The Health Insurance Mandate and the Founding Fathers

[Kevin Olsen]

Conservative opposition to the law centers around the individual mandate to buy insurance. Last week my local newspaper ran an editorial by Republican Congressman Scott Garrett in which he argues that:

"...At the heart of this act is the individual mandate, which holds that the federal government can require citizens to purchase health insurance......Such a law is unprecedented, unnecessary, unlimited and, above all else, unconstitutional. Never before has the federal government required people to buy a good or service..."

You all of course are familiar with the argument and there is no need to elaborate here.

Garrett however goes on to say that:

"...The Founders, who fought for liberty through the blood, sweat and tears brought by years of war — and remained suspicious of a strong, centralized government—would be surprised to learn that the U.S. Constitution authorized the federal government to pursue expansive powers antithetical to the principles of personal freedom. They would not, however, be surprised to learn that a future administration would claim these powers..."

Garrett's invocation of the founding generation is interesting but he forget a few small details. Hospitals were a new concept in the late 1700's. Dr. Benjamin Rush, the country's leading physician, still believed in bleeding patients. Skilled nursing was unknown. There were no drug suppliers and pharmacists mixed their own prescriptions. There was no reliable anesthesia, treatments for tuberculosis, cardiac surgery, or chemotherapy.

I have to ask if Thomas Jefferson would have opposed the health care mandate when five of his six children by his wife did not survive to adulthood. Would he still have rejected it after seeing his wife die?

What I find even more interesting as a history buff is that conservatives forget that there was a debate over an intrusive, individual mandate during the 1700s. I refer of course to the smallpox vaccine. The Smallpox vaccine was available but it was a dangerous and unpleasant experience. Although the Germ Theory of disease would not be common until a century later, both the medical community and the public knew that getting vaccinated would protect a person's health. The dangers of the vaccine made mandatory vaccination politically impossible but John and Abigail Adams both were vaccinated as were their children. George Washington wrote in 1777 that, "If I was a Member of that Assembly, I would rather move for a Law to compel the Masters of Families to inoculate every Child born within a certain limited time under severe Penalties."

Let me repeat the words of George Washington*, "move for a Law to compel"

Any thoughts on this aspect of the debate?

Kevin


*George Washington of course was an unreliable pinko who feared the establishment of a standing army and the perpetuation of a permanent and privileged officer class.

[John Smith]

As wise as we like to think our founding fathers were, there is no way the could have imagined the changes time would bring.

However, even this is part of the smoke screen that is today's argument over health care. Our government at the local, state, and fedeal levels forces us to buy services from private companies. This ranges from garbage collection to the life jackets we must have on our boats.

In ALL those areas it can be argued that a volunary action by the indidual is required for the government mandate to take affect. Healthcare is different, as no one can volunteer to never need medical attention, surgery, cancer treatments, etc.

This entire debate, IMO, comes down to the question Ron Paul was asked, "Would you let a healthy 30 year of who chose not to buy insurance die if he got seriously ill. Paul did not offer, "Yes, I'd let him die." He did offer the lame argument that the churhes and charities would step forward. That would hardly cut it in most cases.

You cannot get your car towed by your road service if you've not paid your bill. You cannot get your magazine delivered if you've not paid for the subscription. Nothing works that way: why should healthcare?

To answer the question, I'd have to simply guess that our founding fathers would have supported national healthcare as it would most certainly have fallen under the promotion of the publick welfare. Promoting the general welfare is specifically listed as one of the reasons for writing the constitution. I am unable to discern how denying anyone healthcare promotes their welfare.

[Concordia 33]

As wise as we like to think our founding fathers were, there is no way the could have imagined the changes time would bring.

However, even this is part of the smoke screen that is today's argument over health care. Our government at the local, state, and fedeal levels forces us to buy services from private companies. This ranges from garbage collection to the life jackets we must have on our boats.

In ALL those areas it can be argued that a volunary action by the indidual is required for the government mandate to take affect. Healthcare is different, as no one can volunteer to never need medical attention, surgery, cancer treatments, etc.

This entire debate, IMO, comes down to the question Ron Paul was asked, "Would you let a healthy 30 year of who chose not to buy insurance die if he got seriously ill. Paul did not offer, "Yes, I'd let him die." He did offer the lame argument that the churhes and charities would step forward. That would hardly cut it in most cases.

You cannot get your car towed by your road service if you've not paid your bill. You cannot get your magazine delivered if you've not paid for the subscription. Nothing works that way: why should healthcare?

To answer the question, I'd have to simply guess that our founding fathers would have supported national healthcare as it would most certainly have fallen under the promotion of the publick welfare. Promoting the general welfare is specifically listed as one of the reasons for writing the constitution. I am unable to discern how denying anyone healthcare promotes their welfare.

