Print
E-mail
Share
digg
Newsvine
Facebook
Stumble
Technorati
reddit
Fark
twitterLetter to the editor:
Constitution on side of health care reform
Thursday, July 9, 2009 | 2:02 a.m.
Richard McCord, in his Tuesday letter to the editor, claims the United States Constitution “enumerates our rights,” adding, “Their common characteristic is that they are about what government may not do to us.”
Really?
When I read the Constitution I see that only Article I, Section 9, deals with restrictions on government. The remaining portion specifically defines what our government must do. It defines the processes and responsibilities of our three branches. In fact, the only section that really deals with the citizenry in terms of rights are the amendments, including the Bill of Rights.
The context of his argument was to question the constitutionality of universal health care. Article I, Section 8, states that “The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes ... and provide for the common Defence and general welfare (this was also mentioned in the Preamble, so it must be important) ... (and) to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers.”
How is providing for the health of the people not compatible with providing for the general welfare?
Discussion: 38 comments so far…
Post a comment
- Most Read
- Discussed
- Most E-mailed
- Man, 26, dies in collision with truck traveling at 100 mph
- Nevada’s just not for us, many top high schoolers say
- Casino venue in Singapore will have Las Vegas flavor
- CityCenter completion might spur home foreclosures
- MGM Mirage: CityCenter not affected by debt woes
- Fontainebleau retail component seeks bankruptcy
- Metro admits to improper release of criminal history data
- Holiday Auction 2009 items
- Real estate experts cautiously optimistic about market
- For Paul Stanley and KISS, rock and roll is not over
Blogs
The Kats Report
Could a savior of shuttered Las Vegas Art Museum be ... Peter Max? (5 Comments)
For Paul Stanley and KISS, rock and roll is not over (5 Comments)
Twenty years ago today, Human Nature took root on the farm (1 Comment)
Robin Leach's Las Vegas Celebrity Watch
Photo Gallery: Donny Osmond’s triumphant return to the Flamingo
The Kats Report
'DWTS' champ Donny Osmond still deft afoot in return to Flamingo (8 Comments)
Politics: The Early Line
Meeting of GOP governors draws challengers, not Gibbons (5 Comments)
Politics: Ralston's Flash
Oscar loves forcing developers to sign labor peace agreements, Culinary loves the city's downtown plans and all is forgiven (10 Comments)
Calendar »
- 28 Sat
- 29 Sun
- 30 Mon
- 1 Tue
- 2 Wed
-
KISS at the Pearl
The Pearl at the Palms
-
Christopher "Kid" Reid at the LA Comedy Club
LA Comedy Club @ Trader Vic's
-
Stevie Wonder at MGM Grand
MGM Grand Garden Arena | 8 p.m. to 11 p.m.
-
UNLV Rebels vs. Louisville at the Thomas & Mack Center
The Thomas & Mack Center | 1 p.m. to 3:30 p.m.
-
Joe Perry Project at the House of Blues
House of Blues | 8 p.m. to 11:59 p.m.
-
Vicente Fernandez at the Mandalay Bay Events Center
Mandalay Bay Events Center | 9 p.m. to 11 p.m.
-
Jay Leno at The Mirage
Terry Fator Theatre
The Sun
Locally owned and independent for more than 50 years.
It's very hard two get two people at random to agree that the constitution says this or that and both will agree on it's meaning. Some people like myself believe that the constitution is a dead document (SETTLED LAW) Some people believe that it is a living breathing document that should change with the times. I see it this way people should be taught from the day that they are born that self-reliance on ones self should trump all else in there lifestyle. Government should never have a seat at your families dinner table. And should not be treated as a real and alive person! It should not speed you up in life or slow you down neither. The more that government is not allowed to do for you the more that you yourself can figurer out how to be more of a successful and powerful individual in life. People like that also don't create more problems in society as well and don't wind up dependent on others. Are constitutian is meant to allow us to live independently of a government to allow the individual to always take the lead not to bond a family member relationship with one.
The Constitution guarntees "Life, liberty and the persuit of happiness" too. My forcing me to pay taxes for someone elses health care, that portion of my life I used to earn that money is taken from me. It violates my right to liberty as I do not like to pay taxes. I also like money, it makes me happy to have it. Paying taxes prohibits me from the pursuit of happiness the Constution guarntees. Free health care is not consistent with The Constitution.
jlb101,
I will be nice about this but all taxes are voted on through our legislators and signed into law by the executive branch. You have your opportunity to whine about paying taxes to those legally elected officials and the fact that they don't agree with you makes them smarter then you.
