jump to last post 1-19 of 19 discussions (86 posts)

Should the (US) Gov Be Allowed To Ignore The Constitution...

  1. profile image0
    Poppa Bluesposted 7 years ago

    ... To Act In What It Deems To Be The Public Interest?

    When FDR’s New Deal social security was challenged as unconstitutional, FDR proposed legislation that allowed him to replace justices on the Supreme Court. Though his plan was defeated, his intimidation led to the court finding his programs constitutional.

    LBJ under his Great Society agenda passed Medicare, originally proposed by Truman and intended to be a universal health care system for all Americans. In order to pass this legislation LBJ lied about the cost projections among other tactics he used to strong arm this bill through, the beginning of socialized medicine. No litigant has ever challenged the constitutionality of Medicare, but the grounds to justify it are tenuous at best with supporters pointing to the “general welfare” clause as a defense.

    Now Obama plans to pass his universal health care coverage in spite of strong opposition by Americans with a mandate that requires purchase of insurance under threat of fine or jail.

    In each of these examples, legislation was pushed through over objections and the constitutionality of each is questionable at best. Though many have seen benefits from these programs others have arguably been harmed. The founders based the creation of the federal government on the premise that it’s power would be limited and it’s most important function is to protect individual freedom and the rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. These principles are expressed well in the words of Grover Cleveland in speaking about his veto of federal aid for farmers harmed by drought,

    “I do not believe that the power and duty of the general government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit.”

    So, does the constitution matter? Should the government be held accountable to it’s founding charter? Or, should the government be allowed to do whatever it wants as long as they can justify it as being in the best interest of the people?

    1. Ohma profile image80
      Ohmaposted 7 years ago in reply to this



      The constitution should be the only thing that matters.

    2. Ralph Deeds profile image71
      Ralph Deedsposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      "In each of these examples, legislation was pushed through over objections and the constitutionality of each is questionable at best."

      What do you base that on? Are you a lawyer, or have you ever studied constitutional law? As far as I know, there has never been a serious challenge to any of the programs of which you are so contemptuous. Although they were proposed by Democrats, all of them have had considerable support from the GOP as well. You are offering extreme, off-the-cuff, uninformed opinions, nothing more.

      Of course, the government should not be allowed to ignore the Constitution. That's why we have the separation of powers which means the Supreme Court has the final word on interpretations of the Constitution. Within limits the Constitution may be amended by Congress subject to ratification by the states.

      Apparently the definition of socialism has broadened quite a bit since my economics 101 class: Government ownership of the basic means of production. Child labor laws or social insurance didn't qualify.

      1. profile image0
        Poppa Bluesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        You're right there never was a serious challenge to those programs and I never said there was, in fact I made mention that Medicare was NEVER challenged. However, there was much debate over Social Security at the time, and as I stated, FDR was so determined to push that legislation through, that he crafted legislation that would allow him to replace 5 justices of the Supreme Court. That legislation didn't pass and no further challenge was made.

        All of these programs are being justified under the "general welfare" clause of the constitution. There has been plenty of debate about this over the years and the view of most scholars is that the general welfare clause was only intended to be in regards to the powers granted to congress by Article 1 section 8 of the constitution, otherwise, general welfare could mean anything the there would be no limits at all on what the government can do if it was justified for the "general welfare".

        Do you really want the government to have that kind of power?

        Socialism is just central control over the means of production, but also over the distribution as well and not just goods, but land and capital. The government already owns all property, and now it will dictate all aspects of health care. What care is acceptable, how much providers will be reimbursed, how much insures can charge, and of course they will limit the pay of those CEOs as well!

        FDR was a socialist, LBJ was a socialist, and Obama has compared himself to FDR and his policies reflect a socialist agenda. The problem with all this is it all has to be implemented and in effect before it can be challenged. Someone has to be "harmed" in order for it to be heard by the courts and it takes time before a case can be heard. By then the apparatus can't be easily unwound and that might explain why none of those programs were challenged.

  2. SparklingJewel profile image66
    SparklingJewelposted 7 years ago

    what a question! smile

    it seems to me that going to the "core" would be the place to start to answer...to me, that being that we obviously need a group of people from every culture and walk of life that have grown up in America (and maybe even some from other countries that have become US citizens),
    from Constitutional scholars and historians and everyday joe's and jane's, as well as religions, to sit as a panel and decide what the Constitution means, what the founding fathers meant...don't you think?
    after all, there are some that aren't, can't accept, don't "get",  the spiritual meaning, which in itself is disagreed upon...

    for me, the first thing that pops into my head when someone says "they are only doing what is best for me" is who the "----" do they think they are telling me what is best for me!

