Results 1 to 8 of 8
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Gender
    Male
    My Mood
    Sanguine
    Ideology
    Constitutionalist
    Posts
    15
    Rep Power
    0
    Post Like Stats

    Post Healthcare and The Constitution: Where is the Authority?

    The authority of governance for the modern republics of the world comes directly from the consent of the governed. This is very much true for The United States and this thinking informed The Founding Fathers when they created this country. Coupled with the idea that all authority is derived from the consent of the governed is also the concept that people and government would establish a social contract. This also influenced the early framers of The United States. The social contract is often bandied about by those attempting to empower more authority in a centralized government in the name of more services to the people. However, the truth is that our social contract is The United States Constitution. Any other attempt to create some mythical unwritten social contract outside the one we have is a lie to the citizens hearing it. The Constitution defines governments scope of power and with the bill of rights and supporting amendments limits to it as well. The Constitution also clearly defines the rights of its citizens. These are not menu options but guaranteed to every citizen

    What does The Constitution say about the federal governments authority over healthcare? Is it a federal responsibility? Does it fall within the scope of our social contract?

    Some think that the Preamble to The Constitution grants authority within the "General Welfare" reference. The first problem with this perspective is that The Preamble to The Constitution does not grant powers or authority. The Preamble is the summary statement. It describes the intent for all that follows. It sets the context on how The Constitution should be viewed. The second problem with the idea that welfare grants power to provide healthcare is that it says promote the general welfare not provide the general welfare. The goal is not to give things to the American people but to create conditions in which the American people can enrich themselves.

    The Preamble:
    "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

    Many would reference the commerce clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3). The next logical question is, does the commerce clause apply? The original intent of the commerce clause was to grant Congress legislative authority over international commerce and to insure ease and fair trade between the states. However, there are some limitations to the power of the commerce clause (many which are ignored today). Congress has no regulatory authority over commerce that does not cross state lines. Congress also has no authority to prohibit commerce across state lines, it may only regulate. Any regulation under the commerce clause must be applied equally to each state. Equal protection for the states.

    The Commerce Clause:
    Congress shall have power "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes."

    For the sake of the discussion a patient goes to their doctor for a checkup or a procedure. The patient is receiving a service which is commerce but the doctor or even hospital is local, the transaction it never crosses a state or multiple state lines. Thus the commerce clause does not apply. If the patient traveled to another state to receive the service the commerce clause still does not apply because the transaction is again local. The same is true for the purchasing of health insurance All insurance local to the state, so again the commerce clause does not apply.

    The law prohibiting the sales of insurance across state lines (McCarran-Ferguson Act) is an interesting case looking at it through an originalist lens. First, the whole act is unconstitutional regardless of previous supreme court rulings. The act is a prohibition on commerce. This alone is a violation of the commerce clause. Congress may not prohibit commerce between the states. The act essentially lets the federal government act with the power and authority of a state but lets it act as all states. This is a violation of the tenth amendment. The irony of the McCarran-Ferguson Act is that it has created complexities for those looking to nationalize the U.S. Healthcare industry. If one thinks about it, The Affordable Care Act violates the McCarran-Ferguson Act by creating a centralized insurance exchange.

    The Tenth Amendment:
    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people..

    ObamaCare (The Affordable Care Act) attempted to nationalize activities that fall squarely within the authority of the individual states. Additionally, there is no constitutional authority to guarantee any commercial services be mandated to the populace nor for the federal government to require the consumption of a commercial product. These requirements are both a violation of the ninth and tenth amendments to The Constitution as well as a violation of the intent stated in the Prologue. Congress should not be passing laws that take liberty away from the people. The setting up exchanges in place of the state that decided not participate with a state exchange again violated the tenth amendment. The SCOTUS ruling that the word State means whatever the intent of the authors was is a pure violation of historical precedence and calls into question the legitimacy of the supreme court as anything but a political body.

    Medicaid and Medicare also have constitutional issues. The very nature of entitlement funding through the federal government with ever increasing expenditures without formal house appropriation bills to fund these programs violates Article I, Section 7, Clause 1. The question here is whether the House of Representatives has the authority to abdicate its constitutional authority to other institutions? Additionally, these programs are bankrupting the Federal government and need to be addressed.

