You can leave an optional "tip" with Mahalo's virtual currency, Mahalo Dollars. If you are asking a difficult question that might require some research, or if you'd like a wide variety of feedback, a higher tip often leads to more answers to your question.
M$12 Answers
Answers dot com has this to say about the constitutional basis for Medicare (1965):"Congress designed Medicare to promote the general welfare of the United States. The program's financing mechanisms proceed under the taxing and spending powers, together with the commerce clause. Although some groups have challenged various features of the law, no litigant has challenged the Constitutional basis of the act as a whole." The same could undoubtedly be said about a more general national health care plan. Medicare has been around for 44 years without being found unconstitutional by any court.
In general, public health has always been considered important enough to outweigh other legal considerations, as long as due process is observed. Consider the laws that quarantine people with contagious diseases
Public health law By Larry Ogalthorpe Gostin, Lawrence O. Gostin goes into much detail about the constitutional concerns of public health laws. They conclude that few protected rights are threatened by the laws, and those simply require that due process be provided. This usually consists of fair and public notice.
Naturally a law establishing National Health Care, if passed, would be complex and possibly could run afoul of various constitutional provisions if the law were not written well.
Note that the health care under discussion is to make health care available to all; but, not to force anyone to accept specific care. That is already done for children; but, has constitutional issues such as privacy and religious freedom if applied to adults.
This answer relates to proposed national health care in the USA. Canada has national health care and it has been challenged as unconstitutional under the Canadian constitution. The challenge was not concerning the government's ability to provide a national health care; but, that it could not force exclusivity without providing more timely service. The challenge succeeded in Quebec.
One can see the implication for the USA that if a national health care system is not consistent and well run, it can run into basic rights challenges.
You can leave an optional "tip" with Mahalo's virtual currency, Mahalo Dollars. If you are asking a difficult question that might require some research, or if you'd like a wide variety of feedback, a higher tip often leads to more answers to your question.
M$We already have forms of national healthcare such as Medicaid (health care for poor people) and Medicare (health care for old people) which are funded through taxation and have been around for a very long time now. If they were unconstitutional then someone who have sued by now.
Arguments for the constitutionality could be made under the interstate commerce clause of the constitution, since healthcare systems do have effects on trade between states. Also it could be considered a necessary and proper role for government, especially since pretty much every other industrialized nation does it.
You would undoubtedly be able to opt out of the system if you wanted to. You don't have to go to the doctor and you could always pay your own way if you wanted to. For example in the UK there are hospitals run by the government (NHS) which are essentially free to use since they are paid for by tax dollars, and there are also privet hospitals that you would have to pay for to use.
National healthcare is constitutional, if it is he right thing to do or not is a different question.
You can leave an optional "tip" with Mahalo's virtual currency, Mahalo Dollars. If you are asking a difficult question that might require some research, or if you'd like a wide variety of feedback, a higher tip often leads to more answers to your question.
M$What the Bill of Rights says about privacy is as follows:
"Amendment I
(Privacy of Beliefs)
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Amendment III
(Privacy of the Home)
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
Amendment IV
(Privacy of the Person and Possessions)
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Amendment IX
(More General Protection for Privacy?)
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Liberty Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
No State shall... deprive any person of life, liberty, or property,
without due process of law."
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/rightofprivacy.html
I can see an argument against nationalized healthcare if it is mandatory because it would be "depriving liberty." However, if you have a choice to choose it, then you are free to do so or not do so.
Additionally, there's the possible argument that the government will push out all other competition; however, I think there are people who like the insurance they have and/or don't trust the government and won't have anything to do with it.
See the link below for more information about cases and the like related to privacy.
You can leave an optional "tip" with Mahalo's virtual currency, Mahalo Dollars. If you are asking a difficult question that might require some research, or if you'd like a wide variety of feedback, a higher tip often leads to more answers to your question.
M$
Depriving someone of their liberty without due process means putting them in jail without legal processes. It has nothing to do with preventing laws that oblige people to do or not do things.
The right to privacy has always been ruled to be trumped by the necessities of public health. In fact, the requirements for isolating contagious diseases are one of the due processes that can be used to deprive someone of liberty (by quarantining them). The details of laws have to protect privacy as much as practical, but public health and safety come first.
