There is no “National” Health Care System
06. Oct, 2009 
27 Comments
by Wayne J. Barbarek
Although there may be problems, as in any industry, I cannot keep from wondering to what, or which, “system” everyone is referring.
There is all this talk of the “Nation’s” health care system; however, I fail to find where health care is a “national” object. There is nothing whatsoever in the Constitution suggesting it is among the certain enumerated objects of the “Federal” government, with the whole works of the Convention at Philadelphia making it more than obvious that it cannot be.
So, how can there be a “national” system for something that is unquestionably not among the certain enumerated objects that are delegated to the “Federal” government?
What is plain, though, rather than there being any kind of “national” system, there are certainly individual separate systems belonging exclusively to the several States — individual systems that the States have a constitutionally guaranteed right to establish or not establish, and to regulate or not regulate, as they see fit. Or, as they decide is appropriate for their individual and separate circumstances and interests.
What is also plain is that, no matter the alleged good intentions, good faith or urgency for a needed plan, and no matter the degree of passion or how great the numbers in its favor, until which time the necessary additional powers are constitutionally granted to the Federal Government, this remains their guaranteed right, individually and collectively within their separate societies made plain by the 9th and 10th amendments to the constitution of these united states.
Specifically, the Federal government has utterly no direct authority or jurisdiction whatsoever extending to those objects belonging exclusively to this Union’s member States any more than it has authority extending into any State in Europe; — and, whether or not anyone agrees, is irrelevant, for the plain truth is that Health Care, its industries, institutions, businesses, professions, education, licensing, wages, et cetera; are all among those objects belonging exclusively to the several States.
Not only does the authority of the Federal government not extend to such objects plainly belonging exclusively with the States, the undeniable fact still remains that the fundamental purpose of Union and its Federal government is not to be the source and facilitator of interferences and aggressions against them.
But instead, for the purpose of preserving them as separate independent sovereign societies; and, in so doing, meant to protect and preserve their Rights as the true sovereigns to decide separately and independently for themselves how the considerable remaining powers meant to be left with them shall be, or shall not be, exercised.
In other words, it is the absolute Right of the People of each State, independently of one another, to freely choose how they want to govern their separate society — to wit, how liberal and generous or how conservative and frugal it wants to be — without interferences and impositions from other member States or the Federal government.
And, in exercising those Rights of Freedom and Liberty, no State has a right, above all the Federal government, to “judge” and impose their will upon another just because that smaller society is, in their meager opinion, making inappropriate laws, not making desired laws or because it has customs, morals, habits or interests that are contrary to what they “think” or “believe” is appropriate and conducive to being an American State, even though its laws, customs, morals, habits and interests are not contrary to the Constitution.
So, what does this mean and how does it all add up as it pertains to the President and the controlling faction with which he is aligned?
As a Union meant to be of Laws derived from “true” construction and not of Men derived from forced construction, and as servants that are obligated by their required oaths to support the constitution of these united states, they have utterly no authority whatsoever to “judge” that which plainly belongs exclusively with the individual States; — nor do they have any authority whatsoever discussing, above all, proposing or promising to establish a National system, reform the several State systems made under their individual authorities or make health care a fundamental right using ordinary acts of legislation.
And, by arrogantly pursuing their current course, they make plain their intent to pervert the Constitution (according to the framers, an act tantamount to treason against these united states) and commit lawless aggressions against the States in utter defiance of their oaths and the Constitution.
In doing so, they are lawlessly encroaching upon and committing direct interferences into jurisdictions, authorities and objects belonging exclusively with the States by exploiting a temporary exigency to better excite the emotions and passions of the People so as to facilitate and hatch there repugnant schemes, perfectly timed so that on the spot, none can be, nor are they permitted to be, immediately refuted.
“But it will not follow from this doctrine that acts of the large society which are not pursuant to its constitutional powers, but which are invasions of the residuary authorities of the smaller societies [States], will become the supreme law of the land. These will be merely acts of usurpation, and will deserve to be treated as such.” (Hamilton, fp. 33)
Wayne Barbarek is the author of Documents Illustrative™ V1.0c — a searchable database product containing the Journals of the Convention at Philadelphia and the Federalist Papers, which his company publishes and can be downloaded at http://www.documentsillustrative.com — helping to make it easier for today’s citizens to do that for which the original legislators preserved the Journals: “contradict false statements propagated about the Constitution”.