    Article I, Section 7, Clause 1:
    All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills

    Every time the federal government has involved itself in healthcare it has driven the costs for everyone up. The simplest truth is that there is no governing authority for the federal government to establish a managing presence in healthcare as well as there being no constitutional mandate to insure that commercial services are made available or consumed. Doing any of these things throws The Constitution onto the scrap heap. If healthcare is to be legally addressed at a national level, The Constitution will need to be amended. Repeal The Affordable Care Act and get out of the way. Let enlightened self-interest and the market place drive the services up and the costs down.

  2. Sponsored Links


  3. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Indianapolis
    Gender
    Male
    My Mood
    Ecstatic
    Ideology
    Independent
    Age
    45
    Posts
    18,123
    Rep Power
    20
    Post Like Stats

    Default

    Very well written OP with some interesting points especially for those who enjoy debating the constitution.

    However regardless of the constitutional arguments, society has moved on and political party or politician that attempts to take the above stance will not win an election. When the constitution was written the medical advances that we enjoyvtoday coild not be dreamed of, heck they lived in a time when a relatively minor injury could end up killing you.

    I just don't understand why conservatives hark on that the free market will resolve every issue facing society. Look back to the industrial revolution where there was no framework of regulation and life was pretty horrific for the average worker. The free market was used to enhance the lives of the few at the expense of the many.

    I doubt that anyone posting on this forum could afford to completely self fund treatment for cancer or even some pretty routine surgery from savings.

    Like it or not there will be some form of government intervention in healthcare, what we have to decide is to what extent.

  4. Sponsored Links


  5. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    3,662
    Rep Power
    4
    Post Like Stats

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by c.r.citizen View Post
    The authority of governance for the modern republics of the world comes directly from the consent of the governed. This is very much true for The United States and this thinking informed The Founding Fathers when they created this country. Coupled with the idea that all authority is derived from the consent of the governed is also the concept that people and government would establish a social contract. This also influenced the early framers of The United States. The social contract is often bandied about by those attempting to empower more authority in a centralized government in the name of more services to the people. However, the truth is that our social contract is The United States Constitution. Any other attempt to create some mythical unwritten social contract outside the one we have is a lie to the citizens hearing it. The Constitution defines governments scope of power and with the bill of rights and supporting amendments limits to it as well. The Constitution also clearly defines the rights of its citizens. These are not menu options but guaranteed to every citizen

    What does The Constitution say about the federal governments authority over healthcare? Is it a federal responsibility? Does it fall within the scope of our social contract?

    Some think that the Preamble to The Constitution grants authority within the "General Welfare" reference. The first problem with this perspective is that The Preamble to The Constitution does not grant powers or authority. The Preamble is the summary statement. It describes the intent for all that follows. It sets the context on how The Constitution should be viewed. The second problem with the idea that welfare grants power to provide healthcare is that it says promote the general welfare not provide the general welfare. The goal is not to give things to the American people but to create conditions in which the American people can enrich themselves.

    The Preamble:
    "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

    Many would reference the commerce clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3). The next logical question is, does the commerce clause apply? The original intent of the commerce clause was to grant Congress legislative authority over international commerce and to insure ease and fair trade between the states. However, there are some limitations to the power of the commerce clause (many which are ignored today). Congress has no regulatory authority over commerce that does not cross state lines. Congress also has no authority to prohibit commerce across state lines, it may only regulate. Any regulation under the commerce clause must be applied equally to each state. Equal protection for the states.

    The Commerce Clause:
    Congress shall have power "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes."

    For the sake of the discussion a patient goes to their doctor for a checkup or a procedure. The patient is receiving a service which is commerce but the doctor or even hospital is local, the transaction it never crosses a state or multiple state lines. Thus the commerce clause does not apply. If the patient traveled to another state to receive the service the commerce clause still does not apply because the transaction is again local. The same is true for the purchasing of health insurance All insurance local to the state, so again the commerce clause does not apply.

    The law prohibiting the sales of insurance across state lines (McCarran-Ferguson Act) is an interesting case looking at it through an originalist lens. First, the whole act is unconstitutional regardless of previous supreme court rulings. The act is a prohibition on commerce. This alone is a violation of the commerce clause. Congress may not prohibit commerce between the states. The act essentially lets the federal government act with the power and authority of a state but lets it act as all states. This is a violation of the tenth amendment. The irony of the McCarran-Ferguson Act is that it has created complexities for those looking to nationalize the U.S. Healthcare industry. If one thinks about it, The Affordable Care Act violates the McCarran-Ferguson Act by creating a centralized insurance exchange.

    The Tenth Amendment:
    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people..

