remember to keep the public seprate from the state, YOU are the public, we are the healthcare THEY meet the challange because they (STATE) imbodie US the federlist no 55 imboidies our freedom THAT is THEM THE RICH the congress are this RICH their propaganda fuels YOU, you sound lost in the riches of the congress keep us seprate from them then speak
my polisci says nothing about this clause in the 1930's. the first time this clause was talked about was in the case, Gibbons v. Ogden in 1824......was about intrastate and interstate travel.
I'm sorry I didn't realize providing our fellow Americans with healthcare was against the constitution, I guess I'd just become a republican and say to my fellow but poor american "FUCK 'EM" Ahh, GOD BLESS AMERICA INDEED *and its backwards way of analyzing society needs*
@TheKnowBuddies Your analysis is incorrect, the decision of a Federal Court of Appeals does not apply everywhere within the United States (that's jurisdiction of the Supreme Court), but only within the district that ruled it unconstitutional. The ruling in one federal appellate district doesn't apply everywhere. Maybe you should learn more about constitutional law before spouting off...
Healthcare is not a right! We only have unalienable Rights. When these Rights are view through the prism of science (see my channel video), one will find they apply to all Life, from bacteria to humans, and Social systems, including Charles Darwin’s research; as in some Grand Unification principle for all Living-systems. Most understand the Laws of Nature trumps mortals in power; a new understanding of these Rights may help make this world a better place to live.
A judge in Florida on Mon became the second judge to declare Obama's healthcare reform law unconstitutional, in the biggest legal challenge yet to fed authority to enact the law. This Obama needs to GO... I have never seen a more lazy president in the White House. But he sure likes the party's I can't wait till hes' gone.
US health system is ranked in the bottom 7 of all industrialized countries: Google it.Rush says nationalized Health care's Nazism. So Australia is Hitlerville for its Medicare system? Rush has demented logic.I've lived in Australia most of my life & it works.My autistic son would 't be the bright well adjusted boy he's today without it.As all people join it's cheaper & you get more than private.You can still go get private luxury extras if you want.Don't fear what you don't know.
Um.... not sure if you know, or understand wtf the word amendment means lol
Maybe you should check it out? Then apply some common sense? It would have helped you seconds before hitting the record button on this steaming pile of shit...
Under chapter 1 of the Legislater it is constitutional. The goverment can take full power of the economy and create as much dept as it wants to help the people! The dept can be abolished by the federal reserve but you don't want that because Obama will take out In God We Trust. Boo Hoo! I want a job and a life could care less about god being on a dollar bill. The only people afraid of the government is retards like you.
Pointless. This is not the commerce clause, this is the ability of Congress to levy taxes to provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States. Congress can increase taxes by 2.5%. That's perfectly Constitutional. And Congress can give you a 2.5% tax credit when you buy a product. That's also perfectly Constitutional.
P.S. The reason they didn't think of health care was because it was 1789. No government of any nation really cared about their citizen's welfare, then..
@nafaidni - Correction: "The reason they didn't think of health care was because it was 1789" and they believed in individual responsibility. Today that is an alien concept.
Believe what you want. The only thing that we can prove is that whole-hearted trust in individual responsibility has been a failed idea. It has failed in Somalia. It has failed in Sudan. It has failed in every anarchist, ungoverned state in the history of the human race.
In those countries, individual responsibility is more important, apparently, than the rights of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. But of course, according to you, we should get on boat with em!
"The penalty provided by this section shall be paid upon notice and demand by the Secretary, and except as provided in paragraph (2), shall be assessed and collected in the same manner as an assessable penalty under subchapter B of chapter 68.
"(2) SPECIAL RULES. -- Notwithstanding any other provisions of law--
"(A) WAIVER OF CRIMINAL PENALTIES.--In the case of any failure by a taxpayer to timely pay any penalty imposed by this section, such taxpayer shall not be subject to any criminal prosecution or penalty with respect to such failure.
In other words, this directly contradicts the notion that the government is going to put a gun to your head and throw you in jail if you don't pay.
Now they might be able to withold a tax return, but that's only if you have on that year....
Also there is no public option in the bill...so no government run hospitals, nor any problems associated with government run hospitals apply to this discussion.
Republicans claim that individual mandates are unconstitutional, but the first president to embrace the concept was a Republican: Richard Nixon. In 1989 President George H W Bush assembled a plan that would require individuals to buy insurance. Romney relied on the same model to create what he calls "the ultimate conservative plan" in Massachusetts, the plan that would, in turn, go on to serve as the basis for Obamacare. Now, all of a sudden the Republicans claim the bill is unconstitutional!
This is a really useful video. I'm doing research on Article 1 Section 8 and it's nice to know the background information about what it was originally intended for.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
God you are clueless. You just make shit up. In the founding of this country there was no FAA either! Does that mean the FAA is unconstitutional? I could name several federal agencies that were not around in 1776, it doesn't mean that there unconstitutional you moron!
Ever realize that the military runs under socialism. I am in the US NAVY and proud to be. We use the same health care system, use the same uniform, use the same life insurance, serve under 1 flag. If you ever thought about it, the military is doing good if you ask me. So are the people we are defending against us?
I agree. The draft was something that made people join unwillingly, but this is not the current way of things, the draft is not in action. I disagree with the concept of the draft (the idea being the nation owns you and can force you to do something).
When I said "healthcare is a benefit of your job", I meant in the military. I do realize the inexactitude of both what I said and what I am saying now, because many are given the option of buying tricare, not tricare itself.
Nothing is wrong. I do not favor unconstitutional healthcare, and you do. What's to talk about when both our minds are made up? Shall we discuss another topic?
I want to kind of evolve the conversation here but keep it within the same topic.
We can switch to another topic soon too if you'd like in a second.
PropagandaBuster (3 weeks ago) Show Hide
Marked as spam
Reply
Sorry my faith is still in the market place. This history of our nation has proven the market place produces positive results, while the government in the market place only results in interference.
-
Just like to say the last sentence is not ALWAYS true.
For instance we had pretty lose government regulations in Wall Street (which is part of a free market place society) and many people screwed up and did unlawful things causing much pain for many people.
People who did not take risky loans from banks are suffering badly too because of the recession. My family included and we lead a humble lifestyle.
So this proves that sometimes government enforcement of regulations in a free market society is warrented to make sure things are lawfully conducted.
Read the contract on your investments. Take personal responsibility. If you screwed yourself, you screwed yourself. If someone violated their contract with you, then you take them to claims court/ other judicial enforcement. It's not that difficult.
Another thing I want to point out is that the reason health care is not specifically mentioned in the Constitution is because the idea of health care was not conceived until much later.
In the days of the Founding Fathers, (God bless them), people just died of illnesses that would be curable today.
Costs were lower and were affordable and did not threaten the Economy of the nation like it does today.
In those days doctor fees and paying for treatment was not much of a problem.
Thank you for stating health care was not included in the constitution. Which means health care legislation by the federal government is unconstitutional. Thanks for that validation.
The thing is that costs are a problem today unlike in the days of our Founding Fathers.
I'm all for competition in the market place, but from what I see so far.
I do not see any logical reason why insurance corporations would willingly give affordable price cuts to premiums and deductables to those with pre-existing conditions.
The argument I'm hearing is that while the health care plan may be offered to those people, the cost of affording that health care plan would bankrupt a family.
I have a friend who is 20 and he suddenly developed cancer. Currently he is covered under his dad's insurance but past a certain age he will be kicked off his dad's insurance OR if his dad gets laid off which could happen in this recession.
If either of these things happens he will be forced to turn to the Private Insurance companies which label him as having a Pre-existing condition, and offer him a plan but he told me he can't afford it.
From my understanding the Free Market counts on a certain morality of Corporations to pass on savings to their consumers if their production costs are lower.
But what in any law makes sure that they don't allocate that money into their company's stock rather than lowering costs for their clients?
Corporations exist to pass the profits to the stock holders, not to the consumer. The stock holder invested in the corporation, not the consumer. So it is the stock holder who should benefit from any profits.
The market place through competition creates lower prices for the consumer.
The question is why would Health Insurance Corporations offer affordable plans to the sick? Or those who have a history of genetic disorders?
The companies know that by accepting such clients they put profits at risk because those clients would probably take more $ in the form of medical expenses.
There is very little will for any Health Insurance provider to compete for coverage on the sick. They are like hot potatoes for them.
As long as there is someone willing to pay there will be someone willing to accept their money and provide that insurance. Back to the market place again.
But that's precisely the problem, nobody is willing to pay.
Few people can realistically afford $500 a month premiums, along with paying the utility bills, mortgage, clothes, food, and other necessities.
Also insurance providers always reserve the right to raise your premiums when they feel like it. If you pass the point of affordability, that's it your coverage is gone.
All the insurance providers on the entire market place offer plans out of the price range for those who need it.
And my original point: But there is nothing legally binding about the market place that would cause Insurance industries to lower prices for the sick.
Other industries : Compete for consumers,
But in the Health Care Industry, why would they want to compete for "sick people" who will probably use services more than a normally healthy person? It takes a bite out of their profits.
It is almost an unspoken rule that there is no competition to cover the sick with affordable pricing.
Especially since sick people, like my friend who has cancer, has expensive treatments like chemotherapy.
While doctors can lower their fees to a point. Tort reform would not lower the cost of medical equipment doctors get from companies that manufacture MRI machines and drug treatments.