If you enjoyed this post:
Click Here to Get the Free Tenth Amendment Center Newsletter,
There’s approximately 30-35 powers that have been delegated to the federal government in the constitution. Arguments finding health care in those powers are dubious, at best. We’ve covered this in a number of articles here, most notably:
http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/09/23/nancy-pelosi-wrong-on-health-care
http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/08/18/is-obamacare-constitutional/
Why defend a system that is not working? While I agree this power is not delegated to the Fed explicitly, it’s time to stop the mud slinging and get down off your high and mighty soap box and fix this. I don’t see you offering any solutions here…
The status quo is not something that’s being defended, although supporters of more government power generally confuse opposition with just that.
The point of the article here – is to make clear that the federal government isn’t authorized to engage in this kind of activity. period.
States, on the other hand, are free to enact whatever health care program or system that their respective constitutions allow.
At the very least, the federal government should get out of this industry altogether. It’s created far more problems than solutions over the past few decades.
2 comments: 1st, the commerce clause. It does say in the constitution that the federal government has the right to regulate interstate commerce (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3). Although I could see someone making the argument that healthcare falls under this, that seems like BS to me. However, during the New Deal, everyone’s favorite period of big government taking over things and not giving them back at the end, the supreme court started to move towards justifying pretty much anything with the commerce clause, or at least a lot of things they shouldn’t have. It’s now a generally accepted feature of constitutional law. I really think it shouldn’t be, and maybe there’s hope of a future court overturning it, but for now thats the way it is.
2nd: when a lot of people say “national” healthcare system they are referring to our healthcare system as a whole. This is useful because it allows us to compare healthcare worldwide. And it turns out ours isn’t very good. Or rather, its pretty good compared to the 3rd world and anything before 1970, but compared to the rest of the world its just not what it should be. It costs much, much more than most other country’s systems, and we have worse outcomes across a range of (but not all) indicators.
If you know anything about economics, the reasons why immediately become apparent when you start paying attention: doctors and patients face strong perverse incentives. Since insurance pays for much, most, or all of their care, the patient has every reason to ask for every test and treatment they think might be helpful. And its even more complicated for doctors. Some are paid more the more tests they give, others simply have no reason not to do more testing. All have an extremely strong incentive to err on the side of too much costly testing to avoid outrageous malpractice lawsuits. All of this together makes for a system in need of repair. Not as dire a need as many on the left say, but a need nonetheless. This isn’t an argument for federal intervention, I would much rather it be done at the state level if possible. Nor does this answer the constitutional problem. I just think it’s important to step down from your moral high ground once in a while and look at the world around you.
The constitution should be scrapped outright. We should just trash it and start over and include in the new one the recognition that a centralized system of provision of necessities is necessary to the growth and security of a healthy modern state. Then what would you spoiled conservative brats cry and pound your little fists about? If your main concern is that we are acting out of line with the ideas expressed in an ancient document, then we should change the document. If conservative thought had its way, we would never have invented flight because “if god had meant man to fly, he’d have given him wings”. Your stance is anti-progress and rooted in a pathetic fear of the unknown, compounded by the fact that it is ONLY unknown to YOU. The rest of us have already seen it work elsewhere and are trying to catch up, only to be bogged down by the unfortunate fact that the uneducated are allowed to vote.
Fact is that nations with centralized state-run healthcare are better off than we are. It is consistently demonstrated the world over that when people cooperate and focus on solutions instead of divide and focus on competition, everyone benefits. Even cranky conservative paranoid dimwits who are convinced that the big bad gubbamint is trying to steal their chee-tos and trailer homes.