For one, the basic human right is to have health and live a dignified life. If you agree with that human rights prevail (at least ethically) over any constitutional charter, this one has an obvious answer.
In many European countries, universal healthcare is even written in the constitution! The USA has a much more "liberal" view of healthcare, skewing away from a "socialistic" view to a more "market driven" view, and universal healthcare would prove to be difficult to pass through congress, but if it does, there is nothing in the Constitution against it.
You can leave an optional "tip" with Mahalo's virtual currency, Mahalo Dollars. If you are asking a difficult question that might require some research, or if you'd like a wide variety of feedback, a higher tip often leads to more answers to your question.
M$I know it's off topic, but what you said reminded me of that.
You can leave an optional "tip" with Mahalo's virtual currency, Mahalo Dollars. If you are asking a difficult question that might require some research, or if you'd like a wide variety of feedback, a higher tip often leads to more answers to your question.
M$
This is more on topic than it appears at first. It is all very well to disagree with a policy. Vote for candidates who oppose it. Demonstrate against it. But, it is ignorant and childish to continually bring up simplistic interpretations of the Constitution, Declaration of Independence, Revolution, etc. There used to be educated conservatives but if any are left they are out of the limelight.
The tea parties are demonstrations against overly burdensome taxes ("Taxed Enough Already"). I don't think anyone is claiming that the situation is the same as the Boston Tea Party. It is merely a play on words.
When a majority of Californians approved a same-sex marriage ban, there was plenty of demonstration against it, and peaceful demonstrations are an American right. However, America was not meant to be a democracy (with mob majority rule), but a representative republic. The idea is to elect trustworthy people to learn and understand the issues and vote in ways that best represent the interests of their constituents. Many politicians have ceased to represent their people and instead vote for what is most convenient for them. Thus the tea party demonstrations about the massive amount of government spending and taxation.
If the recent teabagging incident had nothing to do with the Boston Tea Party, then why, pray tell, did the teabaggers choose tea as their commodity of demonstration. Interesting that you speak of politicians ceasing to represent their people by voting. I just wrote my senator an e-mail about supporting a particular bill. I received a letter in the mail from that senator's office stating the reasons why she will not vote as I desire. That senator is a notoriously conservative republican, as I live in a notoriously red state. Perhaps I should send her a teabag. Actually, no. Since I was asking her to vote for a particular environmentally friendly bill, I should send her an acorn.
Will Congress pass the National Health Care plan? Yes. National Health Care will distribute the cost to the taxpayer. The distribution of cost and risk over a large group reduces that chance of failure.
Will the National Health Care system operate more efficiently than private Health Care? No. The more complex a system the less efficient centralized control.
Will National Health Care offer more health coverage for the poor? Yes.
Will taxes increase? Yes
Will doctors become government employees? Maybe. Some of the hospitals will become government owned and others private. It is very possible that many of the doctors will become government employees.
Talk Radio
You can leave an optional "tip" with Mahalo's virtual currency, Mahalo Dollars. If you are asking a difficult question that might require some research, or if you'd like a wide variety of feedback, a higher tip often leads to more answers to your question.
M$
You say that national health care will offer more health coverage for the poor. This is not to be confused with more health care. Currently, the poor receive services just as quickly as the rich. Under national health care, the poor will have fewer options than the rich who can afford to go outside of the nationalized system to private doctors. Under national health care, I believe only the very rich will have access to the best treatments, just like only the rich have access to private educational options. Only the elites will not have their healthcare adversely affects.
So nothing will change? Right now, only the elites have the option to have done whatever they need. Then there are the upper middle class who have health insurance companies they have to fight with to have done what they need done. All others just don't go to the doctor and figure if they die, oh well, they just die. What a great system we have! Hooray for our free market economy! I have a great idea. Let's just line everyone up who doesn't have health insurance and shoot em in the head with a 22. Then we can make some soylent green and feed the world! I'm being sarcastic of course, but, seriously, this country is built on the backs of the poor. Is it too much to ask to make sure they have proper medical care?