So overall I agree you have good points, I just don't think it's enough.
CBO projections also show that tort reform wouldn't solve the whole problem mathematically.
Theoretically: I have cancer and the government will pay for my treatment.
Where does the government get the money to pay for my treatment? It taxes you. What happens if you don't pay that tax? THEY SCREW YOU OVER.
Sure, it'd be nice if someone helped me out, but I would never use government to POINT A GUN AT YOUR HEAD and demand that you pay for it. That is stealing. That's legalized Armed Robbery. That is wrong.
It is very unfortunate, but it is their burden, not society's. Everyone is responsible for theirs and their own, nobody else. By having THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT step in to DICTATE that you must bear the burden of a stranger, that is wrong.
I am not saying that people shouldn't help someone suffering misfortune, I'm stating it is wrong of government to force people to.
And on that I will agree to disagree on how you judge what is right and what is wrong. Because the logic of "looking out for your own" does not line up with my Christian principles about helping thy neighbor.
I expect political parties (all political parties) who use the Christian label to sell any agenda, to be consistent to the label of that faith.
Now I will make another claim that the government CANNOT throw you in jail if you fail to get health insurance. > see next post
If they can't throw you in jail, there is nothing they can enforce.
If you are arguing that they will only "fine" you , they will fine you, and when you do not pay that fine, you will likely have all of your possessions taken away, unless you don't have enough, then you will still probably go to jail. They'll find a way.
You say that because you already believe they have the right to do that because of what's been told to you by the media.
The IRS simply can't do that, they have limitations placed upon what they can and can't do as well.
So even if you don't get insurance, they are not gonna take away your possessions. Did you even bother reading that page in the bill that I cited? I only could post a fragment of it but it basically disproves the claims you just made.
Why hello FELLOW christian. I too help people. I volunteer & do community service, I donate to my church which helps people in need, BUT I DON'T USE THE GOVERNMENT AS A TOOL TO TAKE OTHER PEOPLES WEALTH TO FIX MY PROBLEMS.
You need to understand what law really is. It is FORCE. I don't FORCE the wealth out of your hand, that is called STEALING and it is WRONG. If you steal from me, and hurt my family, you had better be ready to suffer the consequences.
@axelasdf And this video is in response to the constitution (a law) basically declaring another piece of law (the healthcare reform bill) morally and legally wrong.
I already disproved you are forced to buy health insurance. idk why you are still debating when I'm the only one who cited research directly from the source besides stating my interpretation. I actually backed up the points I was making with facts. Not just claims or fallacious statements. (False cause, straw man)
1. Why can't you buy insurance from a cheaper agency from out of state?
2. Why would anyone want to be self sufficient when the government will take care of all of their needs?
3. When more people join the "Easier Life" that is dependent on government handouts, who will pay for it? Will the "rich" be able to afford EVERYONE below them? What is stopping people from becoming worthless and depending on these handouts? Seems like an easy life: medical, food, housing, all "free" by GVMT
I'd also like to point out that the Constitution was written on the principles of the Preamble, which states somewhere in there it says "Promote the General Welfare"
Health Care Reform is not evil. It's just an issue of cost control because CBO statistics show that GDP is being spent more on health care and it's creating an unbalanced budget.
BIG CORPORATIONS (private sector by the way) are just as dangerous as BIG GOVERNMENT, I'd just like to point that out.
Anything written in the preamble does not carry the weight of law because it is not law. I think you want to reference "general Welfare" as mentioned in Section 8 of Article 1. Which clarifies "general Welfare" as those items enumerated in that section. If you read documents from the Founders in reference to this portion, they too take the same position.
Not debating weather big business is dangerous or not. The Founders wrote the Constitution to protect us from government, not business. The Founders also wrote the Constitution to form a national government for protection of the new country and to promote interstate commerce (business) not to hinder it.
But I would like to say that while Tort Reform is a good first step, it still would not save enough money.
From what I've read directly from the CBO, and then later checked with factcheck.o rg is that Tort Reform would only save about .5 of all GDP spent on health care.
I do agree about competition across state lines, but while that would expand the number of clients, what provisions in the law would prevent insurance companies from raising prices?
Most doctors want some type of tort reform to lower their insurance thus lower their rates to their customers. States without tort reform are seeing their doctors decline. While states like Texas with tort reform, see doctors moving into the state.
Allowing insurance companies to sell in all states increases the number of companies in states. That creates competition and competition causes prices to fall. The market place works.
Although we agree competition is good and that it should happen across state lines.
There is still the problem of adverse selection.
The reason regulations on cost controls need to be put in place is because Corporations by law are supposed to look out for their profits so they look like a good investment for shareholders.
They do this by classifying clients under different categories of risk and exclude those who they deem costly to their profits.
So I'd like to repeat that I believe that big corporations are just as dangerous as big government.
It is really a balancing act and I think most people understand that the balance has been disturbed.
We agree that restoring this balance is critical to the well-being of America.
---
Another note:
Health Insurance is a unique product of the free-market because unlike toys, televisions, and other luxuries, going without health care could make the difference between life and death.
Sorry my faith is still in the market place. This history of our nation has proven the market place produces positive results, while the government in the market place only results in interference.
The Big problem with Big companies is that they are getting sweet deals like the health insurance legislation, which guarantees them business. The bill that was passed says that, within a few years, it will be illegal to not have government approved health insurance. They will throw you in jail if you don't PAY one of these companies to "provide coverage" to you.
When the BIG CORPORATIONS are the ones running the BIG GOVERNMENT, IT IS DANGEROUS. That is when the companies are making overcomplicated bills that guarantee them business. You HAVE to BUY health insurance. Government is making you pay something that isn't taxes. That is beyond the scope of government's power.
America hasnt followed the constitution since day 1. if we followed the constitution we wouldnt have ever had slavery, genocide, private central bank, huge federal government,
The Constitution was for a huge federal goverment, that's why we got rid of the Articles of Confederation (and besides, genocides occured outside of America, other countries don't have to follow our rules)
history shows us that huge governments lead to corruption and tyranny. thats why ppl like jefferson hated huge government. the american way is limited federal governent with congress overseeing the monetary system (not the fed) and deciding most issues at the local level (state).
big governments are usually not for the people. how much was the nazi regime, ussr, communist china for the people not that much. theres this thing called history, look into it. Hamilton and the federalists wanted big government and they died out quickly.
If they did, then we wouldn't have our government anymore (and besides, Communist China has healthcare for everyone, and it works out for them, and they have more people than we do!)
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Yeah, so why do Canadians have free healthcare, jackass?! Because they care for their citizens! Bush didn't, he just made us all look like idiots. At least Obama is trying to help Americans live easier, you damn conservative bastard!
Just because you dont like these decisions does not somehow delegitimize the role of the SC, as the highest law in the land, and the role they play in a non-centralized Government with checks and balances, that serves the people through representation.
Mcullough Vs. Maryland in 1819 opened up a precedent for loose construction (the constitution is meant to be flexible document that it can change with the times, this was Jefferson's intention, and he states so himself in his writings), and said many congressional powers are implied by the constitution. Gibbons vs. Ogden overwhelmingly decided that congress could stretch its power in a national economy.
Just because Health Care is not mentioned in the Constitution, not precedent n past cases, or stretched by loose constructionist liberals from elastic or commerce clause, does not make it "unconstitutional". There are plenty of Government programs and actions that meet this criteria that would go unchallenged by everyone.
Your argument is very very weak, but your video is a very interesting civics lesson, and I would recommend it for any middle or high school students taking civics class.
Guess what? If it is not in the constitution then it is unconstitutional for the federal government to do. Read the 10th Amendment. That makes what is not in the constitution, unconstitutional for the federal government to do.
200 years of Supreme Court precedence begs to differ. The Tenth Amendment is generally recognized to be a truism. In United States v. Sprague (1931) the Supreme Court noted that the amendment added nothing to the Constitution as originally ratified.
Oh, you mean the same Supreme Court which ruled slavery constitutional and the internment of Americans with Japanese ancestry constitutional also. Yep that very court.
Is it truly your goal to undermine the role of the Supreme Court and generalize the entire history of the SC? That is ridiculous. In 1803 Marbury vs. Madison established the current role of the courts (1803...you cant get more traditional then that). And In fact the original text (Art. I sec II) makes an implication towards slaves. Among the first supreme decisions (Marshall) was to benefit slave's rights at the time.
Absolutely not! But have no business to completely argue for the delegitimization of their authority based off of a historical errors in 200 years of judicial decision making. Its either one extreme or the other with you.
I have a question for you then? What is your opinion on the Bush Administration's Patriot Act or the Bush Administration's Tarp or wall street bailouts?
You should make a video of how the Patriot Act completely violates the constitution, especially our first amendment freedom of information and speech, and our 4th amendment that GRANTS US PROTECTION FROM THE US GOVERNMENT FROM SEARCH AND SEIZURE. The Patriot Act is the biggest government intrusion into the lives of the American people and it threatens our freedom.
You call yourself a constitutionalist or a conservative/libertarian. You are ridiculous.
Freedom from unreasonable searches: The government may search and seize Americans' papers and effects without probable cause to assist terror investigation.
This is a clear violation of the 4th Amendment (right of the people to be secure in their persons houses....ect shall not be violated). It is very clear.
This is a violation of the 6th amendment, which allows for a fair & speedy trial and sets up a crucial part of our civil judicial system.