If the country goes the way of socialism, we will all be lucky to have chee-tos and any kind of roof over our heads. When incentive goes away, people will not strive to achieve their very best. Do you think the slaves worked happily, doing the best job they could. No, they were whipped and threatened. When we are all working for the state (government), only the very elite state officials and their special friends will have any semblance of prosperity, and that prosperity would be at our expense. Everyone will be living in government housing, eating government food, receiving government healthcare, and dying when we are no longer useful to the government. Do you think the North Koreans prosper? Why did communism fail in the Soviet Union? I recently talked with an older couple that came here from Venezuela. The picture isn't very pretty there either. I don't fear the unknown. I hate that which is known to be evil. You on the other hand ,might have fallen for a leader like Hitler before you really knew what he he was. By the time the Germans woke up to what he was it was too late. We can see where our country is headed as history repeats itself. Only insanity insists that if you repeat something yielding a bad result enough times, finally a good result will happen.
Michael,
Then maybe it’s time for another amendment. With no uniform “national” (yes, I said national) policy, the piecemeal reforms that states would impose would be nothing better than what we have today. If the framers could have foreseen the dire straights the US is in, you know darn well they would have included a clause permitting such a uniform national policy.
I firmly believe healthcare is a right and not a privilege. It’s time we fix a broken system. Just look at the numbers and the fact that we are the only Western nation without a uniform national system and you’ll have all the information you need.
@Garrett – I only wish that proponents of national health care would be as honest as you about this. I strongly oppose and and also disagree with your position on the founders.
But – you’re taking the proper stance by saying that to do so an amendment should be proposed.
That way, the debate will be about the powers of government – and its proper role.
@Justin – that hardly dignifies a response – other than, you sound like a complete newbie here. You might try reading this website a little more. You’ll find that the Constitution is hardly just for “conservatives.”
Hey idiot! Um, I mean Justin!!
Murder laws are “ancient” (even though you clearly have no idea what the word actually means), so are those laws bad because they’re old too?
Or, are you just one of those Bush supporters who used to come around this site a couple years ago telling us how we should have nothing to fear about massive federal power because the government is GOOD?
“Specifically, the Federal government has utterly no direct authority or jurisdiction whatsoever extending to those objects belonging exclusively to this Union’s member States any more than it has authority extending into any State in Europe;”
This is the way to put it as its soo true, if they uses the so called interstate commerce clause (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3).
Lets read that clause:
“To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;”
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html
Tell me how does that give them greater power over the States then it does any State in Europe?
It is the same power!
EZstar,
You say, “when a lot of people say ‘national’ healthcare system they are referring to our healthcare system as a whole.” You go on to say, “This is useful because it allows us to compare healthcare worldwide.”
Unfortunately, everyone making such comparisons is making improper comparisons — comparisons impossible to make under our “federal” system of government; and so, making such comparisons is also repugnant to the ratified “form”.
It is important to understand that the United States is NOT a sovereign country in the same sense as are “individual” sovereigns to which it is being compared. Rather, this is a UNION of 50 independent sovereign bodies, as is made plain by Madison:
“Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a SOVEREIGN body, INDEPENDENT of all others, and ONLY to be bound by its OWN VOLUNTARY ACT.” (fp39)
In other words, this UNION of 50 sovereigns cannot be legitimately compared to any INDIVIDUAL sovereign in Europe, or to any other individual sovereign anywhere else on this earth.
Consistent with the whole works of the convention, Virginia Representative Alexander White in the First Congress makes this clear regarding the 10th amendment:
“I understand our system as DIFFERING in form and spirit from ALL other Governments in the world.” “…the Congress is NOT to be compared to National Legislatures;”
In fact, as repeatedly used in comparisons by the Framers throughout the Convention in Philadelphia, the true equals to our 50 member States can only be compared, “individually”, to INDIVIDUAL States in Europe. The “Federal” government is not, in the same sense, a sovereign State with the whole power of legislation as has a true sovereign. The Federal government is merely an agent of the States, created by the States, with few powers, for “their” benefit — e.g. it is their representative, meant to represent them “collectively” in making good trade bargains (treaties) “with” foreign States. I emphasize the word “with”, here, because there is utterly no power whatsoever, either expressed or implied, granted to the Federal government to regulate trade “with” State and State!
