One little note: The federal government, based on my understanding, does not have the right to mandate universal health care for the country. It is not part of the constitutional privileges or responsibilities accorded to the federal government. What they have been trying to do is fund it. That is a whole different ballgame. Again, some would say that there are constitutional imperatives at risk here.

Regardless of the opinion about the fed's effectiveness in creating and managing a univeral health system, they don't have the right to do so.

Again - they can fund it but requiring that people use it is not possible. Also, the only way they can force medical facilities and practioners to use it is by bribery - they will get the funds if they do and they won't if they don't.

That is why I've been saying I'm against uhc. I do support the funding bill for children as I see that these are 2 different things.

Just thought I'd throw that in. Correct me if I'm wrong. This is just my understanding.

(if this posts twice, I apologize. My computer "blinked" when I first hit the submit button.)

Lisha,

Perhaps in your part of the world hospitals are more generous than here in Texas or perhaps you actually work for some part of the system in which case I see why you defend it because at Texas hospitals the workers get free health care( nationalized?) at their hospital. Nurses have told me this during my stays.

In any case I sound a might aggitated because as I understand it the "strange" could actually mean lie and I saw the man crying and the bill. We regular working class guys do not have much left but our reputations so that annoys me. Would it sound strange if I also told you that I went for a test at a houston hospital and was told we notice you have a thousand dollar deductible and since we cannot verify how much you have paid on that in order to have your test you must pay the 1000 deductible to us now, cash check or credit card?

These are but a sample of the stories that many fellow Americans face daily. I do not have to make it up because I am 54 years old and have lived it. By the way I cannot see the movie sicko because it is not playing within 100 miles of my house. none of my regular AMC theatres are playing it. Coincidence???

Ken,
Some folks just won't understand until they are faced with predicaments like mine (colon rectal) until, God forbid, they are faced with thousands in bills and crappy insurance. Once again this insurance was employer mandated not my choice. Just the cheapest they could find. We apparently come from another generation to look after one another, but its not right or wrong, its just their choice. Youth breeds invulnerability, but age has a way of making you see mortality. I do weep for the young and the elderly though.

Amen Leon,
We are all connected.  I imagine Lisha is a professional blogger hired by the pharma or insurance
industry.  No one can tell me that we don't have the money for social programs including universal health care.  If we can spend one trillion dollars destroying a country and inciting a civil war thereby causing the deaths of hundreds of thousands...we can afford to invest in humanity.  Take care my friend.  My hope for you is that your health condition will improve.  Maybe someday adequate healthcare will be considered a right, not a luxury.

Again, I definitely support trying to get good affordable health care for the entire country.

However, this does not fall under the constitutional mandate of the federal government.

We need to start "doing the paperwork" to clean up the way we try to address social issues. We can't just keep using "funding bills" to drive change.

Each state should attack this issue and, then, if 3/4 of the states develop a similar approach, perhaps federal programs or, at least, legal federal funding could be applied via the ammendment process.

In this as in all social initiatives, we keep looking to the federal government to effect change which is not within the constitutional charter for them.

We can't keep doing business this way. We can't keep confusing "good" things to do" with "the wrong way to do things.".

IMHO

Just curious...Is Social Security and Medicare under your constitutional mandate of the Federal Government?

Better yet,
Is the federal government constitutionally mandated to bail out large corporations, banking and the savings and loan industry?  Is it mandiated to provide flood insurance? Guarantee pensions and savings?  Is it mandated to guarantee loans to small businesses and college students?  How about farm subsidies?  Where do the feds get the right to control the airwaves?  Did we ever have the authority to integrate schools?  Should the Supreme Court have even ruled on the constitutionality of a Schools integration policy?  I know alot of State rights activists want to go back 100's of years, but I'm not buying it.