It is doubtful that they would have approved the way the healthcare law was rammed though both houses, and they probably would not have supported the law as written. Jefferson once said that he believed that no law should be voted on until 1 year after it's last revision, and then after that year it could only be approved as is with no amendments. If there was a situation that a law must be enacted immediately, it would require a 2/3 agreement of the house before the vote on the actual law. He knew that congress frequently made bad decisions and believed that they needed help not acting hastily.

Food is more essential than healthcare, should we pass a law requiring every American to have food insurance too? Shouldn't this law take precedence over healthcare-it is certainly more immediate, and both healthcare and food programs already exist in one form or another in the government. Maybe we need a single payer food insurance bill.

[BA.Barcolounger]

Militia Acts of 1792

The second Act, passed May 8, 1792, provided for the organization of the state militias. It conscripted every "free able-bodied white male citizen" between the ages of 18 and 45 into a local militia company overseen by the state. Militia members were to arm themselves with a musket, bayonet and belt, two spare flints, a cartridge box with 24 bullets, and a knapsack. Men owning rifles were required to provide a powder horn, 1/4 pound of gun powder, 20 rifle balls, a shooting pouch, and a knapsack.^[4] Some occupations were exempt, such as congressmen, stagecoach drivers, and ferryboatmen. Otherwise, men were required to report for training twice a year, usually in the Spring and Fall.

Compelled, by law, citizens to purchase particular products.

[Concordia 33]

Militia Acts of 1792

The second Act, passed May 8, 1792, provided for the organization of the state militias. It conscripted every "free able-bodied white male citizen" between the ages of 18 and 45 into a local militia company overseen by the state. Militia members were to arm themselves with a musket, bayonet and belt, two spare flints, a cartridge box with 24 bullets, and a knapsack. Men owning rifles were required to provide a powder horn, 1/4 pound of gun powder, 20 rifle balls, a shooting pouch, and a knapsack.^[4] Some occupations were exempt, such as congressmen, stagecoach drivers, and ferryboatmen. Otherwise, men were required to report for training twice a year, usually in the Spring and Fall.

Compelled, by law, citizens to purchase particular products.

This has been pretty well addressed in at least two other threads that I am aware of, and is not keeping with the topic of this thread.

Apparently, the people at Think Progress believe a requirement to buy health insurance is akin to the requirement under the Second Militia Act of 1792 that soldiers equip themselves for duty in case of invasion. The provocative title attached to this insipid argument is "Why George Washington would disagree with the right wing about health care’s constitutionality".
This is what your father meant when he said a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing. What does it say about progressives -- or, at least, the sort of progressive who would nod approvingly at such stuff -- that a law enacted when the United States was young and in constant danger from foreign enemies would be cited as precedent for mandated health insurance? It almost reads like a parody of progressivism, with its slipshod conflation of national defense with the welfare state. I'm surprised we haven't heard that health care reform should be treated as "the moral equivalent of war."
For a rebuttal to Think Progress's risible misappropriation of George Washington, I give you... George Washington.

[Cuyahoga Chuck]

It is doubtful that they would have approved the way the healthcare law was rammed though both houses, and they probably would not have supported the law as written. Jefferson once said that he believed that no law should be voted on until 1 year after it's last revision, and then after that year it could only be approved as is with no amendments. If there was a situation that a law must be enacted immediately, it would require a 2/3 agreement of the house before the vote on the actual law. He knew that congress frequently made bad decisions and believed that they needed help not acting hastily.

Food is more essential than healthcare, should we pass a law requiring every American to have food insurance too? Shouldn't this law take precedence over healthcare-it is certainly more immediate, and both healthcare and food programs already exist in one form or another in the government. Maybe we need a single payer food insurance bill.

I've got this book, "Ratification, The People Debate the Constitution, 1787-1788" by Pauline Maier, ISBN 978-0-684-86855-4. which suggests your knowledge of the folks who gave us our constituion is incorrect in the extreme. For instance, the facts show those that were for federalism tried to ram the original document thru' the state assemblies because their opposition has some very potent debaters like Patrick Henry.
The United States Constitution is a political document from first word to last. It is full of accomodations to the various parties in order to get the thing passed. If any party had dug in their heels like today's Tea Party does there would probably be no United States of America.

Historical Note:
Thomas Jefferson took no part in the constitutional debates because he was in France for many years as the ambassador for our Confederation Government.

[Concordia 33]

I've got this book, "Ratification, The People Debate the Constitution, 1787-1788" by Pauline Maier, ISBN 978-0-684-86855-4. which suggests your knowledge of the folks who gave us our constituion is incorrect in the extreme. For instance, the facts show those that were for federalism tried to ram the original document thru' the state assemblies because their opposition has some very potent debaters like Patrick Henry.
The United States Constitution is a political document from first word to last. It is full of accomodations to the various parties in order to get the thing assed. If any party had dug in their heels like today's Tea Party there would probably be no United States of America.

Historical Note:
Thomas Jefferson took no part in the constitutional debates because he was in France for many years as the ambassador for our Confederation Government.