    1. PrettyPanther profile image85
      PrettyPantherposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      I'm not sure that I'd want everyday joes and janes, not to mention religious ideologues, deciding what the constitution means.

      1. SparklingJewel profile image66
        SparklingJewelposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        ...but you don't mind someone telling you, deciding for you what health care you can or should have????

        1. PrettyPanther profile image85
          PrettyPantherposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Currently, the only "someone" who can tell me what health care I can or should have is my insurance company bureaucrats.  So far, I've been lucky enough that I haven't required a procedure that might be considered too expensive or controversial, but should I ever need a heart transplant, for example, it would be the insurance company deciding whether or not I can have it, even if my doctor recommends it and I personally want it.

          Unless, of course, I'm a multi-millionaire and can afford the operation and all of the followup care and expensive medications.

          I don't see how having the option of choosing a government bureaucrat over an insurance bureaucrat changes much, other than the insurance bureaucrat is looking out for the bottom line.

  3. Ron Montgomery profile image60
    Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years ago

    Should blind obedience to a discredited ideology keep us from saving thousands of lives per year?  Are your priorities a tad...

    I dunno, Wacky?

    1. profile image0
      Poppa Bluesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Depends. Does the rule of law matter, or is that too just blind obedience? And who should decide when it's right to ignore the law? You? Me? The government?

      1. Ron Montgomery profile image60
        Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Rule of law?  When this passes IT WILL BE LAW.  Will you honor the constitution by obeying it, or are your scruples more situational?

        1. profile image0
          Poppa Bluesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          In no sense do I advocate evading or defying the law. That would lead to anarchy. An individual who breaks a law that his conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law. - Martin Luther King, Jr.

          I'll let that serve as my answer!

          1. Ron Montgomery profile image60
            Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Enjoy your stay.

            We'll miss you.

            1. Doug Hughes profile image61
              Doug Hughesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              Speak for yourself - You might miss him....

              1. Ron Montgomery profile image60
                Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                Don't take it too literally.  I said the same thing to my proctologist when he retired.

    2. ledefensetech profile image79
      ledefensetechposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Proof, Ron.  Show me where people are literally dying in the streets because they're getting refused by hospitals.  Please.  I'd love to see it.  With as many cameras as there are out there for security purposes, surely we have one example of some hospital turning someone away because they're a bum.  Yeah, that's what I thought.  You can't find it.

      Poppa, personally I think it's insane to have to use health insurance to cover things like doctor's visits and routine testing.  That is a major reason why costs are so high.  If you know insurance or Medicare or something is going to cover it, you as a healthcare provider, have no real incentive to control costs.  So you pad your account so to speak and let costs rise because it means a fatter paycheck for you.

      Ron, you are aware that the government already doesn't pay enough for medical care, right?  That is the root cause of the recent hikes in premiums.  Because hospitals and other healthcare providers can't recoup their costs from government programs, they do so from the private sector.  That being the case, what do you think is going to happen when people are all on the government single payer program and there is no private sector to make up the difference?

      1. Ron Montgomery profile image60
        Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        The scenario you describe has nothing to do with my post.

        Pose an honest question if you want a reply.

        Your anaysis of premium hikes and the proposed reforms is equally disingenuous.

      2. PrettyPanther profile image85
        PrettyPantherposted 7 years ago in reply to this
        1. ledefensetech profile image79
          ledefensetechposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          You'll note that they violated not only hospital policy, but the law as well.  Those people also weren't dumped because of being homeless or unable to pay, but most likely because they were suffering from mental illness.  Most of our homeless are the mentally ill who were discharged from state mental hospitals decades ago and never got the "community based care" politicians of the time promised would take care of them.

          If you're interested in the homeless, I'd suggest reading up on it here:

          http://hubpages.com/hub/Homelessness--- … t-Homeless

          1. PrettyPanther profile image85
            PrettyPantherposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            You really think they were dumped because they had a mental illness, not because they were homeless or unable to pay? 

            Talk about denying reality because it doesn't fit into your view of the world.

            I'm willing to bet that if they were wealthy or fully covered by health insurance they wouldn't have been dumped, mentally ill or not.  But then, that doesn't fit your version of reality, even though I'm pretty sure you recognize the truth of it.

            1. ledefensetech profile image79
              ledefensetechposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              Yes, I've worked with the mentally ill, have you?  Didn't think so.  Unlike you, I have personal experience in the matter.  Denying reality?  Maybe you're the one who needs to get a clue. Of course they wouldn't have been dumped even if they were wealthy, but wealth by itself is no panacea to inhumane treatment.  Ever hear about Brooke Astor?