If you don't want to pay taxes move to Somalia where, with no government, it must surely be paradise. Make sure you can afford private security 24/7 however!
POWERPLAY -- how come you can't be this cogent the rest of the time?
Your stated belief that those who "believe that the constitution is a dead document (SETTLED LAW)" is troubling in a couple of ways. First is exactly what do you mean by "(SETTLED LAW)"?
The second is you, and those of the same opinion, are wrong -- understandably. Without the Constitution there is no legitimate federal government in existence, only a de facto, tyrannical machine. Which justifies anarchy -- which may not be such a bad thing given the excesses of that federal machine. Even the courts, the guardian of our rights, have become part of that corrupt machine.
And if We the People give in to that, there is no hope for reform.
jib101: No taxes = no armed forces, no security at airports, no highway improvements, (we've already got bridges falling down), no schools, etc., etc. Taxes are a necessary evil in a democracy.
You're already paying for health care for the uninsured by the high premiums you pay, (maybe your employer is paying most of the premium but it's still your money but you can't have it), and much of that insurance premium goes into the profits of health insurance companies. The $12,000 you probably pay annually in health insurance premiums would probably be reduced over time as we stop paying the multi-multi-millions of dollars in salaries to healthcare CEOs and to company shareholders whose greed far outweighs any consideration for your health.
HEALTH CARE SHOULD NOT BE FOR PROFIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
If you or one of your relatives gets a serious illness you'll understand the problems of our healthcare system much more clearly. Ask around about people who had "good health insurance" but are now faced with bankruptcy because their insurance company wouldn't pay for a procedure, or dropped them soon after paying a claim. Don't be naive. If you think your government is giving you the shaft, wait until you see how well a professional can shaft you.
While I don't believe there is a Constitutional right to health care, that doesn't forbid a public options for health care. A clear majority of Americans think there should be a public option.
Unfortunately, the health care lobby is spending billions and have purchased the republican party outright.
Wayne,
"No taxes = no armed forces, no security at airports, no highway improvements, etc..."
Not necessarily. No Taxes = Higher Tariffs which = higher costs on many everyday items you buy at the store. The U.S. did not have a federal income tax during its whole existence.
Median salaries range from $120thousand up to $202thousand for a range of different doctors in the USA healthcare system as of today. A very good salary indeed.
Compare this with what a fully qualified doctor with many years work earns in Sweden, $84000.
It is not surprising that the USA healthcare system of today is bogged down by people earning far too much money
Mr. Hackler,
"How is providing for the health of the people not compatible with providing for the general welfare?"
The answer to your question is simple. General welfare was understood, not as the provision of guaranteed benefits from the government, but as in the governments defense of one's right to life, liberty and happiness (happiness in those days meant property, consumable goods whatever you wanted). That is, the government defends the country, provides courts to settle disputes, punishes criminals.
Additionally, you misunderstood the other authors point about the enumeration of powers. The constitution was intended to very clearly limit the powers of the central government. The constitution strictly defines what the federal government can do. Anything else is left to the people or to the states (the constitution basically says that in amendments 9 and 10). Unfortunately, our courts have gutted those along with other provisions that protect us from a powerful central government.
Msshaffer,
Will you ever stop with the attacks and fallacious reasoning?
Stop conflating the desire to have less government with a country full of warlords.
Not having universal health care will not break society apart.
Having lower taxes and free markets will not make us devolve into warring bands of tribes.
Why don't we just admit it, the parasite class has taken over the country. There are too many freeloaders out there who want to suck off of those who are better than they are. As I recall the Germans in a democratic election voten in someone who wanted to exterminate all the Jews. That was not morally right and voting to force someone to pay for your healthcare is not morally right either.
Jib101 - Good post! Our nation has deteriorated from a society that once believed in INDIVIDUAL reponsibility (under George Washington and other Founding Fathers) to our present society that mostly believes in GOVERNMENT paternalism (under Barack Obama, Democrats and their media sycophants). TRAGIC!
The constitution states that I have the right to keep and bear arms, does that mean that the government must provide me with a gun if I don't have one? And if so, what type and quality must it be?