None the less Thomas Jefferson said this - I never claimed he said it as part of the constitutional debates.


As for the founders, they may have forced the Constitution through, but the very force of giving birth to it spoke volumes about how much it should be respected. They would not have wanted its words twisted in the many ways that it is used not to make certain actions constitutional.

[TomZ]

I don't think the founding fathers envisioned a nationwide military/highway/rail/postal service either - do we need to revisit these too? We all pay taxes for other nationwide systems - highways, schools... why not free clinics/hospitals. you don't need a mandate, just build the d&3m things. provide tuition reimbursement for good doctors. If postal workers can get a better than decent living and retirement, why not public doctors. why give the insurance companies all that money? Does it have to be so difficult? was there this kind of heated debate when we put in the postal system? highway system.

Better yet, just convert those post offices into free clinics... and then watch UPS/Fedex/DHL start their own to compete, now that would be fun.

I am clueless, and I approve this message.

Tom Z

[Tom Hunter]

I think it is a safe bet that some of them would have opposed mandated insurance and others support it. There were a lot of them.

I do think that if we could some how replace the current congress with a ressurected group of founding fathers that a lot more would get done.

I also think the consitutional arguement is specious. The law already compells you to consume healthcare, if you are knocked out and go to the emergency room, or if you are ruled incompetent, you have no choice but to accept care. Having a law that compells you to pay for it in advance is a sensible, profoundly conservative idea.

[Norman Bernstein]

It's a very classic argument: the contentions of the 'originalists', versus the 'Living Constitution' advocates.

I am willing to concede that a portion of the constitution references principles which are, and ought to be, 'eternal' and 'inviolate'... even if the change of the world, and that of society, stubbornly objects..... but at the same time, the constitution wasn't intended to be a straightjacket or a suicide pact: its interpretation MUST be considered in the light of the change of society over the decades and centuries. The legacy of the founding fathers should NOT be one in which we presume that they are oracles who call from the distant past... but instead, pioneers who wouldn't be expected to forsee how the world would change over centuries of time.

The FF's intentionally left the Constitution vague enough to require the establishment of a Supreme Court as a final arbiter of its meaning.... but they placed no constraints on the ability of the Court to redefine the meaning and interpretation of the Constitution in order to fit the needs of the times. Had the ability to amend the Constitution been enough, they wouldn't have had to bother with a Supreme Court, at all.

[Norman Bernstein]

Having a law that compells you to pay for it in advance is a sensible, profoundly conservative idea.

+1!

And you're absolutely right about it having been a conservative idea, in the first place.

[SaltyBoatr]

And you're absolutely right about it having been a conservative idea, in the first place.

Conservatism has changed of late.

Five of the nine Supreme Court judges seem to be marching lock step with corporatism.

[Cuyahoga Chuck]

None the less Thomas Jefferson said this - I never claimed he said it as part of the constitutional debates.


As for the founders, they may have forced the Constitution through, but the very force of giving birth to it spoke volumes about how much it should be respected. They would not have wanted its words twisted in the many ways that it is used not to make certain actions constitutional.

Wrong again. Your characterization twists the facts all to hell. These were people of conviction who submitted to reality and voted for distasteful things because they knew we needed a better government than we had. In modern terms, "they cut deals"and "they horse traded".
James Madison wanted a complete separation of church and state for the federal government and the states. Since numerous states had official religions that they protected to the bitter end only the federal government was prohibited. Madison went along with it knowing he couldn't prevail.
Any idea that anybody from that era saw the new constitution as "holy writ" is manufacturing history to suit their views.

[Cuyahoga Chuck]

It's a very classic argument: the contentions of the 'originalists', versus the 'Living Constitution' advocates.

The FF's intentionally left the Constitution vague enough to require the establishment of a Supreme Court as a final arbiter of its meaning.... but they placed no constraints on the ability of the Court to redefine the meaning and interpretation of the Constitution in order to fit the needs of the times. Had the ability to amend the Constitution been enough, they wouldn't have had to bother with a Supreme Court, at all.

The Supreme Court was not envisioned as a branch with the power to trump the other branches. That power only came about during the leadership of John Marshall from the adjudication of a case called Marbury v. Madison.
Marshall was a helluva guy.
That case is laid out in the first hour of the video documentary "The Supreme Court".

[McMike]

Any idea that anybody from that era saw the new constitution as "holy writ" is manufacturing history to suit their views.

An unavoidable truth that is intentionally ignored out of convenience, IMO.

[SaltyBoatr]

[John Smith]

It is doubtful that they would have approved the way the healthcare law was rammed though both houses, and they probably would not have supported the law as written. Jefferson once said that he believed that no law should be voted on until 1 year after it's last revision, and then after that year it could only be approved as is with no amendments. If there was a situation that a law must be enacted immediately, it would require a 2/3 agreement of the house before the vote on the actual law. He knew that congress frequently made bad decisions and believed that they needed help not acting hastily.