              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brooke_Astor

              Some of the kids I've worked with have come back after getting tossed in prison.  Some have been homeless, too.  But others have overcome great adversity and done well by themselves.  I recently came across one of "my" kids who I never thought would make it.  Because of her experiences and, most importantly, her parents, I figured she'd become just another statistic and that was hard.  This kid was bright.

              Turns out, I was wrong.  I was thankful to be wrong.  This kid did have to drop out of school because of a baby, but this kids worst worry right now is being a good parent.

              The difference between these kids is that some have decided to succeed, no matter the odds, while others continue the path they were on when we tried to teach them better.

              1. PrettyPanther profile image85
                PrettyPantherposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                Wow, you're jumping all over the place.

                Yes, I've worked with the mentally ill, albeit briefly, at the VA.  I also have experience with the mentally ill, as my first husband was overtaken by paranoid schizophrenia. He has spent his entire life in and out of homeless shelters.  No one knows where he is as the moment.  I also have two sons with high-functioning autism.  While I am no expert on mental illness, I suspect I am much more knowledgeable than the average person.

                However, this discussion has gotten way off base.  I was merely countering your assertion that hospitals don't dump people who can't pay.  They do dump people who can't pay.  It's a fact.

  4. PrettyPanther profile image85
    PrettyPantherposted 7 years ago

    Obviously, there is disagreement on the interpretation of certain aspects of the constitution.  That is why we have "constitutional scholars."  Are you one of them?

    1. SparklingJewel profile image66
      SparklingJewelposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      ...and you would leave the decision of interpretation on your liberty and freedom to scholars alone???

      1. PrettyPanther profile image85
        PrettyPantherposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        In the same way that I go to the doctor when I have a pain in my chest, yes.  The decision about what to do about it is ultimately mine, but the expert is there to guide me.

    2. profile image0
      Poppa Bluesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      The constitution has been around a long time it's intent is clear. It's only those on the left that can't seem to answer my question though. Instead they resort to misdirection or personal attacks.

      Just say it, the constitution doesn't matter, that you favor socialism and that you want government to take care of all of our needs paid for by the rich.

      There's nothing wrong with that view, I don't agree with it, but there's nothing wrong with, so stand up for what you believe!

      1. PrettyPanther profile image85
        PrettyPantherposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        You are always so dramatic.  Of course, the constitution matters.  I'm just saying that your interpretation of it might not be widely held.

      2. PrettyPanther profile image85
        PrettyPantherposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        My last reply was rushed due to having to leave for a moment, so here is a bit more.

        First, I don't think I misdirected or resorted to a personal attack.  I merely stated that there is more than one interpretation of certain aspects of the constitution.  Then, I asked you if you are a constitutional scholar.  I really wanted to know, as that would make your statements carry more weight with me, in the same way that if we were discussing acne and you were a dermatologist.

        Second, as I stated above, the constitution does matter.  You won't get any argument from me there.  I do not "favor socialism," nor do I want the government to take care of all of our needs.  I didn't say that anywhere and for you to assume it is just, well, weird.

        I do think certain needs are better served by government than by the private sector.  I happen to think that it is morally wrong for a corporation to profit from illness.  I recognize that not everyone feels that way, but to jump from that to assuming I want the government to take care of all of our needs is, in my opinion, trying to fit me into a perfect little box so you can more easily make your arguments.

        1. profile image0
          Poppa Bluesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          First my comments weren't directed at you specifically but the "left" in general.

          If you believe it's morally wrong to profit from other's illness, then what incentive is there for a doctor to be a doctor? It costs doctors hundreds of thousands of dollars just to become doctors,  many achieve that accomplishment on borrowed money graduating with huge debt! Drug companies spend millions developing drugs. Medical machine makers too spend millions developing machines like MRIs. These people provide thousands with jobs besides developing state of the art care. Do you think any of this would exist without profits? Do you really believe the government could bring that to for less, or even at all?

          That's how freedom, capitalism, works! Innovative people see a need and risk their time and treasure for profit. That's how America became the greatest and richest nation in the world, and now, people want to make us like Europe? The countries there all are in worse shape than us economically, and all have lived with chronic double digit unemployment. Is it fair to deny people jobs as a result of social policies forced upon us?

          1. PrettyPanther profile image85
            PrettyPantherposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            All of those occupations you mentioned -- doctors, medical researchers, inventors -- get paid for services that directly benefit people, and I don't begrudge them a penny of it.  A doctor or researcher makes money by being skilled at making people healthier, but an insurance company makes money by being skilled at finding ways to deny people the best or more expensive care while still taking their money.  Their motivations are completely different, and while I understand your worshipping at the feet of capitalism, I believe some things need to be outside the capitalistic profit motive.