Freedom of association: To assist terror investigation, the government may monitor religious and political institutions without suspecting criminal activity.
This violates first amendment freedom of religion and assembly. Do you want the Government to intrude that?
Americans may be jailed without being charged or being able to confront witnesses against them. US citizens (labeled "unlawful combatants") have been held incommunicado and refused attorneys.
This is a clear violation of the 6th amendment that guarantees "to be confronted with witnesses against him (her)."
Do you want to give the Government the power to spy on you, monitor your assemblies, illegally enter your home unwarranted, and indefinitely attain you with no trial? This isn't Cuba!
Well, I am a university student who is currently studying the constitution and I found this video to be very helpful. Health care is a form of government control - they only needed the excuse to expand the government so they hide behind the idea that it is good for the people - so it will give them the right to change the constitution, By the way are you aware that Obama thinks that the constitution is deeply flawed. Ironic how this very system is what enabled him to succeed.
Your views on the Government are hardly civil, and can be seen more as a "conspiracy theory" then anything. Do you truly believe that the goal of the Government to pass health care reform (I assume is what you meant, not actually health care itself) is to gain power and not to meet the demands of 47 uninsured Americans and many more who face rising costs and poor coverage? You have poor understanding of how our Government works. Passing a bill in Congress does not amend the constitution.
Many constitutional scholars (like Obama) feel the same way about the Constitution. For instance, when it was written the ideas of equality and justice for all were only limited to property owning white men. The constitution did not ban slavery, and it did little to combat religious persecution. Government is responsible for so many great daily services, public transit, public education, road ways, parks, environmental protection and regulation, making sure your food is safe...ect.
You're an idiot. The only thing that applies to the constitution here is your first amendment right to freedom of speech. Lucky for you we still have that right. In another country you would have been jailed or beheaded for speaking out against the head of this great country.
Question; If by obeying constitutional law, we violate one of Obamas unconstitutional laws, can they really throw us in the joint? Even if we have a good lawyer?
Your lawyer will most likely ask, "What constitution?" Due to 30 years of omitting constitutional studies in our public schools and 70 years of activist judges hallucinating rights and privileges in the constitution, that document is no longer respected or recognized.
Here's a debate I am not yet decided on and this is whether a constitution is actually a great idea for a nation. Now like I said I am not fully decided but reasons on the aginst side would I think be that a nation with a constitution like the USA appears to be less flexible politically speaking ie. one ideology is entrenched and all others are forced out. This creates domestic stubility but does this not restrice some freedom?
You do realize your above comment is screaming your lack of knowledge about the USA and our society? It is because of that constitution we have vibrant political debates. Are you aware of the recent town hall meetings in the USA? They take place because our free speech is constitutionally protected. Good example: Geert Wilders of the Netherlands was blocked from entering the UK while allowed to travel throughout the USA.
On the subject of Gert Wilders, he has no constitutional right to freedom of speech in the US as he is Dutch, nor would he if the UK had a constitution. Not that I agree with barring his entrance, dispicable character as I think he is. One thing I will say is what about Socialists in the Progressive Age in America: some elected officials of the Socialist Party (exact names escape me at the moment) were barred from taking office because they held views which were "Un-American".
Are you sure you want to continue to discuss USA civics? I ask because your knowledge of USA constitution is rather lacking. Ger Wilders and anyone in the USA, citizen or not, is afforded any and all protections provided for in the Constitution. Apparently the same can not be said of your homeland. Care for another civics lesson?
Health care isn't a right, nor should it be except for children. That there is medicare and and medicaid is because the govt. provides it as a benefit, not because it's a right.
It is the citizen's right to assume the state is there to protect them. That is the main point of a state and this is a fact embraced by classical liberals. So how can you say that healthcare is not a right? Furthermore, why constantly refer to a 300 year old document to guide government in this day and age?
First: How old is your Magna Carter and your English Common Law? Nuff said, next: Second, How come the folks in the UK and Canada are always telling the USA we need government healthcare while you never find a USA citizen telling Canada and the UK they do not need government healthcare? Hmmmm?
Well I think it's very debatable as to whether British always say you should have government healthcare (Hannan) as well as whether Americans always detracting from state healthcare. On the Magna-Carter, it is a guide (apologies for inappropriate wording on the Constitution). Magna-Carter is not a written constitution which must be strictly abided by. It is a tool which the British parliamentary has used to evolve and develop ever adapting cutsoms of governance.
Furthermore, those on the Republican side of the healthcare debate keep talking about our NHS. This comparison is a little inaccurate. The healthcare plans proposed by Obama are still based on insurance (the difference being to the private system is that it will be simply cheaper to accomadate those 46 million uninsured). This means it is more like the French/German/Czech system, all of which operate on insurance taken from wages every month. Our tax system is cheaper but provides less funding.
One point on privatisation vs. socialisation. Here in the UK we had an outbreak of a "super-bug" called MRSA in hospitals. This was caused by poor hygeine standards because of imcompitent cleaners. But don't pounce on this too quikly, as the outbreak came just months after the NHS gave contracts to PRIVATE COMPANIES to clean our hospitals, as opposed to NHS paid/monitored cleaning staff. Before these private sloppy standards came about we never had anything like MRSA in our hospitals.
And guess who has whole-heartedly "sold off the family silver" like this? The Labour Party, our very own "Left-wing, Social-Democratic" orignal party of the people. So remeber them there "Liberal-lefties" aren't always what they seem...
Reading your dissertation I was still unable to find an answer to the question: why do you and others in the UK and Canada always tell us Yanks we need national healthcare while we Yanks do not tell you to toss out your national healthcare? How come? Hmmmm?
Well Ok you seem to have set yourself up for a bit of an easy knockdown. Think about it, if we are always singing the praises of socialised healthcare to you but Amercians are never heard saying the private sector is better to us that must mean that more people in the Western world want a "NHS Style" system (which by the way you're not even getting).
Fair enough, but at the risk of sounding like a cracked record might I suggest the USA govt. stop telling others how to run their countries. Iraq, Venezuaela Bush even tried with France!
When I wrote my reply I knew you were going to reply with that worn-out bumper sticker rhetoric, but I will address it anyway: The healthcare of your nation does not impact the USA's security, nor does the same in the USA impact the UK's security. However our involvement in Iraq we interpret as a national security issue. Bringing up Iraq was just a defection on your part to justify your attempted intrusion into the USA's healthcare debate.
Well OK here's how I became involved in this debate: Daniel Hannan MEP, A UK Conservative Party MEP, has been on Fox News repeatedly "slagging off" the NHS (might I add he's the only UK politician I've heard such things from, atleast in public). This MEP, who is disliked by many Conservatives here as being backward on many issues, was then used as an arguement against my nation's healthcare system from American conservatives. This then means that many in the UK are now joining this debate.
Join the debate, but the debate should be on your NHS with other people in the UK. Debating with the USA about our healthcare adds nothing to the debate about he UK's NHS.
The thing is we don't really have a debate over the NHS, atleast not one that whether it should be "got rid of". It's more about managment. People here see the NHS as a necessity and disagreement only arises over mismanagment. Has the debate been stiffled you might ask? As far as I can tell, no but I suppose can you ever really be sure.
Further to this, when Americans are likening my nation to the USSR just because we have an institution such as the NHS it becomes my business to detract from these arguements and if that means pointing out flaws in your system then I'm afraid I'll just have to be Old Testament about it.
I can't even receive MTV or CNN! Anyway I heard it on BBC News, in a clip where a woman was in what looked like a tiny group of protesters hysterically yelling "I don't want this to country to be socialised like England (UK). I don't want this country turning into Russia", amoung other slurs at the UK such as a man making the hylerious comment "Have you ever seen English (British) teeth?". That one made me chuckle.
next time you are unemployed and paying $500 for COBRA, then you will realize that govt healthcare is unconstituational - wait the insurance will probably deny your valid healthcare claim...wake up dude
Article 1, Section 8 places PROVIDING Defense and general welfare of the people under congress. What part of general welfare is NOT include Healthcare. Does it not place providing the general welfare of the people on the same level as Defense??
Here we go again: So you are saying those who wrote the Constitution violated the Constitution since they did not establish health care and free beast of burdens for all citizens. Hmmmm? .
you said "we have tyrenny" which i do not agree.If America is a land with tyranny then what should we call our country?Maybe we chinese should call our country the Hell.we chines are so afraid of the commie goverment, we are in constant danger of being put into jail and tortured to death.One can easily been jailed just because they complaind about the poicy of The "great and devoted CPC".
Unfortunately for you and me, what we think is unconstitutional might not be the opinion of the Supreme Court. So the idea that health care is unconstitutional is not likely to fly given all the other laws that have been upheld. Sorry.
As has already been pointed out to you, the 5th Congress of the US - with a Federalist majority in both Houses, no less - passed a healthcare act in 1798. In no regard is the Constitution being ignored in the case of healthcare...unless you'd like to argue that some of the very same men who wrote our Constitution turned around and ignored it.
As has already been pointed out to you when that happened in 1798 it was for a quasi-military group, which made it constitutional. Facts, the sure can get in the way.
You simply don't know what you're talking about. There is no language in early legislation establishing merchant seamen as a "quasi-military" group. They were private citizens whose main job was shipping and trade. The Marine Hospital Svc established in the 1798 Act was the forerunner to the PUBLIC Health Svc. That Act sets no pre-condition stating that a seaman be acting in a military capacity at time of injury to receive care. Merchant seamen weren't even extended veteran status until 1988.