Ken Mesle (Sent Wednesday, July 25, 2007 11:50 AM)

Actually, Ken, I do not see entitlements and some of the other issues you bring as appropriately belonging to the fed level IN THE WAY THEY WERE CREATED. Some of them do - such as the FCC under the commerce act, I think that there is appropriate justification. I do agree that SCOTUS has the right to rule on constitutionality of anything and that, especially, integration was a citizen right being trampled by states. Very appropriate.

Those are examples where the right questions were being asked. I am NOT a state's rights activist. I just want us to work by the rules or change the rules.

Very very intelligent questions, thank so much!

Please keep in mind that I am not saying that I disagree with the goodness of any of the examples you cite (although there are some that I have grave concerns about).

I'm trying to get us to realize that we have been gaming the system all these years by using funding packages to establish societal change or as remedies rather than using the system as designed or changing the design. This is where, sooner or later, the courts will come into play.

This is gonna catch up to us one day.

All that being said, I would really welcome someone with a constitutional law background to address this point (universal health care) and let me know if I've misunderstood.

Independent, Texas
I'm sorry that I jumped to conclusions.

To Ken Mesle--To answer your rhetorical questions: no, the Federal government does not have the "right" to bail out corporations, banks, or the S & L industry (although bank bailouts may come slightly closer to being a core function of government than the others, since banking involves the soundness of the money supply).  Ditto for flood insurance, education, business and housing loans (except perhaps for veterans).  With respect to guaranteeing savings, this is done through the FDIC, a quasi-public entity similar to the Federal Reserve.  With respect to pensions, except to the extent that they are guaranteed as in the case of savings, no.  Farm subsidies, no.  Also no to Social Security, Medicare and any health care plan.

The airwaves are a public commodity, and are leased to broadcasters.  And school desegregation was mandated by the Courts based on the 14th Amendment, which requires States (not individuals) to grant "equal protection of the laws" to all citizens of the U.S.  Those items do fall under Federal jurisdiction, based on different constitutional mandates.

Many people equate the government's duties with "doing what's good," or "doing what has to be done."  That is not how our government ever worked, or is designed to work, or is supposed to work.  The Constitution delegates specific limited powers to the national government; all others belong to the States or the people.  The States cannot, absent a constitutional amendment, abrogate or default their duties to the national government, and the national government cannot subsume State responsibilities without a constitutional amendment.

If you want to debate, on a constitutional level, the role of a government of limited and delegated powers, then, fine, we can have that debate.  It would indeed be fun, even if a bit scary.  But to state that "the government must do this" simply because we want, or think we want (or need), "this" (whatever "this" may end up being), is wrong and wrong-headed.

I understand where Independent, TX, is coming from.  We've exchanged posts on this before, as well as with others (I think this is the first time we've engaged in a discussion, though).  Independent and I are essentially in the same place: we want the government to act as it was meant to, and stop growing itself.  We also (I think [and if I'm wrong, Independent, correct me, please]) would like to see people take their problems and concerns to the States, rather than to Washington, since the States have the sovereign power and duty to deal with most of the things that Washington is being asked (wrongly) to be involved in.

Ans as for me, if we're to be subjected to some form of socialized medicine, just give me the right to opt out of the program (and the bill for it).  I don't want it, I don't need it, and I can't afford it.

Wow - a real discussion!! Cool!!

Richard - agree with everything except for, possibly, the part about people taking the problems etc.

Just a small clarification of my position on that point:

I do agree with that but mainly from a process perspective. I don't have any particular ideological position on what is or should be a state responsibility.

I want the Feds to actually state clearly "that isn't part of our constitutionally defined role". I really want the country to start (or resume) working the system as designed.

Part of working that system can be to change the constitution. I'm ok with that. It is the default management by funding bills that I think is so dangerous.

Just to clarify a bit: I have no problem with amending the Constitution.  I've rewritten it ficve times, and have written (and/or reviewed) any number of draft amendments.  That is how constitutional change is supposed to be done.