    ObamaCare (The Affordable Care Act) attempted to nationalize activities that fall squarely within the authority of the individual states. Additionally, there is no constitutional authority to guarantee any commercial services be mandated to the populace nor for the federal government to require the consumption of a commercial product. These requirements are both a violation of the ninth and tenth amendments to The Constitution as well as a violation of the intent stated in the Prologue. Congress should not be passing laws that take liberty away from the people. The setting up exchanges in place of the state that decided not participate with a state exchange again violated the tenth amendment. The SCOTUS ruling that the word State means whatever the intent of the authors was is a pure violation of historical precedence and calls into question the legitimacy of the supreme court as anything but a political body.

    Medicaid and Medicare also have constitutional issues. The very nature of entitlement funding through the federal government with ever increasing expenditures without formal house appropriation bills to fund these programs violates Article I, Section 7, Clause 1. The question here is whether the House of Representatives has the authority to abdicate its constitutional authority to other institutions? Additionally, these programs are bankrupting the Federal government and need to be addressed.

    Article I, Section 7, Clause 1:
    All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills

    Every time the federal government has involved itself in healthcare it has driven the costs for everyone up. The simplest truth is that there is no governing authority for the federal government to establish a managing presence in healthcare as well as there being no constitutional mandate to insure that commercial services are made available or consumed. Doing any of these things throws The Constitution onto the scrap heap. If healthcare is to be legally addressed at a national level, The Constitution will need to be amended. Repeal The Affordable Care Act and get out of the way. Let enlightened self-interest and the market place drive the services up and the costs down.
    While I agree with you, it's too late to use that argument. Much of what the government does is beyond what the Constitution authorizes.. The general reasoning is that it's in the general welfare clause in Article I, Section 8:
    Section 8.

    The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
    "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive." C.S. Lewis


  6. Sponsored Links


  7. #4
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    The Last Best Place on Ea
    Gender
    Male
    My Mood
    Sanguine
    Ideology
    Get off my lawn
    Posts
    94,157
    Rep Power
    30
    Post Like Stats

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nemesis View Post
    Very well written OP with some interesting points especially for those who enjoy debating the constitution.

    <snip>
    Don't you recognize a copy/paste when you see it?

    "A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep." - Saul Bellow

  8. Sponsored Links


  9. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Gender
    Male
    My Mood
    Sanguine
    Ideology
    Republican Party
    Posts
    3
    Rep Power
    0
    Post Like Stats

    Default

    As a strict constitutionalist I guess you support disbanding the air force as well?

  10. Sponsored Links


  11. #6
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Gender
    Male
    My Mood
    Sanguine
    Ideology
    Republican Party
    Posts
    1
    Rep Power
    0
    Post Like Stats

    Default

    I just know I don't want the government to make me buy maternity coverage, when my baby making equipment was removed nearly 20 years ago, and why do I have to have prostrate cancer coverage, when I don't have one of those? lol

    is healthcare a right? I'm not sure, what I am sure of is that if I arrive at a time when I need medical care, I should be able to get it, and where I live, I can, whether I have insurance or not
    now I may have to go to the county hospital to get it, where I have to wait in line for hours to see a doctor, but if it's a true medical emergency, they're pretty good about getting you right in, when I went thinking I was having a heart attack, they walked me right by everyone in line
    which sucks the air right out of Kimmel's argument that the ACHA would let babies die, that's just not so
    even when my sister had to have an amputation, and she had no insurance, a wonderful hospital up in Tulsa took her in, and arranged for private grants to help pay for her medical care

    perhaps it might be more prudent (and cheaper) to reimburse hospitals and doctors rather than try to provide health insurance for millions

  12. Sponsored Links


  13. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    3,662
    Rep Power
    4
    Post Like Stats

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nvs View Post
    As a strict constitutionalist I guess you support disbanding the air force as well?
    Not disbanded, but it should still be part of the Army, or a Constiutitonal amendment allowing for a separate Air Force should have been written.
    "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive." C.S. Lewis


  14. Sponsored Links


  15. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    3,662
    Rep Power
    4
    Post Like Stats

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by squirt View Post

    perhaps it might be more prudent (and cheaper) to reimburse hospitals and doctors rather than try to provide health insurance for millions
    I'm starting to think that as well. In general, I'm for the market straightening things out, but I don't think that's going to work with healthcare at this time. Obamacare and Obamacare lite (AHCA) are both monstrosities with almost no market forces involved. Just the health insurance companies taking their cuts.
    "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive." C.S. Lewis


  16. Sponsored Links


Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •