Could it be argued that gov't-provided healthcare coverage (Medicare for all) *is* Constitutional?

[Roland99]

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

Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution

http://www.constitution.org/js/js_306.htm

CH. VI.] THE PREAMBLE. 445

§ 462. And, here, we must guard ourselves against an error, which is too often allowed to creep into the discussions upon this subject. The preamble never can be resorted to, to enlarge the powers confided to the general government, or any of its departments. It cannot confer any power per se; it can never amount, by implication, to an enlargement of any power expressly given. It can never be the legitimate source of any implied power, when otherwise withdrawn from the constitution. Its true office is to expound the nature, and extent, and application of the powers actually conferred by the constitution, and not substantively to create them. For example, the preamble declares one object to be, " to provide for the common defence." No one can doubt, that this does not enlarge the powers of congress to pass any measures, which they may deem useful for the common defence.1 But suppose the terms of a given power admit of two constructions, the one more restrictive, the other more liberal, and each of them is consistent with the words, but is, and ought to be, governed by the intent of the power; if one would promote, and the other defeat the common defence, ought not the former, upon the soundest principles of interpretation to be adopted? Are we at liberty, upon any principles of reason, or common sense, to adopt a restrictive meaning, which will defeat an avowed object of the constitution, when another equally natural and more appropriate to the object is before us? Would not this be to destroy an instrument by a measure of its words, which that instrument itself repudiates?

Couldn't it be argued that providing for the General Welfare would include providing health services (at some cost to the taxpayer via the form of increased payroll taxes) to the people? After all, this would free up large amounts of cash for corporations who would no longer be footing the bill for all or part of their workers' healthcare premiums.

[Warpy]

1. It would promote the general welfare, of course,

both for businesses freed from the burden of providing coverage and for people who are freed from the uncertainty of actually obtaining appropriate care when they get sick. If anything satisfies the aim in the preamble of promoting the general welfare of the US, universal single payer health care will do it.

Of course, the insurance giants will always yowl about it, but they can stay in business welching on disability insurance and supplementary insurance to cover what single payer does not, like heroics that have been deemed counter productive.

[DesertFlower]

2. agreed.

it makes sense.:toast:

[MrCoffee]

3. of course it's constitutional, it has nothing to do with the preamble.

the preamble isn't operative law, it's just a declaration of the reasons why we have a constitution

[Roland99]

14. Which is why I posted that bit from Joseph Story.

[Warren Stupidity]

4. What is the argument for its being unconstitutional?

Clearly medicare is within the scope of the federal government to raise revenue through taxes and to use that revenue, as determined by congress, to promote the general welfare. How such programs aid corporations is not directly relevant as they have no constitutional standing, despite their corrupt promotion to virtual personhood. Medicare has been 'on the books' for 40 years or so, extending coverage to everyone would not break any new ground.

[Roland99]

12. From the Libertarian and rwingnuts...

the ones who want to eliminate Medicare as a socialist program and not specifically authorized by the Constitution.

[Warren Stupidity]

15. well good luck to them with that.

I understand that the libertarian argument exists, it is simply baseless. On the practical side, attacking medicare is political suicide.

Funny how libertarians, except the fundamentalist variety, allow government to build roads and dams and bridges, none of which are specifically called out in the constitution, but then have a cow with a federal healthcare system.

The constitutional issues were basically settled in 1937. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m6524/is_n1_50/ai_4698967

[Roland99]

17. Thanks for the link...I'll have to read through that this weekend.

[DesertFlower]

5. michael moore said that

the top 3 candidates have a plan, but they all involve insurance companies. he said to support conyers bill HR676.

[glowing]

6. A payroll tax may work, but who foots the bill for those who never

work (because they can't) and children and all the retired persons who ate badly and now waddle like a duck and gasp for breath as they truck their health-riddled bodies to the ole' Docs.

Don't get me wrong, I def. want universal healthcare, but we must address a healthcare system as an overall function of our habitats and habits. The EPA and FDA would have to actually work for the people and not for big pharma and oil. GMO foods and all the ilk would have to be rid of. Restructuring the diet and by default, the way a grocery store sells food would have to be modified. Along with this, 32 hr work weeks must become a norm... with 2 adults both generating productivity for this country, I think 64 hours is much more than the old 40hrs with 1 adult working. There are actual factors that make up health.. its not just going to the Dr. Its a complete lifestyle and knowledge about how the body functions and what it really needs. This would make the costs decrease, and unfortunately, put a lot of Dr.s on yearly check-ups.