Food is more essential than healthcare, should we pass a law requiring every American to have food insurance too? Shouldn't this law take precedence over healthcare-it is certainly more immediate, and both healthcare and food programs already exist in one form or another in the government. Maybe we need a single payer food insurance bill.

I disagree. I doubt they would have approved of the present senate filibuster rules.

[John Smith]

I don't think the founding fathers envisioned a nationwide military/highway/rail/postal service either - do we need to revisit these too? We all pay taxes for other nationwide systems - highways, schools... why not free clinics/hospitals. you don't need a mandate, just build the d&3m things. provide tuition reimbursement for good doctors. If postal workers can get a better than decent living and retirement, why not public doctors. why give the insurance companies all that money? Does it have to be so difficult? was there this kind of heated debate when we put in the postal system? highway system.

Better yet, just convert those post offices into free clinics... and then watch UPS/Fedex/DHL start their own to compete, now that would be fun.

I am clueless, and I approve this message.

Tom Z

I'm even more sure they never envisioned airports.

They did, however, envision a federal government with the responsibility to promote the general wellfare. Prevening/curing disease would seem to fall under that umbrella.

I can see a variety of paths the court can take either to uphold the mandate or claim it's unconstitutional.

All I do know is, all I am sure of is, the federal government has waved money at the states setting those states to meet certain criteria in order to get the money (the stimulus had criteria in it), and the federal government has mandated individuals to purchase things, be they insurances for job loss or disability, or retirement income, or those safety items the Coast Guard requires us to keep on board our vessels.

To the extent there is a difference between any of these items and health care, health care is the only one in which you cannot opt out of by choice.

Would it surprise anyone here if the court came to a unanimous decision that this mandate is constitutional based on the uniqueness of health care in this respect, and the decision of the court applies solely to that area of human endeavor?

I'd be no less surpised by such a decision than I'd be surprised by a 5-4 vote simply saying it's unconstitutional.

[Norman Bernstein]

Would it surprise anyone here if the court came to a unanimous decision that this mandate is constitutional based on the uniqueness of health care in this respect, and the decision of the court applies solely to that area of human endeavor?

I'd be no less surpised by such a decision than I'd be surprised by a 5-4 vote simply saying it's unconstitutional.

I hadn't thought of that, but you're right...they COULD decide that the circumstances are exceptional enough to permit the mandate.

Remember, in 2000, they explicitly said that their decision in Bush v. Gore shouldn't be considered a precedent. It looks like they have a precedent in making decisions not intended to be precedents, thermselves.

[John Smith]

I hadn't thought of that, but you're right...they COULD decide that the circumstances are exceptional enough to permit the mandate.

Remember, in 2000, they explicitly said that their decision in Bush v. Gore shouldn't be considered a precedent. It looks like they have a precedent in making decisions not intended to be precedents, thermselves.

Exactly. I had referenced Gore v Bush in a previous post or two.

If one listened to the three days of arguments, one found some pretty poor lawyering for such an important subject. I would like to believe that as much as the justices are armed with their individual ideologies, they will also be well armed with the facts, including how the insured pay higher premiums (involuntarily) to help pay for treatment the uninsured get.

This is an extremely complex issue, and I was surprised at how much of a role symantics play. If the Court deems the mandate/fine a "tax", as I understand it, they cannot make a ruling on it yet, as a tax cannot be appealed until AFTER it has gone into affect. That is the significance of the day one argument.

They could decide that, in practical terms, it is a tax. That would make day two's arguments moot. My impression, listening to day one, is that this bill could have given everyone a health care tax, and relieve them of that tax upon proof of having health insurance. That would put us in the same place, but no appeal would be possible until 2015.

The lousy analogies I hear discouraged me, but the justices will be discussing this among themselves, and perhaps find some better ones.

After all their discussions and debates among themselves, it remains healthcare is the one endeavor of human activity that you cannot opt out of needing. While we can choose to not have a boat, ride a motorcycle, or drive a car, etc.... where we are required to buy things, we cannot choose not to have a heart attack.

I hope someone looks at this from the other direction. If we are going to treat the free riders, why should we not all be free riders?

One of the things that worries me, as I remember 2000, is the extent to which their decision will, in their individual opinions, impact the 2012 election impact their decision.

They may punt: decide this is a tax, and they cannot rule on it yet.

[BA.Barcolounger]

This has been pretty well addressed in at least two other threads that I am aware of, and is not keeping with the topic of this thread.

Apparently, the people at Think Progress believe a requirement to buy health insurance is akin to the requirement under the Second Militia Act of 1792 that soldiers equip themselves for duty in case of invasion. The provocative title attached to this insipid argument is "Why George Washington would disagree with the right wing about health care’s constitutionality".
This is what your father meant when he said a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing. What does it say about progressives -- or, at least, the sort of progressive who would nod approvingly at such stuff -- that a law enacted when the United States was young and in constant danger from foreign enemies would be cited as precedent for mandated health insurance? It almost reads like a parody of progressivism, with its slipshod conflation of national defense with the welfare state. I'm surprised we haven't heard that health care reform should be treated as "the moral equivalent of war."