If healthcare is granted the status of being a right, then it will be very difficult to say that food and shelter are also not rights. I think the dicussion must be framed in terms of what is in the citizenry's mutual interest rather than rights.
jib101:"As I recall the Germans in a democratic election voten in someone who wanted to exterminate all the Jews. That was not morally right and voting to force someone to pay for your healthcare is not morally right either."
I see you hold yourself to a higher standard than the Nazis. You would just let the sick die off rather than gas them.
Patrick,
Not having universal health care is already breaking millions of people in this country by the use of bankruptcy.
Contrary to the lies of the Von Mises Institute and other right wing 'think tanks' we are under taxing the wealthy (for a great example read what Warren Buffet said about his taxes versus his assistants)and over taxing the poor. It has been a propaganda campaign financed by those you shill for and has worked well in misleading the general public.
Let your Dunning-Kruger continue.
Mschaf,
The problem isn't me reaching the wrong conclusion, its you not thinking long and hard enough about the issue.
You want to tax the rich even more (they are at 35% high income bracket, plus more...as we all are). But you don't want to think about the unintended consequences of your actions.
You simply believe that you can take from the rich and give to the poor with out an deleterious effects on the economy or the individual. In order for you to reach these conclusions you have to make wild assumptions about the efficiency of government, incentives, costs, and the unpredictable human element.
Simply put, your line of reasoning is not very deep. Sadly, you have lots of very smart people, like Mr. Buffet backing you up, for whatever reason, which may include misleading the general public to enrich their own lives...(watch out when you make these arguments because they can all be used to tear down your points).
So why might Warren Buffet advocate increasing income taxes on the rich? Maybe because his income is derived not from a salary but from investment which is taxed at a lower rate than the traditional income tax. Thus people who work hard lose more of their money under your tax the rich solution (which is more about hurting those who succeed because you're jealous than helping the poor). With less money they can't invest as much. Less competition for capital means more profits for him. I'm not saying this is why he does this, but it is a possibility.
oh, and the fact that you attack people rather than give sound and reasonable counter points is probably because it is the only way you can maintain the fiction that you are smarter than others. I'm not saying I'm smarter than you, mind you, I'm just saying you don't know how to argue and make valid counterpoints.
mschaffer!!!
so there u are! u decided to pop up in this discussion after being so badly outmaneuvered, trumped and beaten with logic in the thread, "Constitution doesn't mention health care."
henderson and I are still waiting for you to enlighten us with your opinion as to which nation is the greatest in the world, and why, as you've made it clear in multiple posts you feel nothing but contempt for the United States. (At least until your wise, kind, and all knowing Obama the magnificent was elected, where upon he joined forces with Reid the Wonderful and Pelosi the Great, to transform our government into the beneficent, all good entity that u now blindly support!
I see u are still crying "wolf" with your assertions that anyone who dares to protest about our government growing ever more large, powerful, and hungry to spend our tax dollars, is an (gasp) ANARCHIST!!!!
yes we should all line up, open our wallets (and hearts and minds!), and give, give, give to our wonderful government, which has only OUR best interests at heart.....
just an average joe,
Whatever you believe...generally I just feel contempt for ignorant people who believe in a black or white, right or wrong world. You will do in a pinch.
Patrick,
So I have "lots of very smart people, like Mr. Buffet backing..." me "...up, for whatever reason." OK. Why don't you go find out the reasons? How did the economy do after WWII when marginal tax rates were much higher than today?
Incidentally, three of Barack Obama's biggest supporters, George Soros, founder of left-wing SMEAR site MoveOn.org, multi-billionaire Warren Buffett and former Secretary of State Colin Powell have ALL warned Barack Obama that's he's spending TOO MUCH money. But, I suppose if you want to promote SOCIALIST programs then you have to spend plenty of (TAXPAYER) money. Now, liberals don't give me that BS - "it's not socialism." Listen up, anytime the government takes control of private industry or establishes a nationwide program under federal control - that's SOCIALISM! Wise-up and stop destroying MY country, fools!