I trust Dennis to make this transition of overall healthcare, Mr. Vegan understands the nitty-gritty details that ruins most Americans into bad health.

[DesertFlower]

7. yes. dennis understands,

but how do you get people to give up their "unhealthy" eating habits?

[glowing]

18. You put the "health tax" on the food item... McDonald's would be

the most expensive place to eat.

Also, restructuring agricultural practices and general grocery store items for sale would have a lot to do with what people bought... Also, with 32hr work weeks, families could find time to cook for themselves again.

[DesertFlower]

22. good idea.

[glowing]

25. Thank you. We should be doing this now. Fruits and veggies ought

to be the cheapest items in the store, not Kraft mac-n-cheese.

[OzarkDem]

31. the "cheeseburger" argument against health care reform

Peer reviewed scientific evidence shows lifestyle factors represent a very small portion of health care costs.


from Krugman's column earlier this week..

Excuse No. 2: It’s the cheeseburgers.

Americans don’t have a bad health system, say the apologists, they just have bad habits. Overeating and teenage sex, not the huge overhead of America’s private health insurance companies — the United States spends almost six times as much on health care administration as other advanced countries — are the source of our problems.

There’s a grain of truth to this claim: Bad habits may partially explain America’s low life expectancy. But the big question isn’t why we have lower life expectancy than Britain, Canada or France, it’s why we spend far more on health care without getting better results. And lifestyle isn’t the explanation: the most definitive estimates, such as those of the McKinsey Global Institute, say that diseases that are associated with obesity and other lifestyle-related problems play, at most, a minor role in high U.S. health care costs.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/09/opinion/09krugman.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

[Warren Stupidity]

8. We already pay the medical bills for those who can't work.

That system is already in place. Medicare, medicaid, SSI - that system has been fully functional for decades. It is only working people who are getting screwn. Other countries manage to provide universal health care without instituting health nazis to watch over the population. Perhaps if we stopped with the military idiocy we might find that we have plenty of revenue to provide a first class medical system for all.

[DesertFlower]

9. one of the big problems

is the people who fall in between the cracks. they work, but can't afford health insurance. the small amount of money they make is considered "too high" to qualify for medicaid.

[Warren Stupidity]

10. Those would be in the 'working people who are screwn' I referred to.

Even if you do have health care, most likely every year or so your rates go up and your services provided go down. Every year more companies stop providing healthcare at all, or find ways to avoid qualifying new workers. We working people pay for the profits of Big Health/Big Pharma, pay for those who are on medicare and medicaid, foot the bill for the uninsured, pay for the mountain of festering corruption that is Washington, and then go vote for candidates who are telling us that their plan for 'universal healthcare' is a law making us buy our health insurance from their buddies rather than simply extending medicare to everyone.

[DesertFlower]

11. hubby and i just

enrolled for our health care and dental for 2008. of course, the premiums are up as they are every year along with the deductibles and co-insurance.

there was a time when his employer paid the premiums.

back during the clinton years, his company was giving huge bonuses and commissions. they stopped completely -- then last year they brought them back, but there only about 6% of what he used to get. of course, these days one is lucky to have a decent job. so many of the jobs in his field have been outsourced. if he didn't have a "special" skill -- his job would have gone too.

BTW. we used to take the "vision care". the premiums were high and when we went to the optometrist, it cost us another $100-200 dollars. we found that we do much better with Costco. ours has the best eye doctor i've ever had and the price of their glasses can't be beat. even when i wore contacts, i paid $18 a lens through Costco.

[Roland99]

13. I just dropped $300 on glasses for my youngest (*with* the discount plan!)

[DesertFlower]

16. mine rarely run more than $100 at costco,

but hubby wears progressive bifocals, so his are more.

[glowing]

20. There in is the problem... finding the cheapest doc (hoping they're

good) to supplement a basic fundamental right... Is it not a basic right to be able to see or hear (ever check out the prices on hearing aids--good grief, no wonder old folks just shout at each other).

[DesertFlower]

23. yes. my sister and i paid

for my mom's hearing aid -- $1800 and that was about 10 years ago.