So, according to that, federal mandates are OK if there is a pressing national need?

[wardd]

wasn't the constitution amended by the civil war?

[RonW]

Cuyahoga the Chuck .......post # 6.....

Historical Note:
Thomas Jefferson took no part in the constitutional debates because he was in France for many years as the ambassador for our Confederation Government.

Aww Chuckie, I had to login just to let you know that your constitutional scholarship must have been learned in ohio, way up north where the liberals roam.......or did the nuns teach you the wrong stuff ?

Try -- Benjamin Franklin.......

[Joe Dupere]

Cuyahoga the Chuck .......post # 6.....



Aww Chuckie, I had to login just to let you know that your constitutional scholarship must have been learned in ohio, way up north where the liberals roam.......or did the nuns teach you the wrong stuff ?

Try -- Benjamin Franklin.......

Okay, I'll take a stab at this. Benjamin Franklin was US Minister Plenipotentiary to France from 1778 to 1785. Thomas Jefferson was US Minister Plenipotentiary to France from 1785 to 1789. The US Constitution was written in 1787 and then ratified by 11 states. The new government assembled and met in 1789.

I think Chuck was correct and that you are in need of education by some nuns.

[stevebaby]

Cuyahoga the Chuck .......post # 6.....



Aww Chuckie, I had to login just to let you know that your constitutional scholarship must have been learned in ohio, way up north where the liberals roam.......or did the nuns teach you the wrong stuff ?

Try -- Benjamin Franklin.......

"He resigned from Congress when he was appointed as minister to France in May 1784.
Memorial plaque on the Champs-Élysées, Paris, France, marking where Jefferson lived while he was Minister to France.
Memorial plaque marking where Jefferson lived while he was Minister to France.

The widower Jefferson, still in his 40s, was minister to France from 1785 to 1789, the year the French Revolution started. When the French foreign minister, the Count de Vergennes, commented to Jefferson, "You replace Monsieur Franklin, I hear," Jefferson replied, "I succeed him. No man can replace him."[64]

Beginning in early September 1785, Jefferson collaborated with John Adams, US minister in London, to outline an anti-piracy treaty with Morocco. Their work culminated in a treaty that was ratified by Congress on July 18, 1787. Still in force today, it is the longest unbroken treaty relationship in U.S. history.[65] Busy in Paris, Jefferson did not return to the US for the 1787 Constitutional Convention."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_...ster_to_France

[Keith Wilson]

In the late 1700s, most things a doctor did were as likely to make you worse as to make you better. Leeches, anyone? Asking what the "founding fathers" would have thought about modern health insurance is about as useful as asking their opinion on quantum mechanics.

It's just heartwarming how some folks are so passionate about defending their fellow citizens' (never their own) precious god-given inalienable right to go without health insurance, to forego necessary medical care, and be bankrupted by medical bills. Inspiring, and in the best American traditions, that you would want 30 million people to not have heath insurance because of a constitutional technicality.

[RonW]

History is fun and interesting and I am sure we can get more wrong facts then correct facts.
But are we now to believe that these founding fathers sat down over a couple month period and pounded out a constitution to form a more perfect union 4 years later after the revolutionary war ended. I don't think so..

The seeds of discontent started in the 1760's over a tyrannical King and his so called government.
The bill of rights was not ratified till 1791 although it started much earlier, thus giving us a time period of more like
25 years which is plenty of time for all to argue and debate on what role a new government should and should not play
in the new nation.

A link showing the time frame of the events to 1787 and how much thought and debate actually went into this document.

http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/revwartimeline.htm

And when we take a look at the bill of rights, we end up with a limiting of power (again) to the federal government.
Which is also stated in the constitution as to exactly what the powers of the federal government are, and are not..
Thus the Obama care mandate.......

he Bill of Rights is the collective name for the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution. These limitations serve to protect the natural rights of liberty and property. They guarantee a number of personal freedoms, limit the government's power in judicial and other proceedings, and reserve some powers to the states and the public. While originally the amendments applied only to the federal government, most of their provisions have since been held to apply to the states by way of the Fourteenth Amendment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...Bill_of_Rights

Keith Wilson -

It's just heartwarming how some folks are so passionate about defending their fellow citizens' (never their own) precious god-given inalienable right to go without health insurance, to forego necessary medical care, and be bankrupted by medical bills. Inspiring, and in the best American traditions, that you would want 30 million people to not have heath insurance because of a constitutional technicality.

Your argument breaks down to you want insurance (for your personal financial security), but you want everyone to have it so your cost is cheaper, the same as norm's argument of pre-existing conditions.
So you want uncle sam to use the big stick to make the rest of us fall in line with your way of thinking.
That is not freedom, but tyranny.....
Reminds me of John Smith wanting the churches to pay property taxes so his property taxes will be cheaper.
Sounds to me like the liberal/progressive movement is a very selfish movement....