Entitlement structures will probably change. The forced distribution of health costs will tax the wealthy to pay for the poor. The best example of forced health care is France. Denmark, also has high social costs reaching about 50 percent taxation necessary to cover health care, education, and retirement coverage. Socialized countries rely heavily on government programs and have smaller accumulation potentials than capitalistic societies.
what isnt constitutional is that fact that we as the US leave the nations healthcare into the hands of private organizations that only see the population as a dollar sign and nuthing else. i can tell u one thing for sure, if our founding fathers saw that we would rather see people as an investment rather than humans, they would shun us for being greedy animals.
i have written many papers on this subject and have gotten a lot of negative feedback. but answer me this, we are the best nation in the world but our infant mortality rate is still at 9% where as a thrid world country such as cuba, their infant mortality rate is at 3%. how can a third world communist country defeat us in the infant mortality rate???? propaganda has been spread through out the nation that nationalized healthcare is communist and that our hospitals would have an 8 hour wait. but ask yourself, if u have ever been without insurance, arent you already waiting that long at the ER?? and dont we already have communist ideals such as the postal service, social security etc?!?!?!?!?!?!?
i ust find it hard to believe that people would actually think that nationalized healthcare would be unconstitutional.
You can leave an optional "tip" with Mahalo's virtual currency, Mahalo Dollars. If you are asking a difficult question that might require some research, or if you'd like a wide variety of feedback, a higher tip often leads to more answers to your question.
M$On another note, you have the issue of the nationalized health care being funded by our taxes... which, despite them saying that you can still choose quasi-private health care, would really be forced payment... Your ability to actually choose your health care would be undermined by the amount you are forced to contribute just from your taxes. You dont get a choice on what your taxes are going towards.
And this puts a strain on free market enterprise. Insurance companies would have to contend with the government establishment... which is not coinciding with the capitalistic nature of the USA
In a Libertarian view, the government would again be stretching its control and rubbing shoulders in affairs that it was not set up to operate.
Now for the proponents of nationalized health care, they will say that health care is a basic human right and that ensuring the health of its citizens will greatly benefit the nation economically.
In Conclusion, by simply looking at the Law and constitution that the USA was founded upon, the government is supposed to be a limited domestic force and should not enter into areas such as these. The governments role is to deal with issues that individual states and businesses cannot (foreign policy, etc.)... As you can see from what I've written I am torn. Interpreting the constitution and looking forward to the benefits that could be make this a very tedious decision.
You can leave an optional "tip" with Mahalo's virtual currency, Mahalo Dollars. If you are asking a difficult question that might require some research, or if you'd like a wide variety of feedback, a higher tip often leads to more answers to your question.
M$
We live in a Democratic system. The government is always going to be doing something that you don't agree with. I don't see how this point is relevant to the question of the constitutionality of national healthcare.
" You dont get a choice on what your taxes are going towards" yes you do, it is called voting.
You're right, that was badly worded. I guess to wrap your view on it. You can vote on it but when some taxes for services exist that you dont agree with, you can't just say, "hey government, dont send any of my taxes to national health care (or whichever public fund you dont agree with)"
- Our right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness should include a right to receive whatever service you desire (provided it does not infringe on anyone else's rights. The healthcare reform bill before congress allows for rationing, which is depriving people of medical care they desire. (Obama: "Maybe you're better off not having the surgery, but taking the painkiller.") Currently our medical system treats you first, and payment is after. Under a socialized system, you can be denied treatment because of your age or medical history. Denying treatment is denying life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
- The tenth amendment states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states
respectively, or to the people." I don't believe the federal government has the right to create a health care insurance requirement. Under the bill before congress, if you do not enroll in health insurance, you are fined.
- By limiting the damages people can receive for human error, the cost for medical malpractice insurance (which is hundreds of thousands of dollars annually) would be reduced, and doctors could cut fees.
- By reducing the bureaucracy on health insurance companies, companies would be free to charge more yearly for high-risk customers, instead of refusing them insurance altogether. Additionally, insurance companies could have riders for specialized services (family counseling, lasik eye surgery, drug rehabilitation), instead of forcing everyone to be insured against services they never intend to use. This is the model of car and home insurance, and it has driven up competition and kept costs low.