Consider also, in convention, the Framers even said as to why the numbers in the House are not greater — because, the Congress does NOT have the whole power of legislation over the States. Its powers are FEW — LIMITED to certain ENUMERATED objects, only, as is further made plain by Madison:
“It is necessary also to recollect here the observations which were applied to the case of biennial elections. For the SAME REASON that the LIMITED powers of the Congress, and the control of the State legislatures, justify less frequent elections than the public safely might otherwise require, the members of the Congress need be LESS NUMEROUS than IF they possessed the WHOLE POWER OF LEGISLATION, and were under no other than the ordinary restraints of other legislative bodies.” (fp55)
Consider also that which Mr. Martin made plain in convention, which is consistent throughout the whole of the convention, with nothing ever being understood to the contrary:
“Mr. L. Martin contended at great length and with great eagerness that the General Govt was meant merely to PRESERVE the State Governts: NOT to govern individuals: that its powers ought to be KEPT WITHIN NARROW LIMITS;”
As was made plain throughout the whole works of the convention, the purpose of Union was to PRESERVE and PROTECT the States — the “individual” sovereignty, Rights, Freedoms and Liberties of the smaller societies composing the union and NOT to commit aggressions against them, invading their separate jurisdictions and dissolve them into one mass. To suggest otherwise is to supposedly suggest that it is also the intent of the European Union to dissolve France, Germany, Italy and all those other States into one mass — imposing on all, a uniform culture and language with uniform interests, habits and morals; — making one State indistinguishable from another; — using the governing head not to guard AGAINST encroachments upon each other, but using it to facilitate and be the source of aggressions and interferences against each other. Would such be just? If not just there, then how can such be just here at home — especially considering that our Constitution is meant to guard against such encroachments of State upon State and keep the governing head in check so it cannot usurp all remaining powers and swallow up the States.
So, why compare any individual sovereign State in Europe to the whole of our Union of 50 of its equals? In fact, making such comparisons is no different than trying to compare the United States to Iowa or Indiana!
What it boils down to is this: when making comparisons, such as to the health care system in France or Canada, those INDIVIDUAL systems MUST be compared to the INDIVIDUAL systems instituted under the INDIVIDUAL authorities of the States — i.e. individually, and NOT collectively; otherwise, the comparison must be the WHOLE of the Union of European States to the WHOLE of the Union of American States.
This only makes sense, since, also, in convention, the framers did only such proper comparisons; — and, at NO time in convention did any delegate ever compare the whole of the union to any single foreign State in Europe. All comparisons were ALWAYS State-to-State.
Not convinced? Consider also the part of the ratification alluded to by Virginia Representative Alexander White in the First Congress of the new United States, which we know today as the 10th Amendment to the Constitution, concerning “a clause proposed as an amendment to the constitution, to reserve to the States individually the powers not delegated by the constitution, nor prohibited by it, to the States”:
“… We MUST adhere to the limits described in the constitution. If we advance one step beyond its boundaries, where are we to draw the line to circumscribe our powers, or SECURE the LIBERTIES of our fellow-citizens?”
“This is a Government constituted for PARTICULAR PURPOSES ONLY; and the powers GRANTED to carry it into effect are SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATED, and disposed among the various branches. If these powers are insufficient, or if they are improperly distributed, IT IS NOT OUR FAULT, NOR WITHIN OUR POWER TO REMEDY.” “WE CAN NEITHER ENLARGE NOR MODIFY THEM.”
“This was the GROUND ON WHICH THE FRIENDS OF GOVERNMENT SUPPORTED THE CONSTITUTION. It was a safe ground; and I venture to say it could NOT have been supported on any other. IF THIS PRINCIPLE HAD NOT BEEN SUCCESSFULLY MAINTAINED by its advocates in the convention of the State from which I came [Virginia], the constitution would NEVER have been ratified.”
“… the State of North Carolina has expressed NEARLY THE SAME SENSE as Virginia, with this difference only, that she would NOT adopt the constitution until she was satisfied of the establishment of this GREAT PRINCIPLE, that we should NOT, by constructive acts, ENLARGE OUR POWERS, IN ORDER, AT A FUTURE DAY, TO SWALLOW UP THE STATE GOVERNMENTS, AND WITH THEM THE LIBERTIES OF THE PEOPLE. And Virginia took, in my opinion, the more prudent course; she adopted the constitution UNDER A FIRM belief that THIS SECURITY WOULD BE OBTAINED.”