[Norman Bernstein]

Sounds to me like the liberal/progressive movement is a very selfish movement....

Precisely the opposite. The 'Every man for himself' philosophy of the conservative movement is the ultimate of selfishness; the less everyone else has, the better off *I* am. The killer, of course, is that conservatives who decide NOT to buy health insurance (which they view as some sort of God-given right), and who eventually get sick, are the selfish ones, expecting the taxpayers to pick up the tab.

One of the responsibilities of citizenship is behaving in ways that don't burden everyone else. If welfare recipients are lazy bums feeding off the taxpayer tit, then what do you call uninsured people?

[RonW]

Norm -

If welfare recipients are lazy bums feeding off the taxpayer tit, then what do you call uninsured people?

Self insured............

You are entitled to liberty,freedom and the pursuit of happiness........

You are not entitled to a free library card and a cell phone and if you can't afford one, the state will provide you with one at a cost to the other cell phone users. Shall we call this a subsidy,taxation without representation, or tyranny..?

[Norman Bernstein]

Norm -

Self insured............

You are entitled to liberty,freedom and the pursuit of happiness........

You are not entitled to a free library card and a cell phone and if you can't afford one, the state will provide you with one at a cost to the other cell phone users. Shall we call this a subsidy,taxation without representation, or tyranny..?

Are you entitled to free health care if you're not inusred?

We're a civilized people. We don't throw sick people out of the emergency room, if they can't afford the care.

Nonetheless, we DO pay for their care.

The only question is this: should we have a health care system where people can avoid having to pay for care that virtually everyone will need, so they can get the rest of us to pay for it?

That is the system we have now; every household in the country pays around $1000 in taxes, just to treat those without health insurance. You're already paying this cost, and you've been paying it for years.

What is the 'conservative' solution to this problem? Continue to pay for the freeloaders?

[Concordia 33]

Are you entitled to free health care if you're not inusred?

We're a civilized people. We don't throw sick people out of the emergency room, if they can't afford the care.

Nonetheless, we DO pay for their care.

The only question is this: should we have a health care system where people can avoid having to pay for care that virtually everyone will need, so they can get the rest of us to pay for it?

That is the system we have now; every household in the country pays around $1000 in taxes, just to treat those without health insurance. You're already paying this cost, and you've been paying it for years.

What is the 'conservative' solution to this problem? Continue to pay for the freeloaders?

People need food too. Should we have an individual mandate for food insurance? I would argue that food is higher up on our basic hierarchy of needs than access to healthcare. Maybe this should be resolved first.

[Jim Mahan]

Maybe we need a single payer food insurance bill.

You mean maybe we need a federal law to make sure no one in our most abundant, wealthiest nation goes hungry. What a travesty of the constitution that would be.

[Cuyahoga Chuck]

Cuyahoga the Chuck .......post # 6.....



Aww Chuckie, I had to login just to let you know that your constitutional scholarship must have been learned in ohio, way up north where the liberals roam.......or did the nuns teach you the wrong stuff ?

Try -- Benjamin Franklin.......

You didn't read the book, did you? I gave you the bibliography and all you came back with is your Disneyland version of history. The Founding Fathers would be rolling in their graves if they saw what you dream up.

[Concordia 33]

You mean maybe we need a federal law to make sure no one in our most abundant, wealthiest nation goes hungry. What a travesty of the constitution that would be.

But no worse of a justification than that for healthcare - in fact it is a better justification. Shouldn't we start with hunger if anything? Why healthcare - your health doesn't much matter if the health problem is malnutrition. Maybe the government should nationalize farms, food processing and grocery store chains, and manage our nutritional needs for us.

[Norman Bernstein]

People need food too. Should we have an individual mandate for food insurance? I would argue that food is higher up on our basic hierarchy of needs than access to healthcare. Maybe this should be resolved first.

We've been doing that for decades... it's called SNAP (supplemental nutrition assistance program, formerly called food stamps, or welfare, or what have you).

We had enough humanity, even decades ago, to recognize that we weren't going to let people starve in the gutter in America.... and just like the health care mandate, you are already paying for it.

Why not eliminate that too? Sure, there will be people dying of starvation.... but your 'freedoms' wont be 'eroded'.

[wardd]

Norm -

Self insured............

You are entitled to liberty,freedom and the pursuit of happiness........

You are not entitled to a free library card and a cell phone and if you can't afford one, the state will provide you with one at a cost to the other cell phone users. Shall we call this a subsidy,taxation without representation, or tyranny..?

you're entitled to anything the law passed by a democratic process says you are

[Concordia 33]

We've been doing that for decades... it's called SNAP (supplemental nutrition assistance program, formerly called food stamps, or welfare, or what have you).

We had enough humanity, even decades ago, to recognize that we weren't going to let people starve in the gutter in America.... and just like the health care mandate, you are already paying for it.