[glowing]

21. There in is the problem... finding the cheapest doc (hoping they're

good) to supplement a basic fundamental right... Is it not a basic right to be able to see or hear (ever check out the prices on hearing aids--good grief, no wonder old folks just shout at each other).

[glowing]

19. Have you ever tried living on that paltry sum of money... Wouldn't

it be a novelty if people who were sick could afford good nutritious foods and relax enough to unstress.... Believe me, my husbands uncle doesn't make enough, thank god for family that he is able to live the lifestyle he does... Most in his condition (scizophrenic (sp)) are often times living on the streets.

[DesertFlower]

24. it's said, isn't it?

my mom's social security barely covers her bills and she's getting about $1100 a month. she was only getting about $700 -- but when my dad died she was entitled to survivor's benefits even though they were divorced for many years. of course, medicare goes up every year.

my mom has a few bucks in the bank, but if she had to go into assisted living those few bucks would be gone in about 10 months. now with food prices going up and her rent goes up every year, i think she's going to have to start dipping into that money.

of course, we all know that health insurance and medicare do not pay for long term care. we were able to get a policy on my husband through his employer, but i can't get coverage because of a pre-existing condition.

my mother in-law had a substantial sum of money. she was enjoying life, travelling to europe, australia. then she had a stroke. she was in a nursing home for 9 years. when she passed, there was
$1400 left in her account. hubby and his sister had to pay for the funeral.

[nealmhughes]

26. Constitutional? Yes, under taxation powers as well as interstate commerce powers.

Interstate commerce is one of the seldom used powers of the Congress, as they have a habit of rolling over on the interstate's side. . . Interstate commerce was used to combat segregation where even restaurants had to prove they never had so much as a plate that came from outside the jurisdiction of the seg states' laws!

Corporations exist as a sufferance, purely and simply, they are not ensured a perpetual livelihood nor unfettered ability to do what they wish, no matter how much the Randians and Chicago Boys might disagree.

[nealmhughes]

27. Constitutional? Yes, under taxation powers as well as interstate commerce powers.

Interstate commerce is one of the seldom used powers of the Congress, as they have a habit of rolling over on the interstate's side. . . Interstate commerce was used to combat segregation where even restaurants had to prove they never had so much as a plate that came from outside the jurisdiction of the seg states' laws!

Corporations exist as a sufferance, purely and simply, they are not ensured a perpetual livelihood nor unfettered ability to do what they wish, no matter how much the Randians and Chicago Boys might disagree.

[hansberrym]

28. Could it be that anything that Congress wants to do is constitutional ?

Could it be that anything the President wants to do is Constitutional?




Infringements, beget more infringements, beget even more... until the system simply collapses.



The Medical Marijuana case a few years back is a prime example. The authoritaran Supreme Court justices sided with the government's claim that the federal government has unlimited power to tax, regulate, and impose penalites as long as Congress makes some connection, no matter how ridiculously thin, to interstate commerce -as if the "necessary and proper" clause means "anything Congress damned well pleases".

Of course, citizens directly affected by such laws can make much more tangible connections to rights guaranteed in the Constitution. And the Bill of Rights was passed after the commerce clause and so ought to supercede -but no matter - according to the authoritarians, if Congress says it, then it is Constitutional.

Such reasoning is not a whole lot different than the Unitary Executive theory pushed by Bush, or similar shit offerred by Nixon and others in terms of Excecutive Power being unrestrained by the Constitution.


We have become so used to infringements on the Constitution in the name of "national defense", "regulating interstate commerce", or "the general welfare", that we are losing our ability to object to any action of our government as Unconstitutional. The dissents in the Gonzales v. Raich(medial marijuana) and Kelo(eminent domain) decisions are not crazy libertarian rants, rather they simply point out that if the majority is correct, then there are no limits to government power.



Impeaching and removing Bush would be a good start to restoring Constitutional government. And requiring our representatives to amend the Constitution before passing legislation such as a national health plan would put back us firmly back on the path.

[Naturyl]

29. Could it be that something is seriously screwy about the premise of this thread?

Yep.

[OzarkDem]

30. ?

Don't forget the candidate mentioned in your avatar is strongly in favor of single payer, universal health care or Medicare for all.

Just thought I'd mention it in case you forgot.

[Naturyl]

32. I know, and I support it.

I was suggesting that question of whether or not it is constitutional is very strange. Of course it is. Where the OP got the idea it might not be is a mystery to me.