No problem, you refuse to see the truth. You pull up one quasi-government/military group and want to run on that. For arguement sake, let us say you are correct, how come then only extend healthcare to the Merchant Marines and not the rest of American society?
Because healthcare in the 1700s was quite basic (herbal remedies, poultices, etc) and mostly provided by women in the home, and merchant seamen were away from home for long periods if indeed they had a home at all.
Okay fair enough. So to you under general welfare health care was provided for the Merchant Marines for your above stated reasons. Then under that same general welfare, would it not have been in the interest of general welfare to provide each household with a beast of burden? After all these beast were needed to feed and transport families. Food production was necessary to feed a nation, including the Merchant Marines.
So by using your reasoning since a beast of burden was not provided to each household, the Founders were in violation of the very document they authored. I feel like I have just been to a public school.
I have to say I'm not too clued up on the ins-and-outs of the US healthcare system but I will say all Obama wants to do is give a public alternative to private insurers. Why is the government providing free healthcare tyranny? That's madness! Anyway I will say this about it being overly centralised. Here in the UK our NHS is not perfect. It's mismanaged and beurocratized but centralised is is not. Scotland, Wales and NI have complete control over helathcare, separate from England.
They could have but they didn't, because families were extremely self-sufficient back then. It was an agrarian society, very different to now. Most people grew their own food, bred their own livestock, took care of their own sick, and bought whatever else they might need from a general store or others in the community. Merchant seamen had access to none of this as they spent most of their time at sea.
It's really not as mysterious as you make it out to be.
"They could have but they didn't," how weak is that? Those agrarian people you write about needed a beast of burden. Per you under "general welfare" one should have been provided by the government. Since beast of burdens were not provided, that would only indicate the men who wrote the constitution violated it.
But our 5th Congress DID establish universal healthcare for merchant seamen, setting a precedent that makes a public option today entirely Constitutional. Too bad for you.
Too bad for you the 5thCongress did not provide for a beast of burden which fell more in line with "general welfare" than healthcare for Merchant Marines, thus disproving your original point which you are finding difficult to accept.
By your accounts, I could declare space travel, stem cell research, and the very internet you are using to dish out this tripe unconstitutional simply because its something that's not covered in the constitution
What you are saying to me right now is a 2 year old child can't get heart surgery, but a greedy CEO of a company that bleeds all his employee's for money will get the heart surgery he needs to stay alive
I think you got your head twisted around backwards, and think the goverment stepping in and setting things RIGHT is a bad thing
Your mail system, fire fighters and police are already socialist goverment, I've yet to see the states fall into anarchy over that.
Please put down your fairy tale book and tell me what 2 year old who needed heart surgery in America did not get one.
Post office is constitutional, fire fighters are not handled by the feds. Did you even take Civics in school? Are you aware by making such statements you are exposing your public school re-education?
You think its fair for all these health care companies to -ONLY- accept the healthy into their programs, and -NOT- the people that -NEED- it?
Think about that for a second, all health care does in the states right now is bleed money from a majority of people that are not ill, are not sick, are not injured who can work, yet the sick/ill/injured who need treatment CAN'T work, thus are a strain on the economy because welfare comes out of the peoples pockets who were well in the first place!
I come from canada, also the land of the free, which also has free healthcare. Our economy is doing better then yours, simply for the fact that are people are sick less often and as such are more often at work
You say this is unconstitutional, yet there is nothing in the constitution for -OR- against general health care, you calling it unconstitutional is just mouthbreathing and trying to make yourself loud so people will accept your point
Why is it you Canadians are always telling us in the USA we need government health care while we in the USA never tell you Canadians you should not have government healthcare? Also if your healthcare is so good, why do wealthy Canadians come to the USA for healthcare?
remember to keep the public seprate from the state, YOU are the public, we are the healthcare THEY meet the challange because they (STATE) imbodie US the federlist no 55 imboidies our freedom THAT is THEM THE RICH the congress are this RICH their propaganda fuels YOU, you sound lost in the riches of the congress keep us seprate from them then speak
sumriKing 5 months ago
my polisci says nothing about this clause in the 1930's. the first time this clause was talked about was in the case, Gibbons v. Ogden in 1824......was about intrastate and interstate travel.
ktwarner87 11 months ago
I'm sorry I didn't realize providing our fellow Americans with healthcare was against the constitution, I guess I'd just become a republican and say to my fellow but poor american "FUCK 'EM" Ahh, GOD BLESS AMERICA INDEED *and its backwards way of analyzing society needs*
trmble6 11 months ago
For the Governors of the 26 states involved in the Federal Court decision,
Unconstitutional = Unconstitutional. (until and only if the decision is
overturned can it be law)
The lack of an injunction does NOT make the Obama Government Health Care Take Over constitutional.
Governors, if you allow any taxpayer money to be spent, in your state, on the
unconstitutional law, you should re-evaluate your oath of office.
The decisions stands unless it be changed by the appeal process,not until.
TheKnowBuddies 11 months ago
@TheKnowBuddies Your analysis is incorrect, the decision of a Federal Court of Appeals does not apply everywhere within the United States (that's jurisdiction of the Supreme Court), but only within the district that ruled it unconstitutional. The ruling in one federal appellate district doesn't apply everywhere. Maybe you should learn more about constitutional law before spouting off...
mrfrymcflubbs 11 months ago
Healthcare is not a right! We only have unalienable Rights. When these Rights are view through the prism of science (see my channel video), one will find they apply to all Life, from bacteria to humans, and Social systems, including Charles Darwin’s research; as in some Grand Unification principle for all Living-systems. Most understand the Laws of Nature trumps mortals in power; a new understanding of these Rights may help make this world a better place to live.
Mike10four 11 months ago
This guy is totally full of shit!
primoabruzzi 1 year ago
A judge in Florida on Mon became the second judge to declare Obama's healthcare reform law unconstitutional, in the biggest legal challenge yet to fed authority to enact the law. This Obama needs to GO... I have never seen a more lazy president in the White House. But he sure likes the party's I can't wait till hes' gone.
onstageagain 1 year ago
Maybe there is hope and change coming.
hellotommy 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
US health system is ranked in the bottom 7 of all industrialized countries: Google it.Rush says nationalized Health care's Nazism. So Australia is Hitlerville for its Medicare system? Rush has demented logic.I've lived in Australia most of my life & it works.My autistic son would 't be the bright well adjusted boy he's today without it.As all people join it's cheaper & you get more than private.You can still go get private luxury extras if you want.Don't fear what you don't know.
robinhood2be 1 year ago
I guess the VA is unconstitutional, social security and medicare. Next, government is unconstitutional..
obamaisfromkenya 1 year ago
Um.... not sure if you know, or understand wtf the word amendment means lol
Maybe you should check it out? Then apply some common sense? It would have helped you seconds before hitting the record button on this steaming pile of shit...
AvatarOfAvatar 1 year ago
Under chapter 1 of the Legislater it is constitutional. The goverment can take full power of the economy and create as much dept as it wants to help the people! The dept can be abolished by the federal reserve but you don't want that because Obama will take out In God We Trust. Boo Hoo! I want a job and a life could care less about god being on a dollar bill. The only people afraid of the government is retards like you.
carnypimp 1 year ago
Sorry, I dont think I want to hear a civics lesson from an uneducated midget who talks like a baby.
MrTruthAddict 1 year ago 2
Oh, and if we're gonna get on boat with Somalia, we better bring some bazookas, assault rifles, and some way to store our loot!
nafaidni 1 year ago
Pointless. This is not the commerce clause, this is the ability of Congress to levy taxes to provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States. Congress can increase taxes by 2.5%. That's perfectly Constitutional. And Congress can give you a 2.5% tax credit when you buy a product. That's also perfectly Constitutional.
P.S. The reason they didn't think of health care was because it was 1789. No government of any nation really cared about their citizen's welfare, then..
nafaidni 1 year ago
@nafaidni - Correction: "The reason they didn't think of health care was because it was 1789" and they believed in individual responsibility. Today that is an alien concept.
PropagandaBuster 1 year ago
@PropagandaBuster
Believe what you want. The only thing that we can prove is that whole-hearted trust in individual responsibility has been a failed idea. It has failed in Somalia. It has failed in Sudan. It has failed in every anarchist, ungoverned state in the history of the human race.
In those countries, individual responsibility is more important, apparently, than the rights of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. But of course, according to you, we should get on boat with em!
nafaidni 1 year ago
H.R. 3590
"The penalty provided by this section shall be paid upon notice and demand by the Secretary, and except as provided in paragraph (2), shall be assessed and collected in the same manner as an assessable penalty under subchapter B of chapter 68.
monkjr07 1 year ago
@monkjr07
So what exactly does paragraph 2 of the bill say?
H.R. 3590
"(2) SPECIAL RULES. -- Notwithstanding any other provisions of law--
"(A) WAIVER OF CRIMINAL PENALTIES.--In the case of any failure by a taxpayer to timely pay any penalty imposed by this section, such taxpayer shall not be subject to any criminal prosecution or penalty with respect to such failure.
monkjr07 1 year ago
@monkjr07
In other words, this directly contradicts the notion that the government is going to put a gun to your head and throw you in jail if you don't pay.