Hey KillerB >>>>> You are agreeing with me and you don't even know it! Listen the United States Constitution protects us from that tyrannical machine that you are talking about from the 1st Congress all the way forward to the one that we are stuck with now. Without It governments would change course every time we put in a new President this is exactly what happens in Europe all the time the only thing that dos not change over there is there love for SOCIALISM! >>>>> REMEMBER THIS (KillerB) AND DON'T EVER FORGET IT! THE PEOPLE IN THIS COUNTRY ARE MORE IMPORTANT THEN ANY GOVERNMENT THAT THEY ARE STUCK WITH! GOVERNMENTS COME AND GO IT IS THE AMERICAN PEOPLE THAT MUST ALWAYS SURVIVE. PS WHAT YOU ALSO SAID ABOUT THE COURT SYSTEM IS 100% TRUE THEY PROTECT THE MACHINE NOT THE PEOPLE ANYMORE, AND THAT IS HOW FREEDOM IS LOST IT STARTS AND ENDS WITH THE COURTS.
News, as usual, you distort reality in the service of making a point.
Warren Buffet does NOT think that Obama is "spending TOO MUCH money." Buffet, TODAY, openly considered a SECOND STIMULUS.
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/story?id=...
"I think that a second one may well be called for," Warren Buffett, the CEO of Berkshire Hathaway, told "Good Morning America" today. But, he added, "you hope it doesn't get watered down in many ways."
"Buffett cautioned that a second stimulus package, like the first, won't be "a panacea," because stimulus packages take time to work. He criticized lawmakers' work on the first stimulus package, which contained $787 billion in spending."
"Our first stimulus bill ... was sort of like taking half a tablet of Viagra and having also a bunch of candy mixed in ... as if everybody was putting in enough for their own constituents," he said. "It doesn't have really quite the wall that might have been anticipated there."
If anything, Buffet wants to spend MORE, not less, genius.
The party of no is now spreading lies, as evidenced here by News1950.
Ksand99 - Thanks, for your comments - I'm always glad to hear from my fans!
Ksand99 - Incidentally, I have been following national politics since 1964 (14 years old) and I've had letters published in Time magazine and numerous major newspapers from New York to California. Now, with all of that empirical experience, do you honestly think I could believe any of your feckless attempts to defend Barack Obama and this current federal government? You're gallantly, but futilely, attempting to defend an indefensible position and in doing so, providing much humor for us long-time political "junkies."
Msschaffer
"So I have "lots of very smart people, like Mr. Buffet backing..." me "...up, for whatever reason." OK. Why don't you go find out the reasons? How did the economy do after WWII when marginal tax rates were much higher than today?"
You mean after we restored international trade, returned to a consumer based economy, and dropped a lot of wage and price controls and government rationing of goods?
Remember when I said to think deep...the government has lots of ways it can screw up the economy.
And yes, there are lots of smart people who simply reach the wrong conclusion. I think you are one of them.
Still, I wonder, what would you do to settle our debate? I believe you are devastatingly wrong and you believe the same about me.
How would you build a society that allows us to peacefully settle this debate?
Sorry, News, all that "experience" and you can't get the facts right. Early-onset dementia must be so rough, buddy.
Tell us again how Warren Buffet's support of a second stimulus indicates he thinks Obama is spending too much.
Ksand, has Buffet given a sound economic reason why it might work?
To me it won't work, and never will work for some very sound economic reasons: here are a few: http://mises.org/story/3535
I hate to say it, but Buffet's opinion probably more to do with having something to gain rather than this actually working (which is basically saying " we should do it but I'm not saying its going to work THAT great ") Again, I'm not a mind reader so I don't know what he's thinking but I don't think he has a sound reason why it should be done that we the public could accept.
I'm also troubled by left-wing thought. Its a bit presumptuous.
If a libertarian or conservative was to hold an opinion on this subject and say "No let it fail" the American left would attack their motive.
You would say "Oh they're just a shill for big corporations" or capitalism or inequality and that the only reason that we hold these opinions is that we are "evil" and knowingly want to hurt all others.
But then, when a very wealthy person with a big corporations says something you believe you happily state "well of course they say that, we were right the whole time, and thus they must not have anything to gain from what they say."
...Its a bit annoying because it is equally likely that A) you (and they) might just be wrong and B) they might actually have something to gain by agreeing with you.
Ksand99 - Dementia? I think I know that person! I don't understand what happened with Warren Buffet because last week, I saw a segment on MSNBC reporting those three people I mentioned earlier were "warning" Barack Obama to slow-down on his spending programs. Possibly, the Berkshire-Hathaway CEO reversed his position as Barack Obama has done many times. Oops, another "demented" slam at BHO! Incidentally, do you realize if I didn't use the President's middle initial ("H") in this post, I'd have to type instead, B.O. Not nice, huh?