            1. profile image0
              Poppa Bluesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              Insurance doesn't benefit people? My insurance company paid out hundreds of thousands of dollars to save my life! They call me up to make sure I'm taking advantage of all the benefits available to me to stay healthy!

              Insurance companies manage risk. We couldn't live without them!

              85% of Americans have health insurance and are happy with it, and I'm one of them! I have no desire to have my insurance replaced with a government plan. Being a veteran, I've had experience with a government plan, the VA. Their "care" nearly cost me my life, denying me a drug because of the expense and justifying the denial based on old assumptions and out of date recommendations.

              I don't worship capitalism, but it's the only system that allows individuals to be free, as nature intended!

  5. profile image0
    ralwusposted 7 years ago

    Touchy subject at best, but if we stood firm with the constitution, I might be a slave holder. Experts are always on the look out for loopholes for any sitting President. How have we managed to wage war without a formal declaration by Congress since WWII?

    1. Ron Montgomery profile image60
      Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      You're missing the point.

      You'd be an "ideologically pure" slaveholder, with states' rights and everything!

      1. profile image0
        Poppa Bluesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        What a bunch of nonsense!! Please show me where in the constitution slavery is permitted!! Your ignorance is beyond insulting!

        1. Ron Montgomery profile image60
          Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Have some decaf and try to regain your composure.

          The constitution, in a reflection of the cowardice of it's framers, did not address slavery.  It took a "socialist, liberal, big-government type president, along with hundreds of thousands of dead soldiers to rectify what your precious document failed to address.

          1. SparklingJewel profile image66
            SparklingJewelposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            ...these are the kinds of issues around the constitution that need to be sorted out among citizens of the US. To determine what kind of country they want to be a part of, what is necessary to defend, and what is necessary to come to unity on...

          2. profile image0
            Poppa Bluesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            The "cowardice" of the founders??? You sir don't deserve to live in America or to be free! Why don't you move to Cuba where you belong and would fit in better?

            1. livelonger profile image88
              livelongerposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              Are you saying you support the Founding Fathers' tolerance of slavery?

              If you don't feel that your country should ever be criticized, then maybe it's you who would feel more comfortable in Cuba (or North Korea if you prefer).

              1. SparklingJewel profile image66
                SparklingJewelposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                ...tolerance is not fair to say about the decision...a compromise was made and rested for the resultant document because it got to the core issues, which were to bring unity to a diverse country and left up to each soul there self determination to choose...

                we are at that same point again, where a country and its people need to choose the higher ways of life...you can't have true freedom if you take away freedoms...I think it is all about defining true freedom, some people's freedom is not freedom...

            2. Ron Montgomery profile image60
              Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              Good idea.  At least I'd have health coverage.

  6. profile image0
    ralwusposted 7 years ago

    LOL maybe I am at that. What points did I miss?

    1. Ron Montgomery profile image60
      Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      That slavish devotion to documents is imperative, saving lives is not.

      1. profile image0
        ralwusposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Yes the document needs preserved, my point is that it has been amended and some find ways to bend the rules. Some hold on to the preamble, but that is not in the constitution. Slavery was one change much needed, but it took an act of war by legal declaration. Also the right for women to vote. It should never be ignored and amending it is most difficult, that's why experts look for ways to get around it.

      2. profile image0
        Poppa Bluesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        I suppose you can create a government whose charter is only to save lives at any cost. Perhaps under that charter they might require you to give up one of your kidneys and I'm sure you'd be fine with that right?

      3. SparklingJewel profile image66
        SparklingJewelposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        ...the constitution as a document is symbolic of what the founding fathers had come to perceive of what freedom and liberty meant...if you only have idolatry of the document that is slavery of the mind over the soul, but when it is perceived as a symbol of what is the ideal, then it is a whole person, mind, body and soul perceiving their individual freedoms and liberties rightly...

        that is why it is so hard to come to unity on the constitution, everyone  has a unique life, in total, we are truly getting to the core of the issue within our selves by having to deal with this issue...what does life, liberty and the persuit  of happiness "really" mean?

        1. SparklingJewel profile image66
          SparklingJewelposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          again I say...

  7. Mikel G Roberts profile image86
    Mikel G Robertsposted 7 years ago

    Should the (US) Gov Be Allowed To Ignore The Constitution...



    NO.

  8. gamergirl profile image61
    gamergirlposted 7 years ago

    This:

    Should the (US) Gov Be Allowed To Ignore The Constitution...