My gripe is with construing the Constitution into oblivion.  You shouldn't interpret it to death just to avoid the difficulty of amending it.  As a country, we've been too tolerant of interpretation which negates what the document requires, all in the name of expediency.

Richard,
Then how did we get all those federal programs, initiatives or whatever they're called?  Didn't any strict constitutionalist challange this usurpation of state responsibility.  Isn't the constitution a document that is open to interpretation?  Especially when dealing with healthcare issues and other social programs.  230 years ago I never would have dreamed of having the government pay for my medicinal bleeding at the neighborhood barber shop.  Likewise, just because we didn't have the means or desire to create safety nets, at that time, doesn't mean that our society need not evolve.  Leaving the big items up to states will only leave us with disparately different levels of support.  What are we going to do initiate some sort of revenue sharing like they do in professional sports?  Your arguements sounds reasonable... but strictly followed are they workable?  Richard, I really do think that there is an element in the conservative base that is hell bent on destroying the federal government's capacity to do anything other than make war and support the military industrial complex.  I would hope that you are not part of this faction.  What do you have against helping those that are less well off?  Like I've said before...ONE TRILLION dollars is not too expensive to wage an unnecessary war, but we can't afford universal healthcare?  I just don't get it.    

Richard,
You took away one of my questions before my post was printed.  Damn!  I would ask why are you so concerned with contruing the Consitution into oblivion?  I would much rather see it as open to interpretation rather than completely ignored as it has been by this administration.  

Ken--I'm equally concerned with ignoring the Constitution (and I agree that the current Administration would prefer at times that it wasn't there) as I am with torturous misconstructions.  The latter are harder to deal with, though, since they pay ostensive lip service to the text while twisting it and construing it in ways that make the text seem irrelevant, so I guess that's why I come back to them first.

Both are equally pernicious.  Both need to be stopped.  But both flow from the same conceptual base--the limitations on government activity and power are an inconvenience which must be avoided whenever possible and, if at all possible, made to disappear.  Unfortunately, society seems more concerned with the "right result" than with maintaining the Republic we were given.

And that saddens me.

Ken--To answer one of your questions, it is difficult to challenge a Federal law or initiative, since the courts routinely deny "standing" to individuals challenging unconstitutional actions unless they've been specifically and substantially injured (the harm to the body politic isn't enough to give standing, unfortunately).  And when Social Security was enacted, there were some challenges, but the courts simply reinterpreted Article I, Sec. 8, Cl. 1 to allow it.  Once that door was opened, there was no turning back.

There is nothing pernicious, per se, in allowing different approaches to socioeconomic problems on a State-by-State basis.  This way, the ideas can be vetted and the best ones implemented.  There is also nothing wrong with the States cooperatively adopting a uniform system on a State-by-State basis (as in the case of the UCC).

I am not trying to "destroy" the government's ability to do anything except make war, etc.  The Constitution clearly spells out areas that are delegated to the Federal government.  Washington is at liberty to deal with those areas.  I do not, however, think that everything belongs subject to Washington's uniformity rules.  This country was established as a Federal republic of sovereign States which voluntarily surrendered some if their sovereignty for the sake of creating a "unity in diversity."  That is more than an ideal--it is a fact.  I think it can still work (it did for a long while).  But it can't work if Washington continues to insist (and the people continue to insist) that it is the only source of power and action.

The people have become too used to thinking "Washington first."  They're not going to change unless Washington starts swaying "No" to them and to itself.  It may be painful for it to realize it can't and shouldn't do everything.  But it is vitally necessary that it learn and heed that painful lesson.

This is a great discussion. Have we come to an agreement that, as currently defined, the federal government does not have the authority to mandate a universal health coverage plan and, if they fund one it must be voluntary without penalty, and that such funding is an end-run around the constitution?

I tried to post a note to a more recent thread that has taken up the UHC issue that the discussion was ongoing on this thread but, evidently, the moderators kicked it.

No, I'm not ready to agree.  What you have shown me, however, is that I need to research this issue further.  

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):