Patrick_R_Gibbons - Despite another poster on this site insinuating I have "dementia" when I never even met her - I have to congratulate you on the incisive and intelligent posts made by you on the "Warren Buffet" subject this evening.
Let's recap:
News1950 tries to critique Obama by misquoting Warren Buffet.
I correct him.
Patrick apparently confuses the fact that News1950 was the one that lent Buffet's opinion credence, not me, and goes on to insinuate that Buffet's considerations deal not with reason, but with personal gain.
In other words, News1950, Patrick just undermined your argument, as Buffet's opinion (the one you relied on to attack Obama) is guided not by facts, but by selfishness.
And then you shower Patrick with adoration for... undermining your argument?
Bravo, neocons! That kind of disciplined messaging from Sheldon Adelson's "think" tank will get you far.
Ksand99 - WOW! I really enjoyed reading that convoluted and discombobulated post. But, complex distortions of someone's statements will not alter the fact that even Joe Biden admits "we underestimated the severity of the economic problem." But, with all the genuises (Tim Geithner, Larry Summers, etc.) considering the troubled economy since during the campaign last year - HOW could this happen? Didn't Barack Obama repeatedly say that TAX-CHEAT Tim Geithner, who couldn't properly use TurboTax, will be the saviour of our economy when he is confirmed as Secretary of the Treasury? The combination of these incompetents is tantamount to a fric-and-frac operation and is destined to result in the most disastrous fiscal failure in our nation's history. Can you say California or, BANKRUPTCY?
Well fans, enough adulation for one day! Besides, I have "Hannity" and "Bill O'Reilly's The Factor" programs on TiVo. So, goodnight and pray (do liberals do that?) for a better tomorrow!
ksand99,
i don't think any of us have any idea of what motivates Warren Buffet. he is a very complex, some would even say strange, man. despite being one of the richest men in the world he chooses to live in a plain modest middle class home, living a personal lifestyle many would call frugal and boring.
why? who knows, for some the reward is in MAKING the money, not spending it. or he might find some sort of moral superiority in not wallowing in or enjoying the trappings of his great wealth. he may even believe in the mantra, "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need".
for every warren buffet there are several other vastly rich and powerful men who completely disagree with obama's direction. Steve Forbes is one such man. he is on record saying that he believes Obama is doing exactly the opposite of what he should be if he wishes to end this recession. its not that difficult, if he wants to stimulate job growth, offer tax cuts for starting a small business, roll back the payroll tax for a few years to give business incentive to hire new employees. it's really not rocket science. but it's not quite as romantic as all of the social engineering and redistribution that ultimately drives all of obama's policies.
Joe, I don't even necessarily disagree with your point, which is shared by Patrick, that Buffet's financial and selfish motivations color his public rhetoric. I was merely pointing out that News' takedown of Obama's spending was based upon Buffet's criticism, and that Buffet's criticism was that Obama was not spending ENOUGH on the stimulus.
As for your characterization of the stimulus, we disagree. There are two roads out; cut taxes or increase aggregate demand via spending/infrastrucure investment. They both have pros and cons. I think historically, cutting taxes has been the slowest route to recovery. Maybe Patrick can dig up some data to support or refute that. I'd love to see it. But there's little doubt that an increase in aggregate demand via infrastructure spending and assistance programs will net a faster recovery. I think it's fair to say the multipliers of increased infrastructure/social spending are far greater than the multipliers of tax cuts.
Don't forget, we tried a 150 billion dollar tax cut-based stimulus in February of 2008. Matthew Shapiro and Joel Slemrod released a study of that tax break fiscal stimulus and found that only around a third of the stimulus funds were spent; two thirds were saved or used to pay down debt. Normally, saving and paying down debt would be a positive thing, but when demand has taken such a tumble, the economy needs more spending, not more saving.
http://www.aeaweb.org/annual_mtg_papers/...
Nor was there any evidence that tax break fiscal stimulus precluded our current predicament.
Patrick,
That you can't figure out that facts are how rational people settle differences puts you firmly in this camp:
http://www.amazon.com/Idiot-America-Stup...
The Constitution very clearly states PROVIDE for the common defence, and PROMOTE the general welfare. It is not, nor has it ever been the realm of the federal government to provide for the personal welfare of American citizens.