Now they might be able to withold a tax return, but that's only if you have on that year....
Also there is no public option in the bill...so no government run hospitals, nor any problems associated with government run hospitals apply to this discussion.
monkjr07 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Republicans claim that individual mandates are unconstitutional, but the first president to embrace the concept was a Republican: Richard Nixon. In 1989 President George H W Bush assembled a plan that would require individuals to buy insurance. Romney relied on the same model to create what he calls "the ultimate conservative plan" in Massachusetts, the plan that would, in turn, go on to serve as the basis for Obamacare. Now, all of a sudden the Republicans claim the bill is unconstitutional!
bamboozlewatch 1 year ago
This is a really useful video. I'm doing research on Article 1 Section 8 and it's nice to know the background information about what it was originally intended for.
frodobaggins115 1 year ago
@frodobaggins115: Thank you. I am happy to know this video helped.
PropagandaBuster 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
God you are clueless. You just make shit up. In the founding of this country there was no FAA either! Does that mean the FAA is unconstitutional? I could name several federal agencies that were not around in 1776, it doesn't mean that there unconstitutional you moron!
Proemed 1 year ago
Ever realize that the military runs under socialism. I am in the US NAVY and proud to be. We use the same health care system, use the same uniform, use the same life insurance, serve under 1 flag. If you ever thought about it, the military is doing good if you ask me. So are the people we are defending against us?
Jayboy671 2 years ago
@Jayboy671
Two points:
1.You aren't forced to join the military. You enter into that contract willingly.
2. That healthcare is a benefit of your job. Not a handout.
axelasdf 1 year ago
@axelasdf
1. Actually, there is a thing called "Drafted" and I can assure you that it isn't willingly.
2. It is a benefit of "Some" Jobs.
BullCatification 1 year ago
@BullCatification
I agree. The draft was something that made people join unwillingly, but this is not the current way of things, the draft is not in action. I disagree with the concept of the draft (the idea being the nation owns you and can force you to do something).
When I said "healthcare is a benefit of your job", I meant in the military. I do realize the inexactitude of both what I said and what I am saying now, because many are given the option of buying tricare, not tricare itself.
axelasdf 1 year ago
You haven't talked to me in a while. Something wrong?
monkjr07 2 years ago
Nothing is wrong. I do not favor unconstitutional healthcare, and you do. What's to talk about when both our minds are made up? Shall we discuss another topic?
PropagandaBuster 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I want to kind of evolve the conversation here but keep it within the same topic.
We can switch to another topic soon too if you'd like in a second.
PropagandaBuster (3 weeks ago) Show Hide
Marked as spam
Reply
Sorry my faith is still in the market place. This history of our nation has proven the market place produces positive results, while the government in the market place only results in interference.
-
Just like to say the last sentence is not ALWAYS true.
monkjr07 2 years ago
For instance we had pretty lose government regulations in Wall Street (which is part of a free market place society) and many people screwed up and did unlawful things causing much pain for many people.
People who did not take risky loans from banks are suffering badly too because of the recession. My family included and we lead a humble lifestyle.
So this proves that sometimes government enforcement of regulations in a free market society is warrented to make sure things are lawfully conducted.
monkjr07 2 years ago
@monkjr07
Read the contract on your investments. Take personal responsibility. If you screwed yourself, you screwed yourself. If someone violated their contract with you, then you take them to claims court/ other judicial enforcement. It's not that difficult.
axelasdf 1 year ago
Another thing I want to point out is that the reason health care is not specifically mentioned in the Constitution is because the idea of health care was not conceived until much later.
In the days of the Founding Fathers, (God bless them), people just died of illnesses that would be curable today.
Costs were lower and were affordable and did not threaten the Economy of the nation like it does today.
In those days doctor fees and paying for treatment was not much of a problem.
monkjr07 2 years ago
Thank you for stating health care was not included in the constitution. Which means health care legislation by the federal government is unconstitutional. Thanks for that validation.
PropagandaBuster 2 years ago
The thing is that costs are a problem today unlike in the days of our Founding Fathers.
I'm all for competition in the market place, but from what I see so far.
I do not see any logical reason why insurance corporations would willingly give affordable price cuts to premiums and deductables to those with pre-existing conditions.
The argument I'm hearing is that while the health care plan may be offered to those people, the cost of affording that health care plan would bankrupt a family.
monkjr07 2 years ago
This goes for people of all ages too.
I have a friend who is 20 and he suddenly developed cancer. Currently he is covered under his dad's insurance but past a certain age he will be kicked off his dad's insurance OR if his dad gets laid off which could happen in this recession.
If either of these things happens he will be forced to turn to the Private Insurance companies which label him as having a Pre-existing condition, and offer him a plan but he told me he can't afford it.
monkjr07 2 years ago
From my understanding the Free Market counts on a certain morality of Corporations to pass on savings to their consumers if their production costs are lower.
But what in any law makes sure that they don't allocate that money into their company's stock rather than lowering costs for their clients?
monkjr07 2 years ago
Corporations exist to pass the profits to the stock holders, not to the consumer. The stock holder invested in the corporation, not the consumer. So it is the stock holder who should benefit from any profits.
The market place through competition creates lower prices for the consumer.
PropagandaBuster 2 years ago
The question is why would Health Insurance Corporations offer affordable plans to the sick? Or those who have a history of genetic disorders?
The companies know that by accepting such clients they put profits at risk because those clients would probably take more $ in the form of medical expenses.
There is very little will for any Health Insurance provider to compete for coverage on the sick. They are like hot potatoes for them.
So how do we solve that problem?
monkjr07 2 years ago
As long as there is someone willing to pay there will be someone willing to accept their money and provide that insurance. Back to the market place again.
PropagandaBuster 2 years ago
But that's precisely the problem, nobody is willing to pay.
Few people can realistically afford $500 a month premiums, along with paying the utility bills, mortgage, clothes, food, and other necessities.
Also insurance providers always reserve the right to raise your premiums when they feel like it. If you pass the point of affordability, that's it your coverage is gone.
All the insurance providers on the entire market place offer plans out of the price range for those who need it.
monkjr07 2 years ago
Back to my original point: tort reform and the market place will lower insurance rates and medical fees.
PropagandaBuster 2 years ago
And my original point: But there is nothing legally binding about the market place that would cause Insurance industries to lower prices for the sick.
Other industries : Compete for consumers,
But in the Health Care Industry, why would they want to compete for "sick people" who will probably use services more than a normally healthy person? It takes a bite out of their profits.
It is almost an unspoken rule that there is no competition to cover the sick with affordable pricing.
monkjr07 2 years ago
Especially since sick people, like my friend who has cancer, has expensive treatments like chemotherapy.
While doctors can lower their fees to a point. Tort reform would not lower the cost of medical equipment doctors get from companies that manufacture MRI machines and drug treatments.
So overall I agree you have good points, I just don't think it's enough.
CBO projections also show that tort reform wouldn't solve the whole problem mathematically.
monkjr07 2 years ago
@monkjr07
Theoretically: I have cancer and the government will pay for my treatment.
Where does the government get the money to pay for my treatment? It taxes you. What happens if you don't pay that tax? THEY SCREW YOU OVER.
Sure, it'd be nice if someone helped me out, but I would never use government to POINT A GUN AT YOUR HEAD and demand that you pay for it. That is stealing. That's legalized Armed Robbery. That is wrong.
axelasdf 1 year ago
@axelasdf
Your right on certain aspects, but you theoretically have cancer, if you can't afford the treatment then you deserve to die from the disease?
Was getting cancer a logical fault of your own? (not a fair comparison to financial contracts for that very reason).
monkjr07 1 year ago
It is very unfortunate, but it is their burden, not society's. Everyone is responsible for theirs and their own, nobody else. By having THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT step in to DICTATE that you must bear the burden of a stranger, that is wrong.
I am not saying that people shouldn't help someone suffering misfortune, I'm stating it is wrong of government to force people to.
axelasdf 1 year ago
@axelasdf
And on that I will agree to disagree on how you judge what is right and what is wrong. Because the logic of "looking out for your own" does not line up with my Christian principles about helping thy neighbor.
I expect political parties (all political parties) who use the Christian label to sell any agenda, to be consistent to the label of that faith.
Now I will make another claim that the government CANNOT throw you in jail if you fail to get health insurance. > see next post
monkjr07 1 year ago
@monkjr07
According to the bill that was subjected to amendments by the Senate before President Obama signed the bill.
On page 336, it now reads beginning with line 4:
(NOTE: it's too big i'll have to break up the legislation quote in different places.)
See NEXT POST.
monkjr07 1 year ago
@monkjr07
If they can't throw you in jail, there is nothing they can enforce.
If you are arguing that they will only "fine" you , they will fine you, and when you do not pay that fine, you will likely have all of your possessions taken away, unless you don't have enough, then you will still probably go to jail. They'll find a way.
axelasdf 1 year ago
@axelasdf
You say that because you already believe they have the right to do that because of what's been told to you by the media.
The IRS simply can't do that, they have limitations placed upon what they can and can't do as well.
So even if you don't get insurance, they are not gonna take away your possessions. Did you even bother reading that page in the bill that I cited? I only could post a fragment of it but it basically disproves the claims you just made.
monkjr07 1 year ago
@monkjr07
Why hello FELLOW christian. I too help people. I volunteer & do community service, I donate to my church which helps people in need, BUT I DON'T USE THE GOVERNMENT AS A TOOL TO TAKE OTHER PEOPLES WEALTH TO FIX MY PROBLEMS.
