medicare.

 

[Zorkorist]

It is general welfare if that's what the people through their elected representatives decide. Just like we decided to create Medicare and it was upheld as constitutional. You don't have to like it, but them's the breaks.

It's not general welfare, as in a plurality of individuals, it's general welfare as in the welfare of a single, general, individual.

-John

 

[Zorkorist]

nevermind

 

[RabidMongoose]

Every publication by the Founding Fathers, and everything they are quoted as saying is relevant. They wrote the constitution; everything they said or wrote about it clarified the document's purpose and scope. If you're going to hold a document dear but ignore the people who wrote it, what's the point of the document?

It sounds more like you want to use the constitution to further your own agendas and ideas of what the United States should be, rather than follow the document and maintain the country in its original image.

Who exactly are the 'founding fathers'? How do you know what they all intended? How do you know what every person involved in the Constitutional Convention intended? How do you know what every single state legislator of every state that ratified the Constitution intended? Did all of these people intend the same things?

Similar questions would also be asked of subsequent amendments to the Constitution.

Let me know when you find out the answers to the above questions. Be sure to publish a paper about it because it would be pretty groundbreaking to say the the least.

 

[RabidMongoose]

universal coverage is not a power granted to the Federal gov't by the Constitution. There is no way- no how it does. "general welfare" just doesn't cut it. If it did, then why can't/shouldn't the fed mandate/provide a house for everyone - that is WAY more important to one's welfare than health "coverage" (whatever your meaning for that is today).

My opinion is based on the original intent of the Constitution and what it was set up to do. No rational person looking at it's Construction and intent can be of the opinion that "general welfare" was meant to be the catch all as you are trying to claim.

Meh, continue on with the comedy though.

Well, fortunately or unfortunately, the Supreme Court has already very broadly interpreted this 'general welfare' clause to give Congress almost plenary power to use the taxing and spending powers to its own discretion.

So if Congress wanted to give everyone a house, then Congress could tax and spend to give everyone a house. I understand that you don't like that, but well, you and I are just some guys on the Internet talking about the Constitution, but those old people over at the Supreme Court already established settled case law on this issue. And case law controls over the opinions of a couple of random guys on the internet.

Oh, and you as an individual couldn't even file a lawsuit over Congress' decision to give everyone a house, in case you wanted to pursue that type of legal action.

 

[quikah]

Even Hamilton would not advocate what the current liberals like seasnap are (re: general welfare).

I am not so sure of that:

"Not only the wealth; but the independence and security of a Country, appear to be materially connected with the prosperity of manufactures. Every nation, with a view to those great objects, ought to endeavour to possess within itself all the essentials of national supply. These comprise the means of Subsistence habitation clothing and defence.

The possession of these is necessary to the perfection of the body politic, to the safety as well as to the welfare of the society; ..."

-- Hamilton, Report on Manufactures,1791

Whether he would agree with the government supplying these essentials to the people is another topic, but I believe he would be at least marginally sympathetic to the idea.

Personally I think the healthcare reform is a failure. Mostly because it does little to address the costs of healthcare, it focuses too much on insurance. The mandate itself does not seem constitutional as written. It should have been formed as a tax, which is within the scope of the General Welfare clause. A possible alternative that seems constitutional to me, add a supplemental medicare tax, then allow a deduction for premiums paid for 3rd party insurance up to the amount of that supplemental tax.