    NO.

    ------

    Also, I think it warrants saying that the talking point of "Get Health Care or Go to Jail" is a stretch and a half.  As with a great number of laws, if you break them - you pay a fine, ticket, whatever - or you go to jail.  This isn't new.

    1. profile image0
      Poppa Bluesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Usually laws are made to protect you from the actions of others, this law is forcing you to make a purchase.

      The gov now owns GM, they may decide that it would be a good idea for Americans to buy those cars. Would you have a problem with a law the requires your car purchase to be GM?

      1. Ohma profile image80
        Ohmaposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        They already require us to purchase car insurance I really do not think that is such a bad thing. My question in general is what happens to the people that cant afford it. If i can not pay my auto insurance I do not drive my car but I would have a hard time leaving my body at home if I can't afford medical insurance.

        1. SparklingJewel profile image66
          SparklingJewelposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          ...if people spent half as much time considering their health and how to prevent illness as they do working to make the money to having to pay for "possible ill health", there wouldn't be much need, maybe even none,for healthcare insurance...

          1. Ohma profile image80
            Ohmaposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            So what happens to the poor souls that have unpreventable medical issues.

            1. SparklingJewel profile image66
              SparklingJewelposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              ...and so I said "not as much need"...there is a way to get to meeting the needs of everyone, but it is not through forcing a bunch of other stuff on everyone's choices and at the expense of their liberty.
              We are looking at a great portion of the US economy in the healthcare bill...it is absurd as is...it could be changed if all came together to hammer out the specific issues

        2. TheGlassSpider profile image80
          TheGlassSpiderposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          I hear what you're saying, but you only have to have car insurance IF you have a car...And that is to be able to pay IF you harm someone else or destroy property...It seems a little different (to me) from having to buy health insurance.

          I'm looking forward to my peaceful protests in jail if it comes down to it. I'll get to live up to my 19th century ideals (Civil Disobedience, anyone?). It should be quite an experience.

          1. Ralph Deeds profile image71
            Ralph Deedsposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            There will be subsidies for those who truly can't afford it. Without requiring virtually everyone to have insurance the insurance companies would not be able to provide insurance for people with preexisting conditions which includes nearly everyone over 50 or thereabouts.

            1. TheGlassSpider profile image80
              TheGlassSpiderposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              I was half kidding, Ralph...although I'm seriously not interested in buying anything the gov't is going to force on me whether I have the money for it or not. wink Call it rebellious...but I didn't by into insurance and HMO's when I had the money for it (I think they're part of the problem), and I don't intend to start now. smile

  9. gamergirl profile image61
    gamergirlposted 7 years ago

    Poppa Blues - first, I'd say it's a harsh step to tell someone they don't "deserve" to live in the United States.

    Secondly, if you look with a critical eye to the decisions made in most government systems, there are emotionally charged decisions which were presented as being for "the good of all people" which sucked.  Again, not a new concept.

    Aannnnnd... this law proposes to ensure that EVERYONE has insurance - a means of covering their own butts so that billions of taxpayer dollars aren't wasted (not that money spent to keep people healthy is necessarily a waste) on unnecessary health costs that could be avoided by having *gasp* medical insurance.

    Take a look at the cost of something fairly common, like having wisdom teeth pulled, taking into account a patient WITH insurance and one WITHOUT.  If the person WITHOUT insurance cannot afford to pay, or receives some sort of government assistance to pay, who eventually forks up the bill?

    As for the GM question:  I ride a moped.  I do not drive a car.  There are plenty of cars in the GM family of vehicles that are just fine to drive, and certainly would be within my price range if I were going to purchase a new car.

    1. profile image0
      Poppa Bluesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      What if you were FORCED by law to buy a car? You don't need it and you don't want it, but it's for the "public good", it helps keep people employed and will reduce the national debt>

      For some people, many actually, health insurance is a waste of money! They are young and health, and they don't go to the doctor. To them they would rather spend their money on something else, and why shouldn't that be their choice?

      To those that compare health insurance to car insurance, the government, ie the federal government does NOT require you to buy auto insurance!

  10. Arthur Fontes profile image89
    Arthur Fontesposted 7 years ago

    The constitution can be amended.  There is a right way to go about changing anything we want within the document.

    Circumventing the constitution should be considered TREASON by anyone who has taken an OATH to uphold the document.

    "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of ************, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

    Seems pretty simple to me if someone does not believe in the letter of the oath then maybe they should not make it.