Considering the fundamental “GREAT PRINCIPLE” made plain by Alexander White, with the 10th Amendment added to the Constitution so as to remove any doubt WHATSOEVER on this fundamental “GREAT PRINCIPLE” — to satisfy those States that made it plain as an uncompromising condition of staying in the Union and to those States making it an uncompromising pre-condition to enter the Union — it is undeniably plain that we have, GUARANTEED under this current U.S. Constitution, a government having few “GRANTED” powers “SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATED” — that the government is “constituted for PARTICULAR PURPOSES ONLY” — and, Health Care of the WHOLE is NOT one of them — PERIOD!
Garrett wrote:
I firmly believe healthcare is a right and not a privilege.
Ha, ha! I firmly believe, Garrett, that healthcare is a privelege, not a right. So there! Is any argument likely to shake either of us from our ‘firm’ postions? No; we’re already firmly persuaded of, well, what we’re firmly persuaded of. I’m also firmly persuaded, Garrett, that the founders would never have admitted of a provision in the constitution allowing for the nationalization of healthcare, but then again, I’ve actually read the founders.
Because you’ve been conditioned to (firmly) ‘believe’ a thing doesn’t make the thing any less idiotic, Garrett. But not to worry, Garrett, nationalized healthcare, as I’ve said innumerable times before, is a foregone conclusion already. It’s not a matter of if, but when. I’m personally betting on sooner than later myself. What I think you very likely don’t understand is that though you’re going to get what you wish for, you’re going to get much more than you wish for in the issue. Which is to say that there’s a strong element in this country that simply will not stand for it in any event. Know what I mean, dude?
Justin Quirici says, “Fact is that nations with centralized state-run healthcare are better off than we are.”
Please name one of them. Please tell me which nations are “far better off”. This nation has achieved the greatness that it has strictly because of the principles of limited government and decentralization. Which nation is far better off?
Limited government encourages progress, because people are free to use their talents, skills, and intelligence as they see fit. Flying, you say? Back when Orville and Wilbur invented the airplane, the government was much smaller, yet there were no “paranoid conservatives” to tell them they couldn’t invent the airplane. On the other hand, they didn’t receive federal subsidies for their project, did they? But the result was still the same, wasn’t it?
Your last comment about conservatives being able to vote — I find it funny how intolerant the self-proclaimed champions of tolerance really are.
Terry,
Sounds like a struck a nerve there eh? Please save the belittling for your crony henchmen; we’re educated adults and we can have a mature discussion.
Feel free to correct me if I’m wrong, Terry, but it would appear you don’t have any actual experience with “socialized”, “nationalized” or otherwise “government-run” healthcare (label it as you will). I have personally experienced these systems in other western nations, and contrary to popular belief, they work quite well. Before you blast me for *gasp* supporting these systems, please stop and take an objective look at how well they are actually working; and no, I in no way shape or form said they are perfect.
And please, do not misquote my words. I explicitly used the word “policy” rather than “system”, because despite all of their foresight and everlasting wisdom, the framers were not all knowing.
Just please, for sanity’s sake, take a moment off the Constitutional high-horse and take a look around.
Tell you what, Garrett, why don’t you give us some concrete examples of how well they are working in other Western nations rather than making such dogmatic statements without providing the least bit of evidence to support your claims. Otherwise yours is just an opinion, Garrett, and we all know what they say about opinions.
Second, since you invited me to correct you if wrong concerning your assumptions about me then allow me to do so — Every U.S. military member has at least some experience with government-run healthcare. Additionally, members of the recognized Indian Nations in America are generally familiar with socialized medicine. Were I personally impressed in the least by the ‘quality’ of healthcare offered by these entities, I’d be visiting the VA and/or the Choctaw Nation Indian health clinic, as is supposedly my entitlement, rather than providing for my own healthcare. Funny thing, though, Garrett, is that most of the aforementioned people who favor the nationalization of healthcare in America don’t argue their points from the superiority of these systems, but from their inadequacies. Go figure.