- With an HSA coupled with catastrophic insurance, you choose your doctors, your treatments, and the amount you are willing to spend from your HSA on your healthcare. Anything not spent one year remains in your HSA for the next year. If you spend more than a certain amount, the catastrophic insurance kicks and pays 100% of remaining treatment.
http://dancleary.typepad.com/dan_cleary/2009/06/dr-obama-skip-the-surgery-h...
http://www.constitution.org/billofr_.htm
http://www.workforce.com/section/00/article/26/54/72.php
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/04/02/eveningnews/consumer/main610102.s...
http://www.msawashington.com/regence_blueshield/hsa_catastrophic_benefits.h...
You can leave an optional "tip" with Mahalo's virtual currency, Mahalo Dollars. If you are asking a difficult question that might require some research, or if you'd like a wide variety of feedback, a higher tip often leads to more answers to your question.
M$
The big difference is that when your insurance refuses to pay, you can still opt to pay out of pocket (likely with a payment plan). Under single-payer healthcare, you don't have that option.
A transplant list is an example of rationing and is done only because there is no other way, not because it's such a great system. There is a limited number of organs available, so they have to be rationed. Now imagine if rationing applied to every aspect of medicine: prescriptions, physicals, screenings, surgeries, etc. No one likes being turned down for a transplant, but until we get artificial organs, rationing organs will continue. The last thing we want to do is make that model the norm.
Medical procedures are routinely not done now with private insurance companies, nowhere do I see that as different under a universal system. Also it is common practice when on a transplant list to do procedures in order on need, no one seems to argue with that system.
So, what you are saying is that being under a single-paying healthcare system, it's the same as being poor? Isn't it nice how people who have the means and the wherewithall to have "things done" think everybody else has the same means and wherewithall they do?
Just so you know, I am not rich, and when I had major abdominal surgery for cancer, I made $14k/year and had to pay thousands out of pocket. I know the value of quality treatment and was impressed that 9 days from my first doctor's visit about a bulge, I was having surgery. Doctors and specialist fit me in the same day they were contacted to make sure I was treated quickly, and not one of them asked if I could pay.
Rationing will result in worse health care for the poor and the middle class. Only the rich will be able to afford private doctors (think Michael Jackson). Right now, we have laws requiring care to be provided to all people, regardless of their ability to pay. No one is being deprived of health care, it's just that costs are high, partially because of the number of people who do not pay (including illegal immigrants).
When there are terrible diseases found in third-world countries, samples are sent to America for analysis. When a Canadian tires of waiting 2 years for a surgery, he comes to America. When terrible medical problems are found in foreign nations, friends will transport the person to America. We have fantastic health care known around the world with only a few major problems leading to soaring prices: expensive malpractice insurance, overbearing bureaucracy, and the silliness of insuring people against routine checkups instead of catastrophic insurance like property insurance. People (who are willing to pay for luxury cars, video games, big screen TV's, monthly hair treatments, and designer clothes) don't bother to save up for health care, because they believe it should be free. Why has this mindset been propagated? Because the government wants say in every aspect of our lives, and paying for our health care gives them the right to legislate nearly every habit and behavior, as well as the right to refuse treatment based on our age and medical history. If you care for the poor, the sick, and the elderly in America, keep government out of health care.
You can leave an optional "tip" with Mahalo's virtual currency, Mahalo Dollars. If you are asking a difficult question that might require some research, or if you'd like a wide variety of feedback, a higher tip often leads to more answers to your question.
M$"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
The founding fathers did have foresight and wisdom about human nature. Hence, the "unalienable Rights" were written as a guide to live in freedom happily. So, the way I interpret this part of the Declaration of Independence: Absolutely, nationalized health care is unconstitutional for the following reasons.
1. "Life" as stated in the Declaration of Independence would not be respected as an individual right. People are turned away from life-saving procedures because they are considered "too old" to justify using resources to save in Britain. People in Canada die because they are put on a waiting list for health care. For these reasons British, Canadian and Australian citizens have traveled to the United States to receive treatment. Imagine being turned away for an appendectomy just because you are 60 years old. Is this not a deprivation of "Life"?