  11. gamergirl profile image61
    gamergirlposted 7 years ago

    Poppa -

    Everyone has medical needs, even if it is just to handle sinus infections or something like that - which are VERY common.

    Comparing medical insurance to buying a car is apples to oranges.  There is always a use for medical coverage - yearly checkups, dentistry, vision, pharmacy, chiropractic visits, the list goes on and on.  Just because, at age 19, you don't USE it as much, doesn't mean that you will NEVER use it.

    As for the car insurance reference:  http://www.insure.com/car-insurance/min … evels.html

    The above link has a very nice chart showing what states require what level of car insurance for your vehicle to be road legal.  You may want to update yourself as to state law regarding auto insurance, as it is apparently a vital swinging arm in your opinions and analogies. smile

    1. Arthur Fontes profile image89
      Arthur Fontesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      I like the chart it makes a great point.

      States should be responsible for what happens in their state.

      Where are the federal rules for auto insurance.

    2. profile image0
      Poppa Bluesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      As you can see, it is state law that governs auto insurance. In addition one does not HAVE to own a car. To your other point, one may find it cheaper to pay for care out of pocket rather than pay an expensive4 monthly premium for insurance that isn't used much. That's the nice thing about freedom, you get to make your own decisions!

      The state DMV does not report to the federal dept of transportation that seems to be a common misconception, that the feds have power over the states when the reality is, the states grant certain powers to the federal government. Our government was purposefully created that way to spread power and keep it closer to the people and if you didn't like what one state did you could move to another state.

      Where can I go when my freedom to choose my health care is taken away?

      1. gamergirl profile image61
        gamergirlposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Well, when you go to DoT websites and they link directly to the DMV, I think it'd be easy to make the connection. smile

        I pay $85 a month, roughly, for my medical, dental and vision insurance.  How is that expensive when I bring home $1200?

        Just curious.

        1. profile image0
          Poppa Bluesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Having a link on the Internet doesn't imply anything! I can have a web page with a link to dmv, that doesn't make me in charge of them!

          You're paying very little for your insurance. I'm guessing that's because you have a job that pays the rest of what your premium would be. Cobra for a family plan probably can easily cost 1000 dollars a month and 400 per month if you're single and just covering yourself.

          I expect under Obama's health care plan your job may no longer provide that insurance, particularly if it's considered a "cadillac" plan. Those plans will be taxed heavily unless you're in a union or part of congress, so you could end up paying more for less coverage. But that's okay right because we have to insure the 30 million that don't have insurance, many of which don't have it by choice!

  12. gamergirl profile image61
    gamergirlposted 7 years ago

    I believe - and feel free to correct me if I am wrong in this - that the Department of Transportation is a federal organization, yes? And that the DMV for each state falls under the Department of Transportation.. right?

    1. Arthur Fontes profile image89
      Arthur Fontesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      The federal government has every right and an obligation to handle everything that falls between states.

      What happens in a state should be left up to the states.


      I am in Massachusetts we have passed health care reform.  If any American wants to take part they can move to MA.

      If I do not want to take part in Ma health care I am free to move out of the state.

  13. gamergirl profile image61
    gamergirlposted 7 years ago

    Well that's fantastic! How's the job market? tongue

    1. profile image0
      Poppa Bluesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      As bad as it is here, it's worse in Europe! Have you seen what's happening in Greece?

  14. MikeNV profile image73
    MikeNVposted 7 years ago

    Insurance isn't health care.

    A Doctor can do nothing but cut and drug.

    Health Care is an individual responsibility.  Health care begins with what one chooses to put into their body.

    Health Care is a PRIVILEGE not a RIGHT.

    Your points are very valid. The Constitution is an amazing document when adhered to allows for prosperity and freedom.

    But if this past year has proven anything it's that elected officials do not work for the People.

    Last Years Bank handout was a perfect example of who the elected officials actually work for.

    Free money to the Wealthy with ZERO Accountability.

    "I pay $85 a month, roughly, for my medical, dental and vision insurance.  How is that expensive when I bring home $1200?"

    This is clearly a subsidized plan where you are NOT paying the REAL COST of the policy.

    I have worked for a Major Health Insurance company with access to the actuarial figures.

    Insurance is expensive because people use it!  Over and over if a person has coverage they will not hesitate to go to the Doctor for every little thing!

    Insurance is NOT budgeting.  Insurance involves managing risk pools.  When you place a large population of people into a system that will use and over use that system you are not "insuring".

  15. Doug Hughes profile image61
    Doug Hughesposted 7 years ago

    Poppa said -

    "When FDR’s New Deal social security was challenged as unconstitutional, FDR proposed legislation that allowed him to replace justices on the Supreme Court. Though his plan was defeated, his intimidation led to the court finding his programs constitutional."