Actually, Garrett – instead of continuing to promote how national health care is good (even though Europe doesn’t even have something as expansive as what’s being proposed), why don’t you give us what you started out with……something Constitutional.
That’s what should be discussed for every issue!
So, if there were to be a Constitutional Amendment to support health care, how should it be written? That would at least show that you’ve taken the time to review the constitution and understand how Amendments are written and worded – and how this particular one would need to modify the constitution to make it legal.
Michael, let's be reasonable and set the record straight. I never conceded that I am in agreement with the bill before Congress at the moment. I am also not disagreeing that these regulations are extremely sweeping and should be properly implemented with an Amendment. However what I find a problem with is you and the rest of the constitutionalists here are grazing over is the actual problem at hand. You're welcome to feel one way or another on a particular national poilicy/system/whathaveyou, but all Terry and others have ventured to do is slam me for my own opinions on the matter at hand.
I won't get into my opinions on the Constitution, but needless to say I exercise my 1st, 2nd, and 5th Amendment rights to their fullest extent. I carry around a copy of it in my car and hand it out when I feel it's warranted. I have plenty of ideas for things that we should fix with our current healthcare system, but when it comes down to putting those down on paper in the form of an Amendment, I will leave that up to those on Capitol Hill. Unless, of course, you're feeling ambitious enough to tackle that one.
As to the detail regarding my experiences. I've lived in both Germany and Canada. Having gotten sick in Canada recently (pneumonia), I can tell you without a shadow of a doubt that my experience with the system was no different than when I have been sick in the States. Right, except for all of the co-pay, insurance payment juggling headaches one deals with stateside. I've spoken with native Canadian and German citizens, and as you may have guessed, they love their healthcare system. They get their cancer treatments, their insulin medications, their emergency surgeries at the wave of a care card. The talk about death tribunals, doctor shortages, inferior care, etc is all smoke in mirrors developed by those with some sort of alternate agenda. And because of that, you have nutjobs like our friend Christian who believe we will descend into chaos and Communism ala the late Soviet Union should we embrace a policy like the one we are discussing.
Obviously I picked the wrong discussion thread to engage a thoughtful dialogue on healthcare alternatives, and for that, I apologize.
Touche’, Michael. I’d even be willing to help ol’ Garrett out by suggesting that the final provision in the proposed amendment read something along the lines of the following:
Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
I.e., a new power relinquished by the states to the federal Congress.
Of course, I and others like me would demand that this amendment proposal follow to the letter the constitutional prescription in Article V for amending the constitution. I wouldn’t have to agree with it in any event since, as with other examples we have on record, such an amendment to the federal constitution would further tend to erode the principles of federal representative Republicanism. But such an approach to the subject would at least bear some resemblance to respect for the written constitution and the provisions it incorporates for its alteration.
@Wayne Barbarek
Thanks, now I have a number of good arguments to add to my arsenal for states rights.
In all seriousness though, I see what you’re getting at. I recognize that trying to compare systems at different levels of sovereignty can be misleading. However I think you take your point too far; after all, no 2 situations are perfectly comparable unless they are exactly the same in all respects other than the one compared. That’s why economists are so big on that whole ceteris paribus thing. But when we’re trying to answer a question like “is national healthcare more effective than state run or private” (notice I did not mention the constitutionality, just the health efficacy) it becomes useful, or maybe even necessary, to compare as best we can. There is useful information to be had by analyzing health indicators like life expectancy in the United States as a whole, then comparing it to the life expectancies in countries with national healthcare. Certainly there are confounding factors; the USA has a lower life expectancy partly because we are more likely to die in random accidents, which has nothing to do with our healthcare system. But the comparison is still useful. There’s an extremely important difference between saying “We may have slightly worse outcomes but I’d prefer to adhere to the constitution because its damn important to me” and “Who knows if we have worse outcomes? Since we can’t answer that, we better just adhere to the constitution, because its damn important to me”. One is a defensible moral statement, the other is essentially sticking your fingers in your ears and saying lalala I can’t hear you. Besides, there are issues here besides constitutional ones. It turns out the incentive structures I brought up are ALMOST exactly the same when states are paying the bills and deciding who gets covered as when its done by the federal government. Again, this might be less important than arguing about the constitutionality of a federal system, but you at least should acknowledge its existence.