You need to understand what law really is. It is FORCE. I don't FORCE the wealth out of your hand, that is called STEALING and it is WRONG. If you steal from me, and hurt my family, you had better be ready to suffer the consequences.
axelasdf 1 year ago
@axelasdf And this video is in response to the constitution (a law) basically declaring another piece of law (the healthcare reform bill) morally and legally wrong.
I already disproved you are forced to buy health insurance. idk why you are still debating when I'm the only one who cited research directly from the source besides stating my interpretation. I actually backed up the points I was making with facts. Not just claims or fallacious statements. (False cause, straw man)
monkjr07 1 year ago
@monkjr07
1. Why can't you buy insurance from a cheaper agency from out of state?
2. Why would anyone want to be self sufficient when the government will take care of all of their needs?
3. When more people join the "Easier Life" that is dependent on government handouts, who will pay for it? Will the "rich" be able to afford EVERYONE below them? What is stopping people from becoming worthless and depending on these handouts? Seems like an easy life: medical, food, housing, all "free" by GVMT
axelasdf 1 year ago
Yes Happy 2010 to you as well.
monkjr07 2 years ago
Where did you learn how to speak? Is English your first language?
johnottr 2 years ago
I'd also like to point out that the Constitution was written on the principles of the Preamble, which states somewhere in there it says "Promote the General Welfare"
Health Care Reform is not evil. It's just an issue of cost control because CBO statistics show that GDP is being spent more on health care and it's creating an unbalanced budget.
BIG CORPORATIONS (private sector by the way) are just as dangerous as BIG GOVERNMENT, I'd just like to point that out.
monkjr07 2 years ago
Anything written in the preamble does not carry the weight of law because it is not law. I think you want to reference "general Welfare" as mentioned in Section 8 of Article 1. Which clarifies "general Welfare" as those items enumerated in that section. If you read documents from the Founders in reference to this portion, they too take the same position.
PropagandaBuster 2 years ago
Not debating weather big business is dangerous or not. The Founders wrote the Constitution to protect us from government, not business. The Founders also wrote the Constitution to form a national government for protection of the new country and to promote interstate commerce (business) not to hinder it.
PropagandaBuster 2 years ago
In that respect, you are right. There is no legal force of law for universal healthcare.
But I would like to respectfully argue that it should be included because the current system does threaten the stability of our Economy.
I think we can agree there is a problem, so what can we do to ultimately reduce costs of health care premiums?
All the research I've done points to the fact that any policy that promotes adverse selection in the health care industry drives up costs.
Any solutions?
monkjr07 2 years ago
First I can not believe I wrote "weather" when I should have written "whether."
Solutions? Tort reform, stop the medical lawsuits or cap them. Get the lawyers out of the healthcare system.
Allow insurance companies to sell their insurance across state lines without interference from the states.
Basically insert the market place into medical care, and watch the cost go down.
PropagandaBuster 2 years ago
I agree with you to a certain extent.
But I would like to say that while Tort Reform is a good first step, it still would not save enough money.
From what I've read directly from the CBO, and then later checked with factcheck.o rg is that Tort Reform would only save about .5 of all GDP spent on health care.
I do agree about competition across state lines, but while that would expand the number of clients, what provisions in the law would prevent insurance companies from raising prices?
monkjr07 2 years ago
Most doctors want some type of tort reform to lower their insurance thus lower their rates to their customers. States without tort reform are seeing their doctors decline. While states like Texas with tort reform, see doctors moving into the state.
Allowing insurance companies to sell in all states increases the number of companies in states. That creates competition and competition causes prices to fall. The market place works.
PropagandaBuster 2 years ago
Although we agree competition is good and that it should happen across state lines.
There is still the problem of adverse selection.
The reason regulations on cost controls need to be put in place is because Corporations by law are supposed to look out for their profits so they look like a good investment for shareholders.
They do this by classifying clients under different categories of risk and exclude those who they deem costly to their profits.
So there's the issue of coverage as well.
monkjr07 2 years ago
So I'd like to repeat that I believe that big corporations are just as dangerous as big government.
It is really a balancing act and I think most people understand that the balance has been disturbed.
We agree that restoring this balance is critical to the well-being of America.
---
Another note:
Health Insurance is a unique product of the free-market because unlike toys, televisions, and other luxuries, going without health care could make the difference between life and death.
monkjr07 2 years ago
Sorry my faith is still in the market place. This history of our nation has proven the market place produces positive results, while the government in the market place only results in interference.
PropagandaBuster 2 years ago
You are entitled to your opinion as I am entitled to mine.
I hope you find our dialogue a positive one because sharing ideas is fun for me. I hope the feeling is mutual.
monkjr07 2 years ago
Yes I too enjoy the polite exchange of ideas. Thanks and please have a safe and Happy New Year.
PropagandaBuster 2 years ago
@monkjr07
The Big problem with Big companies is that they are getting sweet deals like the health insurance legislation, which guarantees them business. The bill that was passed says that, within a few years, it will be illegal to not have government approved health insurance. They will throw you in jail if you don't PAY one of these companies to "provide coverage" to you.
axelasdf 1 year ago
@monkjr07
When the BIG CORPORATIONS are the ones running the BIG GOVERNMENT, IT IS DANGEROUS. That is when the companies are making overcomplicated bills that guarantee them business. You HAVE to BUY health insurance. Government is making you pay something that isn't taxes. That is beyond the scope of government's power.
axelasdf 1 year ago
Jesus would favor socialized medicine. As a healer, I would think he'd like others to be healed.
HolyHellPreacher 2 years ago
We've had tyranny for the last 80 years.
kylhul81 2 years ago
America hasnt followed the constitution since day 1. if we followed the constitution we wouldnt have ever had slavery, genocide, private central bank, huge federal government,
jneil2007 2 years ago
The Constitution was for a huge federal goverment, that's why we got rid of the Articles of Confederation (and besides, genocides occured outside of America, other countries don't have to follow our rules)
Ruby150 2 years ago
history shows us that huge governments lead to corruption and tyranny. thats why ppl like jefferson hated huge government. the american way is limited federal governent with congress overseeing the monetary system (not the fed) and deciding most issues at the local level (state).
jneil2007 2 years ago
Yeah, except our government is for the people, and by the people
Ruby150 2 years ago
big governments are usually not for the people. how much was the nazi regime, ussr, communist china for the people not that much. theres this thing called history, look into it. Hamilton and the federalists wanted big government and they died out quickly.
jneil2007 2 years ago
If they did, then we wouldn't have our government anymore (and besides, Communist China has healthcare for everyone, and it works out for them, and they have more people than we do!)
Ruby150 2 years ago
Don't know if I would want to go to a doctor in China. Might get lead poisoning from the scalpel.
kylhul81 2 years ago
Uhuh, you are the most paranoid person I can think of (even more paranoid than me)
Ruby150 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Yeah, so why do Canadians have free healthcare, jackass?! Because they care for their citizens! Bush didn't, he just made us all look like idiots. At least Obama is trying to help Americans live easier, you damn conservative bastard!
Ruby150 2 years ago
Actually, they don't. There is no such thing as free health care.
MGCAUSTIN 2 years ago
They (the people) don't have to pay for it, is what I'm saying
Ruby150 2 years ago
Yes they do. They pay through their taxes.
MGCAUSTIN 2 years ago
Just because you dont like these decisions does not somehow delegitimize the role of the SC, as the highest law in the land, and the role they play in a non-centralized Government with checks and balances, that serves the people through representation.
Champraves311 2 years ago
Mcullough Vs. Maryland in 1819 opened up a precedent for loose construction (the constitution is meant to be flexible document that it can change with the times, this was Jefferson's intention, and he states so himself in his writings), and said many congressional powers are implied by the constitution. Gibbons vs. Ogden overwhelmingly decided that congress could stretch its power in a national economy.
Champraves311 2 years ago
Just because Health Care is not mentioned in the Constitution, not precedent n past cases, or stretched by loose constructionist liberals from elastic or commerce clause, does not make it "unconstitutional". There are plenty of Government programs and actions that meet this criteria that would go unchallenged by everyone.
Your argument is very very weak, but your video is a very interesting civics lesson, and I would recommend it for any middle or high school students taking civics class.
Champraves311 2 years ago
Guess what? If it is not in the constitution then it is unconstitutional for the federal government to do. Read the 10th Amendment. That makes what is not in the constitution, unconstitutional for the federal government to do.
PropagandaBuster 2 years ago
200 years of Supreme Court precedence begs to differ. The Tenth Amendment is generally recognized to be a truism. In United States v. Sprague (1931) the Supreme Court noted that the amendment added nothing to the Constitution as originally ratified.
Champraves311 2 years ago
Oh, you mean the same Supreme Court which ruled slavery constitutional and the internment of Americans with Japanese ancestry constitutional also. Yep that very court.
PropagandaBuster 2 years ago
Is it truly your goal to undermine the role of the Supreme Court and generalize the entire history of the SC? That is ridiculous. In 1803 Marbury vs. Madison established the current role of the courts (1803...you cant get more traditional then that). And In fact the original text (Art. I sec II) makes an implication towards slaves. Among the first supreme decisions (Marshall) was to benefit slave's rights at the time.