2. "Liberty" would not respected as freedom of choice is replaced by governmental policy. Prices would be higher for treatment, which means an increase in taxes. Not to mention the fact that each individual would have to participate or be fined by the government. Not being able to chose the doctor or type of treatment as a citizen is yet another violation of freedom. Many physicians have threatened to stop practicing due to the fact that they understand what it means to be under government control and that this would only threaten the quality of treatment.
3. "Pursuit of Happiness" would be an old dead dream of days gone by as the tax burden (on top of the "stimulus") would be so heavy that Americans would struggle just to survive.
Without one's health and without one's livelihood, one cannot foster the hope of the American Dream and believe there is a path to the "Pursuit of Happiness".
The Hippocratic Oath (taken by all physicians)
I swear by Apollo Physician and Asclepius and Hygieia and Panaceia and all the gods, and goddesses, making them my witnesses, that I will fulfil according to my ability and judgment this oath and this covenant:
To hold him who has taught me this art as equal to my parents and to live my life in partnership with him, and if he is in need of money to give him a share of mine, and to regard his offspring as equal to my brothers in male lineage and to teach them this art–if they desire to learn it–without fee and covenant; to give a share of precepts and oral instruction and all the other learning to my sons and to the sons of him who has instructed me and to pupils who have signed the covenant and have taken the oath according to medical law, but to no one else.
I will apply dietic measures for the benefit of the sick according to my ability and judgment; I will keep them from harm and injustice.
I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody if asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy. In purity and holiness I will guard my life and my art.
I will not use the knife, not even on sufferers from stone, but will withdraw in favor of such men as are engaged in this work.
Whatever houses I may visit, I will come for the benefit of the sick, remaining free of all intentional injustice, of all mischief and in particular of sexual relations with both female and male persons, be they free or slaves.
What I may see or hear in the course of treatment or even outside of the treatment in regard to the life of men, which on no account one must spread abroad, I will keep myself holding such things shameful to be spoken about.
If I fulfill this oath and do not violate it, may it be granted to me to enjoy life and art, being honored with fame among all men for all time to come; if I transgress it and swear falsely, may the opposite of all this be my lot.
***********************************************************************************
"If You Think Health Care is Expensive Now — Just Wait Until it’s Free."
One last item to consider: government officials will not be subject to this nationalized health care. They will have their own private care. Interestingly, they also don't pay into Social Security, like we do. They have their own private accounts.........
http://www.liberty-page.com/issues/healthcare/socialized.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Declaration_of_Independence
http://www.americanissuesproject.org/blogs/aip/archive/2009/06/11/our-physi...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippocratic_Oath
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MTRkZjRhMzk3NjBjN2Q3ZTg1ODYyMDE3ND...
http://www.positiveliberty.com/2008/01/3021.html
http://www.askquestions.org/details.php?id=262
You can leave an optional "tip" with Mahalo's virtual currency, Mahalo Dollars. If you are asking a difficult question that might require some research, or if you'd like a wide variety of feedback, a higher tip often leads to more answers to your question.
M$
The Constitution and Declaration of Independence are two completely different documents. Although the Declaration of Independence was a useful document to define our separation from England, nothing about it is legally binding today.
Without the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution would not have been drafted. The importance of the Declaration of Independence is in the acknowledgment of our freedom and sovereignty. The whole point is freedom of the individual. The Constitution's purpose is to state what the government's role is in ensuring human rights and limiting government's power. Hence, the individual has the choice to national health care, or not. As long as there is real choice, many Americans have no issue.
This may be your opinion about public health care but it has nothing to do with the constitutionality of public health care. Taking one of the broad words or phrases like "liberty" or "pursuit of happiness" and claiming a law will restrict your liberty or pursuit of happiness is ridiculous. Countless laws restrict your liberty and limit your pursuit of happiness. In fact, they pretty much all do. The problem with a law has to be much more specific and applicable than that, as you would know if you had any knowledge of constitutional law and history at all.
"...To the United States of America, and to the Democracy for which it stands"
Wait, that's not it.
You can leave an optional "tip" with Mahalo's virtual currency, Mahalo Dollars. If you are asking a difficult question that might require some research, or if you'd like a wide variety of feedback, a higher tip often leads to more answers to your question.
M$