Why not eliminate that too? Sure, there will be people dying of starvation.... but your 'freedoms' wont be 'eroded'.

We have humanity for those with health issues too and have for a long time. It's called medicaid, medicare, Hill Burton Funding. I thought we were talking about an all-encompassing solution to one of society's issues.

Assistance with Paying for Medical Care and Procedures

Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) [hhs.gov]
The Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) has information on assistance in paying for medical care for low-income families. Go to "Families & Children."
Contact DHHS directly:
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
200 Independence Avenue, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20201
Telephone: 202-619-0257
Toll-free: 1-877-696-6775
Government Benefits [benefits.gov]
The official government benefits website. This is a free, confidential tool that locates government benefits.
Health Resources and Services Administration [mchb.hrsa.gov]
The Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) of the DHHS website, Maternal and Child Health Bureau (MCHB), whose goal is to ensure equal access to quality health care in a supportive, culturally competent family and community setting.
Contact MCHB Directly:
Maternal and Child Health Bureau (MCHB)
Parklawn Building
Room 18-05
5600 Fishers Lane
Rockville, MD 20857
Phone: 301-443-2170
Fax: 301-443-1797
E-mail: ctibbs@hrsa.gov
Insure Kids Now [insurekidsnow.gov]
The Insure Kids Now website is a resource where you can find free or low cost health insurance for children and teens.
Find A Health Center [findahealthcenter.hrsa.gov]
You can find federally funded free or low cost medical and dental care by using the HRSA Find A Health Center tool.
Hill-Burton Facilities [hrsa.gov]
Hill-Burton facilities provide care to uninsured

[SaltyBoatr]

What is the 'conservative' solution to this problem? Continue to pay for the freeloaders?

(At least some of the 'freeloaders' can be sold to collection agencies to recoup, forcing them into bankruptcy.)

The conservative solution is to support/oppose laws in such a way that the insurance industry can maximize their profits.

To accomplish this they paint a narrative (using the talking heads on the TV which they own) about "risks to freedom" which engages an outrage chip in the brains of GOP sheeple.

There is a Frankenstein's monster awakened by this tactic, called the "Tea Party". Not all the corporatist conservatives are comfortable with the Tea Party because the insurance mandate is actually quite profitable for their insurance industry (with millions of newly insured healthy people). Oh the irony.

[Norman Bernstein]

We have humanity for those with health issues too and have for a long time. It's called medicaid, medicare, Hill Burton Funding. I thought we were talking about an all-encompassing solution to one of society's issues.

There are no 'all encompassing' solutions.... just things we can do to actually reduce the cost of medical care, including that paid for by taxpayers. The mandate is intended to do precisely that; improve medical care, and extend it to people who DON'T currently qualify for Medicare or Medicaid, by enlarging the actuarial base.

It doesn't solve all the problems.... but it does help. It's an incremental solution, because the Republicans refuse to consider the most obvious and dramatic solution, one which every other country in the developed world has already recognized, and has, for years: nationalized single payer health insurance.

The Republican solution is to enlarge the debt and deficit, while at the same time, raising the costs of medical care through tax credits for insurance which don't cover adequate health care, and do nothing about the people who still refuse to insure themselves.... a recipe for letting the problem get worse and worse as time goes on.

[Concordia 33]

There are no 'all encompassing' solutions.... just things we can do to actually reduce the cost of medical care, including that paid for by taxpayers. The mandate is intended to do precisely that; improve medical care, and extend it to people who DON'T currently qualify for Medicare or Medicaid, by enlarging the actuarial base.

It doesn't solve all the problems.... but it does help. It's an incremental solution, because the Republicans refuse to consider the most obvious and dramatic solution, one which every other country in the developed world has already recognized, and has, for years: nationalized single payer health insurance.

The Republican solution is to enlarge the debt and deficit, while at the same time, raising the costs of medical care through tax credits for insurance which don't cover adequate health care, and do nothing about the people who still refuse to insure themselves.... a recipe for letting the problem get worse and worse as time goes on.

I'm sorry Norman but I just don't agree. Individual freedoms take precedence over more government intrusion. Like any response there are costs and benefits and that is so for the adoption of or the exclusion of National Healthcare. Given the philosophical foundation of our country, I believe (and acknowledge that you will disagree wit this) that our country is founded on the principle of individual sovereignty. I do not believe that the healthcare law can co-exist with this philosophy.

[BA.Barcolounger]

Norm -

If welfare recipients are lazy bums feeding off the taxpayer tit, then what do you call uninsured people?

Self insured............

Ronald Reagan signed the law that stated that people would be treated in an ER regardless of ability to pay. So the "uninsured" are NOT "self insured". They are covered by the taxpayers.

[Norman Bernstein]

I'm sorry Norman but I just don't agree. Individual freedoms take precedence over more government intrusion. Like any response there are costs and benefits and that is so for the adoption of or the exclusion of National Healthcare. Given the philosophical foundation of our country, I believe (and acknowledge that you will disagree wit this) that our country is founded on the principle of individual sovereignty. I do not believe that the healthcare law can co-exist with this philosophy.