Champraves311 2 years ago
So to you the Supreme Court is above making mistakes in their decisions?
PropagandaBuster 2 years ago
Absolutely not! But have no business to completely argue for the delegitimization of their authority based off of a historical errors in 200 years of judicial decision making. Its either one extreme or the other with you.
Champraves311 2 years ago
No, that is with you, not me.
PropagandaBuster 2 years ago
I have a question for you then? What is your opinion on the Bush Administration's Patriot Act or the Bush Administration's Tarp or wall street bailouts?
Champraves311 2 years ago
Partiot Act: necessary
TARP: necessary because the government caused the problem in the first place requiring banks to write bad mortgages.
Wall Street bailouts: wrong, capitalism requires they go under for their bad decisions.
PropagandaBuster 2 years ago
You should make a video of how the Patriot Act completely violates the constitution, especially our first amendment freedom of information and speech, and our 4th amendment that GRANTS US PROTECTION FROM THE US GOVERNMENT FROM SEARCH AND SEIZURE. The Patriot Act is the biggest government intrusion into the lives of the American people and it threatens our freedom.
You call yourself a constitutionalist or a conservative/libertarian. You are ridiculous.
Champraves311 2 years ago
What part of the Patriot Act violated any of your Constitutional protected rights?
PropagandaBuster 2 years ago
Quoting the patriot Act:
Freedom from unreasonable searches: The government may search and seize Americans' papers and effects without probable cause to assist terror investigation.
This is a clear violation of the 4th Amendment (right of the people to be secure in their persons houses....ect shall not be violated). It is very clear.
Champraves311 2 years ago
The patriot act allows: the government may jail
Americans indefinitely without a trial.
This is a violation of the 6th amendment, which allows for a fair & speedy trial and sets up a crucial part of our civil judicial system.
Freedom of association: To assist terror investigation, the government may monitor religious and political institutions without suspecting criminal activity.
This violates first amendment freedom of religion and assembly. Do you want the Government to intrude that?
Champraves311 2 years ago
Americans may be jailed without being charged or being able to confront witnesses against them. US citizens (labeled "unlawful combatants") have been held incommunicado and refused attorneys.
This is a clear violation of the 6th amendment that guarantees "to be confronted with witnesses against him (her)."
Do you want to give the Government the power to spy on you, monitor your assemblies, illegally enter your home unwarranted, and indefinitely attain you with no trial? This isn't Cuba!
Champraves311 2 years ago
Well, I am a university student who is currently studying the constitution and I found this video to be very helpful. Health care is a form of government control - they only needed the excuse to expand the government so they hide behind the idea that it is good for the people - so it will give them the right to change the constitution, By the way are you aware that Obama thinks that the constitution is deeply flawed. Ironic how this very system is what enabled him to succeed.
Seeclearly1986 2 years ago
Your views on the Government are hardly civil, and can be seen more as a "conspiracy theory" then anything. Do you truly believe that the goal of the Government to pass health care reform (I assume is what you meant, not actually health care itself) is to gain power and not to meet the demands of 47 uninsured Americans and many more who face rising costs and poor coverage? You have poor understanding of how our Government works. Passing a bill in Congress does not amend the constitution.
Champraves311 2 years ago
Many constitutional scholars (like Obama) feel the same way about the Constitution. For instance, when it was written the ideas of equality and justice for all were only limited to property owning white men. The constitution did not ban slavery, and it did little to combat religious persecution. Government is responsible for so many great daily services, public transit, public education, road ways, parks, environmental protection and regulation, making sure your food is safe...ect.
Champraves311 2 years ago
You're an idiot. The only thing that applies to the constitution here is your first amendment right to freedom of speech. Lucky for you we still have that right. In another country you would have been jailed or beheaded for speaking out against the head of this great country.
clipper1047 2 years ago
you're unconstitutional
dc4481 2 years ago
Question; If by obeying constitutional law, we violate one of Obamas unconstitutional laws, can they really throw us in the joint? Even if we have a good lawyer?
vodhrtiwaz 2 years ago
Your lawyer will most likely ask, "What constitution?" Due to 30 years of omitting constitutional studies in our public schools and 70 years of activist judges hallucinating rights and privileges in the constitution, that document is no longer respected or recognized.
PropagandaBuster 2 years ago
keep it up, propaganda buster. you've got an ally right here.
brutaldeathonastick 2 years ago 4
Here's a debate I am not yet decided on and this is whether a constitution is actually a great idea for a nation. Now like I said I am not fully decided but reasons on the aginst side would I think be that a nation with a constitution like the USA appears to be less flexible politically speaking ie. one ideology is entrenched and all others are forced out. This creates domestic stubility but does this not restrice some freedom?
zola253109 2 years ago
You do realize your above comment is screaming your lack of knowledge about the USA and our society? It is because of that constitution we have vibrant political debates. Are you aware of the recent town hall meetings in the USA? They take place because our free speech is constitutionally protected. Good example: Geert Wilders of the Netherlands was blocked from entering the UK while allowed to travel throughout the USA.
PropagandaBuster 2 years ago
On the subject of Gert Wilders, he has no constitutional right to freedom of speech in the US as he is Dutch, nor would he if the UK had a constitution. Not that I agree with barring his entrance, dispicable character as I think he is. One thing I will say is what about Socialists in the Progressive Age in America: some elected officials of the Socialist Party (exact names escape me at the moment) were barred from taking office because they held views which were "Un-American".
zola253109 2 years ago
Are you sure you want to continue to discuss USA civics? I ask because your knowledge of USA constitution is rather lacking. Ger Wilders and anyone in the USA, citizen or not, is afforded any and all protections provided for in the Constitution. Apparently the same can not be said of your homeland. Care for another civics lesson?
PropagandaBuster 2 years ago
Wasn't this guy on the Sopranos? If we support a public option, he'll bust our heads!
dougmanjones 2 years ago
Health care isn't a right, nor should it be except for children. That there is medicare and and medicaid is because the govt. provides it as a benefit, not because it's a right.
100orion 2 years ago
It is the citizen's right to assume the state is there to protect them. That is the main point of a state and this is a fact embraced by classical liberals. So how can you say that healthcare is not a right? Furthermore, why constantly refer to a 300 year old document to guide government in this day and age?
zola253109 2 years ago
First: How old is your Magna Carter and your English Common Law? Nuff said, next: Second, How come the folks in the UK and Canada are always telling the USA we need government healthcare while you never find a USA citizen telling Canada and the UK they do not need government healthcare? Hmmmm?
PropagandaBuster 2 years ago
Well I think it's very debatable as to whether British always say you should have government healthcare (Hannan) as well as whether Americans always detracting from state healthcare. On the Magna-Carter, it is a guide (apologies for inappropriate wording on the Constitution). Magna-Carter is not a written constitution which must be strictly abided by. It is a tool which the British parliamentary has used to evolve and develop ever adapting cutsoms of governance.
zola253109 2 years ago
Furthermore, those on the Republican side of the healthcare debate keep talking about our NHS. This comparison is a little inaccurate. The healthcare plans proposed by Obama are still based on insurance (the difference being to the private system is that it will be simply cheaper to accomadate those 46 million uninsured). This means it is more like the French/German/Czech system, all of which operate on insurance taken from wages every month. Our tax system is cheaper but provides less funding.
zola253109 2 years ago
One point on privatisation vs. socialisation. Here in the UK we had an outbreak of a "super-bug" called MRSA in hospitals. This was caused by poor hygeine standards because of imcompitent cleaners. But don't pounce on this too quikly, as the outbreak came just months after the NHS gave contracts to PRIVATE COMPANIES to clean our hospitals, as opposed to NHS paid/monitored cleaning staff. Before these private sloppy standards came about we never had anything like MRSA in our hospitals.
zola253109 2 years ago
And guess who has whole-heartedly "sold off the family silver" like this? The Labour Party, our very own "Left-wing, Social-Democratic" orignal party of the people. So remeber them there "Liberal-lefties" aren't always what they seem...
zola253109 2 years ago
Reading your dissertation I was still unable to find an answer to the question: why do you and others in the UK and Canada always tell us Yanks we need national healthcare while we Yanks do not tell you to toss out your national healthcare? How come? Hmmmm?
PropagandaBuster 2 years ago
Well Ok you seem to have set yourself up for a bit of an easy knockdown. Think about it, if we are always singing the praises of socialised healthcare to you but Amercians are never heard saying the private sector is better to us that must mean that more people in the Western world want a "NHS Style" system (which by the way you're not even getting).
zola253109 2 years ago
Incorrect. Nope, it means we do not tell you how to run your healthcare, do not tell us how to run our healthcare. See how simple that was?
PropagandaBuster 2 years ago
Fair enough, but at the risk of sounding like a cracked record might I suggest the USA govt. stop telling others how to run their countries. Iraq, Venezuaela Bush even tried with France!
zola253109 2 years ago
When I wrote my reply I knew you were going to reply with that worn-out bumper sticker rhetoric, but I will address it anyway: The healthcare of your nation does not impact the USA's security, nor does the same in the USA impact the UK's security. However our involvement in Iraq we interpret as a national security issue. Bringing up Iraq was just a defection on your part to justify your attempted intrusion into the USA's healthcare debate.