    Sarah Palin said - "Ya can't just make stuff up."

    These are three areas the Supreme court struck down FDR programs.

    Agricultural Adjustment Act
    Codes of the National Recovery Administration
    Bituminous Coal Conservation Act

    So they weren't all THAT frightened of FDR. After his plan to pack the court went down if flames - you think they were more frightend of him?  (Cognitive misfire here)

    So on an argument with a fautly premise you ask a flawed question.. "Should the US Gov be allowed to ignore the Constitution?"

    Deciding what's a strike and what's a ball is not the job of the pitcher or the batter. The umpire calls strikes and balls. In the US Federal Government - that falls to the US Supreme Court. The Insurance Companies will probably challenge - and it will go to the US Supreme Court. That's how it should be.

    Nobody is ignoring the Constitution. You are trying to promote your version of what you think the Constitution says or means with the implication that the US House of Representatives should be bound by your frickin' opinion... They are going to vote based on what they think is best for the country. After they do, it falls to the SC...

    On the issue of Constitutionality, I am taking side bets...

    1. profile image0
      Poppa Bluesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Article 1 section 8 clearly states what power congress has. Health care isn't one of them. They can tax to fund activities mentioned in section 8, and they can regulate interstate trade as it applies to that section. Nowhere does it say they can force Americans to buy a good!

      Yes, that's my opinion but if you actually READ the constitution and study the intent of the founders it's hard to imagine you reaching any other conclusion.

      And yes I think the SCOTUS was fearful of FDR. He had a lot of support in the media and quite possibly could have been the first dictator of the USA! Congress was so fearful of him they passed the 22nd amendment as soon as he finished his 4th term!

      1. Doug Hughes profile image61
        Doug Hughesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        This is an old argument. The concept of  'implied powers' (google it) was  established in 1819 in McCulloch v. Maryland by Supreme Court - see the opinion by Chief Justice Marshall.

        The Supreme Court ruled that the government has powers that are NOT listed in Article 1 Section 8 but are 'implied' ... That's not to say anything goes - The SC has struck down laws for overeaching - butmore often than not they have affirmed the power of Congress to pass laws beyond the scope of Article.1.

        1. profile image0
          Poppa Bluesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Nice try! This was the ruling:

          The Court invoked the Necessary and Proper Clause of the Constitution which allowed the Federal government to pass laws not expressly provided for in the Constitution's list of express powers provided those laws are in useful furtherance of the express powers of Congress under the Constitution.

          How does health care figure into that? Does a take over of the health care system "provide for useful furtherance of the express powers of Congress"???

          I hardly think so!! If it's interpreted the way you'd like it to be then Congress would be able to do anything to anybody simply by saying it's for the "general welfare" of the citizens!! In that case the country may as well be run by Chavez, Castro or Stalin!

  16. ledefensetech profile image79
    ledefensetechposted 7 years ago

    The sad fact is Ron, people die.  No piece of legislation is going to stop it.  I have diabetes.  That means, by the very nature of the disease, I'm going to die earlier than most people.  Paying or not paying for healthcare won't change that fact.  I, personally as am individual, can influence how long I live by the decisions I make, but simply paying for my testing won't solve the problem.

    What would help is releasing the restrictions on supply that currently keep competition and other market forces from lowering the cost of healthcare services.  How else can you explain the Lasik phenomenon.  No insurance or government program would cover it, yet the cost of Lasik surgery has dropped every year since it started in 1991.  Why?

    As for my analysis of premium hikes, find fault with it.  Poke holes in it.  Simply saying it's disingenuous because you don't believe it doesn't make it true.  I'm not the only one saying that Medicare underpays and shifts the cost to private insurers.  It's the dirty little secret of Medicare.

    http://www.healthbeatblog.com/2009/08/d … tals-.html

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 … 86136.html

    1. Ron Montgomery profile image60
      Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Your arguments are classic bait and switch. You state that the medicare underpayments are THE reason for private insurance premium increases, then imply that I was questioning the underpayment, when I was clearly questioning YOUR conclusions, not the accepted facts.

      Your condescending remarks about the inevitability of death are a poor attempt to shore up your weak argument.

      Show some integrity if you wish to be taken seriously.

      1. ledefensetech profile image79
        ledefensetechposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Go to hell, Ron.  Show some integrity?  I'm putting my life on the line opposing universal healthcare insurance.  I choose not to live  my life as a burden on others.  Unlike you, such a stance will cost me my life.  Not may, or might.  It will cost me my life.