@Terry and Garret
Terry, I’m not sure you’re right about all of our government run healthcare programs (which you correctly point out we have our share of in the US). The VA is pretty highly regarded both by bodies like the AMA and by veterans themselves from what I understand. Still, it’s a debatable point, and no-one is arguing that medicare/medicaid are well run or effective programs. And yet I think, depressingly, that you’re right about national healthcare being a question of if rather than when, just as social insurance was in the 1930’s. Back then Roosevelt and company thought “well, the people want it, how can the courts and the constitution stand in their way”, which is not quite what Obama is saying, but is what many of his supporters say. I don’t need to go into how misguided this sentiment is, from browsing other posts I can see this community already understands. Thing is, its still an open question whether or not nationalized healthcare is the way to go from a HEALTH OUTCOMES standpoint. We can argue about it all we want (and let’s do so, thats how we figure this stuff out), but despite what the right says old people aren’t being euthanized in Britain or Canada, and despite what the left says the proportion of the american populace who wants insurance but cannot afford it is really really small, especially with medicare and medicaid. However, as Terry points out, whether or not nationalized healthcare is acceptable, from a CONSTITUTIONAL standpoint, is a lot clearer (see the name of this website). I love how people with little grasp of the way constitutional law works react when something might be good pragmatically but bad constitutionally. You don’t “scrap it outright” like some idiots who will remain nameless suggest, you go through the amendment process, and if 3/4 of american states think its a good idea, it becomes part of the constitution. It’s not like its a novel concept, or even impossible; we’ve already done it about 27 times in our nations history.
EZstar, thanks for the thoughtful and lucid comments. Ya know, I can’t possibly get into the depth of this right now, but allow me to say this much –
whenever we consider alterations to our superior form of government (and that is exactly what we’re considering with the full nationalization of healthcare, let’s not kid ourselves) I start to get a little nervous at the outset because I’m quite convinced, with a reasonable degree of certainty, that almost everyone involved hasn’t considered the long-term, far-reaching implications of what they’re vying for, which, as I said above, is the further erosion of correct Republican principles. Which is to say the destruction of federal representative Republicanism.
The main idea I’d like to convey here (without getting into much detail at this point) is that ‘reforming’ (i.e., federalizing) the healthcare system in America has far-reaching, wide-ranging, long-term consequences that virtually no one is talking about. Doing so in violation of the constitution is egregious, no doubt, but doing so at all portends future events that I am by no means comfortable with. It’s not just about this or that issue, y’all, it’s about maintaining the most respectable form of government mankind has yet devised. Not just for you and me, but for posterity’s sake.
By the way, someone above said something about the constitution being “ancient.” I would simply advise the individual who made the statement to look up the term.
As a side note to proposed Obamacare legislation, please consider the following. The main reason that liberal congressmen have made the bill unnecessarily long and unreadable is this, IMO. Corrupt congressmen are abdicating their legislative powers to corrupt liberal justices to legislate public healthcare policy from the bench.
So naturally, the entire HHS, CDC, and FDA are not legal either. Eisenhower was surely an evil tyrant for asserting the blatantly unconstitutional federal intrusion in health administration when he created the first cabinet-level department on health.
For that matter, energy policy isn’t enumerated by the Constitution either. Neither is agriculture. God knows education isn’t. It seems like much of the president’s cabinet and the executive branch has been unconstitutional since at least the middle of the 19th century, when the patently unauthorized departments of agriculture and interior were created. Where in the Constitution are the words “natural resources”?
Or else…maybe this is a fake legalistic argument over a more mundane dispute over policy preferences. Hmm. I can’t tell which.
You bring up a wonderful point, Seth. Most of the cabinet departments are unconstitutional and should be done away with. We need people who have actually read the Constitution and the Federalist papers and understand what the founding fathers were meaning in Congress, in the White House and on the SCOTUS.
Bravo, John – short and sweet, and right on the mark!