PropagandaBuster 2 years ago
Well OK here's how I became involved in this debate: Daniel Hannan MEP, A UK Conservative Party MEP, has been on Fox News repeatedly "slagging off" the NHS (might I add he's the only UK politician I've heard such things from, atleast in public). This MEP, who is disliked by many Conservatives here as being backward on many issues, was then used as an arguement against my nation's healthcare system from American conservatives. This then means that many in the UK are now joining this debate.
zola253109 2 years ago
Join the debate, but the debate should be on your NHS with other people in the UK. Debating with the USA about our healthcare adds nothing to the debate about he UK's NHS.
PropagandaBuster 2 years ago
The thing is we don't really have a debate over the NHS, atleast not one that whether it should be "got rid of". It's more about managment. People here see the NHS as a necessity and disagreement only arises over mismanagment. Has the debate been stiffled you might ask? As far as I can tell, no but I suppose can you ever really be sure.
zola253109 2 years ago
Further to this, when Americans are likening my nation to the USSR just because we have an institution such as the NHS it becomes my business to detract from these arguements and if that means pointing out flaws in your system then I'm afraid I'll just have to be Old Testament about it.
zola253109 2 years ago
I never heard any American referring to the UK as being like the USSR becasue of healthcare. Who did you hear, one American on MTV or CNN?
PropagandaBuster 2 years ago
I can't even receive MTV or CNN! Anyway I heard it on BBC News, in a clip where a woman was in what looked like a tiny group of protesters hysterically yelling "I don't want this to country to be socialised like England (UK). I don't want this country turning into Russia", amoung other slurs at the UK such as a man making the hylerious comment "Have you ever seen English (British) teeth?". That one made me chuckle.
zola253109 2 years ago
You heard one American? How about listening to Russell Brand's disrespect to the USA?
PropagandaBuster 2 years ago
OH IN THE SUPREME COURT?!!! OH OH OH , then LIVE WITH IT!!!!
HowAbout1000 2 years ago
Why am I not surprised you left an incomplete thought as a comment? Hmmmm?
PropagandaBuster 2 years ago
next time you are unemployed and paying $500 for COBRA, then you will realize that govt healthcare is unconstituational - wait the insurance will probably deny your valid healthcare claim...wake up dude
ednan9 2 years ago
Guess what? It is still unconstitutional.
PropagandaBuster 2 years ago
Bullshit - read the consititution
ednan9 2 years ago
So we don't need a Defence ? (yes, that's the actual spelling in the constitution)
HowAbout1000 2 years ago
As expected you are off topic.
PropagandaBuster 2 years ago
Article 1, Section 8 places PROVIDING Defense and general welfare of the people under congress. What part of general welfare is NOT include Healthcare. Does it not place providing the general welfare of the people on the same level as Defense??
HowAbout1000 2 years ago
Here we go again: So you are saying those who wrote the Constitution violated the Constitution since they did not establish health care and free beast of burdens for all citizens. Hmmmm? .
PropagandaBuster 2 years ago
I think someboy needs to read Article 1, Section 8
HowAbout1000 2 years ago
Thanks ;-)
thaoddie 2 years ago
you said "we have tyrenny" which i do not agree.If America is a land with tyranny then what should we call our country?Maybe we chinese should call our country the Hell.we chines are so afraid of the commie goverment, we are in constant danger of being put into jail and tortured to death.One can easily been jailed just because they complaind about the poicy of The "great and devoted CPC".
kiwifruit126 2 years ago
Then if what you wrote is true, you then have tyranny. Thomas Jefferson, 3rd president of the USA said,
"When a government is afraid of its people there is freedom, when people are afraid of their government there is tyranny."
PropagandaBuster 2 years ago
Unfortunately for you and me, what we think is unconstitutional might not be the opinion of the Supreme Court. So the idea that health care is unconstitutional is not likely to fly given all the other laws that have been upheld. Sorry.
100orion 2 years ago
So that is a reason to continue to ignore the constitution?
PropagandaBuster 2 years ago
As has already been pointed out to you, the 5th Congress of the US - with a Federalist majority in both Houses, no less - passed a healthcare act in 1798. In no regard is the Constitution being ignored in the case of healthcare...unless you'd like to argue that some of the very same men who wrote our Constitution turned around and ignored it.
ismeme 2 years ago
As has already been pointed out to you when that happened in 1798 it was for a quasi-military group, which made it constitutional. Facts, the sure can get in the way.
PropagandaBuster 2 years ago
You simply don't know what you're talking about. There is no language in early legislation establishing merchant seamen as a "quasi-military" group. They were private citizens whose main job was shipping and trade. The Marine Hospital Svc established in the 1798 Act was the forerunner to the PUBLIC Health Svc. That Act sets no pre-condition stating that a seaman be acting in a military capacity at time of injury to receive care. Merchant seamen weren't even extended veteran status until 1988.
ismeme 2 years ago
No problem, you refuse to see the truth. You pull up one quasi-government/military group and want to run on that. For arguement sake, let us say you are correct, how come then only extend healthcare to the Merchant Marines and not the rest of American society?
PropagandaBuster 2 years ago
Because healthcare in the 1700s was quite basic (herbal remedies, poultices, etc) and mostly provided by women in the home, and merchant seamen were away from home for long periods if indeed they had a home at all.
ismeme 2 years ago
Okay fair enough. So to you under general welfare health care was provided for the Merchant Marines for your above stated reasons. Then under that same general welfare, would it not have been in the interest of general welfare to provide each household with a beast of burden? After all these beast were needed to feed and transport families. Food production was necessary to feed a nation, including the Merchant Marines.
PropagandaBuster 2 years ago
So by using your reasoning since a beast of burden was not provided to each household, the Founders were in violation of the very document they authored. I feel like I have just been to a public school.
PropagandaBuster 2 years ago
I have to say I'm not too clued up on the ins-and-outs of the US healthcare system but I will say all Obama wants to do is give a public alternative to private insurers. Why is the government providing free healthcare tyranny? That's madness! Anyway I will say this about it being overly centralised. Here in the UK our NHS is not perfect. It's mismanaged and beurocratized but centralised is is not. Scotland, Wales and NI have complete control over helathcare, separate from England.
zola253109 2 years ago
Therefore our healthcare is not centralized and further measures are being introduced every year to breka it down to an even more local level.
zola253109 2 years ago
They could have but they didn't, because families were extremely self-sufficient back then. It was an agrarian society, very different to now. Most people grew their own food, bred their own livestock, took care of their own sick, and bought whatever else they might need from a general store or others in the community. Merchant seamen had access to none of this as they spent most of their time at sea.
It's really not as mysterious as you make it out to be.
ismeme 2 years ago
"They could have but they didn't," how weak is that? Those agrarian people you write about needed a beast of burden. Per you under "general welfare" one should have been provided by the government. Since beast of burdens were not provided, that would only indicate the men who wrote the constitution violated it.
PropagandaBuster 2 years ago
Whatever.
But our 5th Congress DID establish universal healthcare for merchant seamen, setting a precedent that makes a public option today entirely Constitutional. Too bad for you.
ismeme 2 years ago
Too bad for you the 5thCongress did not provide for a beast of burden which fell more in line with "general welfare" than healthcare for Merchant Marines, thus disproving your original point which you are finding difficult to accept.
PropagandaBuster 2 years ago
No, you're the one not getting it. And I hope it's intentional, because I hate to think of anyone as being that stupid.
ismeme 2 years ago
By your accounts, I could declare space travel, stem cell research, and the very internet you are using to dish out this tripe unconstitutional simply because its something that's not covered in the constitution
Aticston 2 years ago
Wrong!
Space Travel: promote interstate commerce and national defense.
stem cell: correct, feds should stay out.
Internet: was developed first for the Defense Department which is constitutional.
Did you enjoy that tripe? Rather interesting how you attempt to minimize the truth
PropagandaBuster 2 years ago
What you are saying to me right now is a 2 year old child can't get heart surgery, but a greedy CEO of a company that bleeds all his employee's for money will get the heart surgery he needs to stay alive
I think you got your head twisted around backwards, and think the goverment stepping in and setting things RIGHT is a bad thing
Your mail system, fire fighters and police are already socialist goverment, I've yet to see the states fall into anarchy over that.
Aticston 2 years ago
Please put down your fairy tale book and tell me what 2 year old who needed heart surgery in America did not get one.
Post office is constitutional, fire fighters are not handled by the feds. Did you even take Civics in school? Are you aware by making such statements you are exposing your public school re-education?
PropagandaBuster 2 years ago
You think its fair for all these health care companies to -ONLY- accept the healthy into their programs, and -NOT- the people that -NEED- it?
Think about that for a second, all health care does in the states right now is bleed money from a majority of people that are not ill, are not sick, are not injured who can work, yet the sick/ill/injured who need treatment CAN'T work, thus are a strain on the economy because welfare comes out of the peoples pockets who were well in the first place!
Aticston 2 years ago
I think you are a backwoods close minded idiot
I come from canada, also the land of the free, which also has free healthcare. Our economy is doing better then yours, simply for the fact that are people are sick less often and as such are more often at work
You say this is unconstitutional, yet there is nothing in the constitution for -OR- against general health care, you calling it unconstitutional is just mouthbreathing and trying to make yourself loud so people will accept your point
Aticston 2 years ago
Why is it you Canadians are always telling us in the USA we need government health care while we in the USA never tell you Canadians you should not have government healthcare? Also if your healthcare is so good, why do wealthy Canadians come to the USA for healthcare?
PropagandaBuster 2 years ago