Well, we certainly DO disagree.

You are endorsing an ideological philosophy over a practical reality. Ideological philosophies are a very fine thing, but they've never cured a case of cancer, or relieved the suffering of a sick person.

Your kind of thinking turns the Constitution into a philosophical straightjacket, a kind of suicide pact which says that reality is meaningless in the face of ideological purity.... and while the country sinks lower and lower down the rathole of increasing inequality, ever rising debt, and eventually, social unrest (true of EVERY society in history with rising levels of inequality), I don't see how that ideological purity can be comforting, in the least.

You say that 'individual freedoms' take precedence over 'more government intrusion'..... is there a Constitutional definition that defines what 'too much government intrusion' is? Because we have a lot of it, already, and much of it is absolutely necessary.... why is this particular issue the straw that breaks the camel's back?

[wardd]

I'm sorry Norman but I just don't agree. Individual freedoms take precedence over more government intrusion. Like any response there are costs and benefits and that is so for the adoption of or the exclusion of National Healthcare. Given the philosophical foundation of our country, I believe (and acknowledge that you will disagree wit this) that our country is founded on the principle of individual sovereignty. I do not believe that the healthcare law can co-exist with this philosophy.

what is your answer if the majority want health care, which will come to pass?

and how is someone else getting health care infringing on your freedom to turn down healthcare?

[wardd]

why do some see gov provided healthcare as an intrusion?
do they see that about gov provided emergency services such as police, fire and ambulance?

[Cuyahoga Chuck]

I'm sorry Norman but I just don't agree. Individual freedoms take precedence over more government intrusion. Like any response there are costs and benefits and that is so for the adoption of or the exclusion of National Healthcare. Given the philosophical foundation of our country, I believe (and acknowledge that you will disagree wit this) that our country is founded on the principle of individual sovereignty. I do not believe that the healthcare law can co-exist with this philosophy.

You are arguing for a view of our constitution that one justice called "a mutual suicide pact".
Medical costs are eating up more and more of our national wealth. It can't go on . It might bring about a collapse of our economy. A country that has been brought to it's knees economically is as helpless as if it had been defeated in a war.

[Concordia 33]

You are arguing for a view of our constitution that one justice called "a mutual suicide pact".
Medical costs are eating up more and more of our national wealth. It can't go on . It might bring about a collapse of our economy. A country that has been brought to it's knees economically is as helpless as if it had been defeated in a war.

Ironic don't you think A justice takes an oath to uphold the constitution and yet wants to make judgments based on the impact of their decision.

I assume you are referring to this treatise....

Richard Posner’s Not a Suicide Pact is a distinguished jurist’s attempt to resolve
this problem by way of the time-honored American expedient of a resort to
‘pragmatism.’ ‘The core meaning of “civil liberties,”’ Posner argues, ‘is freedom from
coercive or otherwise intrusive governmental actions designed to secure the nation
against real, or sometimes, imagined internal and external enemies’ (p. 4). ‘The
central question addressed in this book,’ he continues, ‘is how far civil liberties based
on the Constitution should be permitted to vary with the threat level,’ where the
threat arises from ‘terrorism that has the potential to create a national emergency’

[Gerarddm]

Running every policy today through an unalterable filter first created by the Founders is like conducting your life by unalterable religious standards set by some desert dwellers a couple of thousand years ago. Both are untenable in the modern world.

The Founders were pretty smart men, but they were not rigid in their thinking- migod, how could they be when they were codifying a whole new way of governance? I think they were adaptable, and intended the Constitution to be so as well.

[Y Bar Ranch]

as wise as we like to think our founding fathers were, there is no way the could have imagined the changes time would bring.

o rly?

the congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the senate.

[Osborne Russell]

As wise as we like to think our founding fathers were, there is no way the could have imagined the changes time would bring.

Yeah, I hear this often but wonder what the point is. The suggestion seems to be that there is some defect in the constitution that can't be cured by amendment, which would be an alarming argument, and therefore, I'd like to hear it. But it never comes.

Doesn't seem like even you are making that argument or even proposing an amendment:

Promoting the general welfare is specifically listed as one of the reasons for writing the constitution. I am unable to discern how denying anyone healthcare promotes their welfare.

[Peerie Maa]

I'm sorry Norman but I just don't agree. Individual freedoms take precedence over more government intrusion. Like any response there are costs and benefits and that is so for the adoption of or the exclusion of National Healthcare. Given the philosophical foundation of our country, I believe (and acknowledge that you will disagree wit this) that our country is founded on the principle of individual sovereignty. I do not believe that the healthcare law can co-exist with this philosophy.

So, how closely does the American Experiment begun by the Founding Fathers fit with this?

Libertarian ideals are no better than Communist, or any of the other Utopian philosophies. Good in theory bad in practice.