        What are you sacrificing you smug arrogant pissant?

        1. Ron Montgomery profile image60
          Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Holy cow!  I walk away for a couple of hours and come back to this?

          I'm well aware of your battle with diabetes and acknowledge your right to deal with it as you see fit.

          As always, I hope all goes well with you personally.

          P.S.  I'm not someone who frequently uses the report button, and I ask that no other participants use it in response to LDT's post.

  17. TNmoonshine profile image59
    TNmoonshineposted 7 years ago

    Obama should read it everday to Senate and Congress, and it sould be posted everyday in TV commercials so we can educate the young.

  18. Aya Katz profile image89
    Aya Katzposted 7 years ago

    Ledefensetech, I hope you are keeping yourself well. What is it that you are doing that you think will cost you your life? That was a scary statement.

    1. ledefensetech profile image79
      ledefensetechposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      It's just the diabetes.  I've been having a rough time with it lately.  Still I should be thankful it's not something like MS.  I can have the occasional difficulty and my body will be able to heal itself, as long as I stop abusing it.  Once you start down the slippery slope if MS, you never come back all the way.

      Like with any chronic illness, diabetes shaves years off your life.  There isn't much you can do about it yet, except try to control your symptoms.  I was perhaps engaging in a bit of hyperbole, but the fact remains that I, unlike Ron, would benefit the most from some sort of universal healthcare plan.  Rather than have to pay for my meds, testing and doctor's visits, I could shove that off on everyone else.

      The fact is, though, that I am diabetic through my own actions.  Type II diabetes develops in people who are lazy and eat too much.  That was something I did for years.  Nobody else should have to pay for my mistakes.  Which is exactly what would happen if universal healthcare got passed.  Furthermore, I don't feel that I should have to pay for the mistakes of others.  I'm willing to own up to my mistakes and deal with it, other people should as well.

      1. Ralph Deeds profile image71
        Ralph Deedsposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Ldt, I'm sorry to hear about your diabetes, and I wish you well.

        However, I must point out that medical care is required in many if not most cases by factors unrelated to anyone's "mistakes." And, as you well know, medical bills are a leading cause of bankruptcies in this country.  (Or perhaps, the leading cause. I don't recall.)

      2. Aya Katz profile image89
        Aya Katzposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Sorry to hear about your diabetes. Have you tried a low carb diet? (Yes, I know that's off topic.) Anyway, I hope you get it under control.

        I appreciate your consistency in applying your principles, despite feeling that you might benefit from universal health coverage.

        I'd like to suggest, though, that universal health coverage might in the end not benefit anybody, not even those who are sick or whose illness is a result of lifestyle choices. Current health care is terrible in the US! This is in great measure due to the government's already being involved in health care, health insurance, medical certification, drug testing and research into nutrition. We would all be better off, even those who are sick, if the market had more of a role in deciding what medical procedure, treatment or diet to embark upon.

  19. JON EWALL profile image47
    JON EWALLposted 7 years ago

    Hubbers

    Each and every member of congress, the supreme court and the presidency takes an oath to the Constitution when sworn into office.
    Case closed on the question, meaning NO.

    Professor Barack Obama taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago prior to entering the public sector in state and federal governments.The president is fully aware as to what he and congress can do.

    The supreme court interprets the constitution as it is written without prejudice to anyone in the decisions that the court makes. It's the end of the line for a final decision.

    The Executive branch,the Legislation branch and the Judicial branch is the foundation of our government.
    The founding fathers built into our government checks and balances, meaning that the majority cannot go roughshod over the minority in developing legislation.
    A 2/3 majority rule to pass legislation is required in making laws that impact the nation.
    Time will only tell if the 111Th congress and the president will abide by the oath that they took to the constitution.

    1. Doug Hughes profile image61
      Doug Hughesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Jon - The legislation in question WAS passed by a 2/3 majority in the Senate. The process of tweeking the Senate bill will be done by a simple majority (reconciliation)- a process the GOP is familiar with. I will quote Harry Reid who wrote to Mitch McConnell on this subject....

      "As you know, the vast majority of bills developed through reconciliation were passed by Republican Congresses and signed into law by Republican Presidents – including President Bush’s massive, budget-busting tax breaks for multi-millionaires.  Given this history, one might conclude that Republicans believe a majority vote is sufficient to increase the deficit and benefit the super-rich, but not to reduce the deficit and benefit the middle class.  Alternatively, perhaps Republicans believe a majority vote is appropriate only when Republicans are in the majority.  Either way, we disagree."

      SO I have to ask - are you saying that the Republican Tax cuts were unconstitutional?

      1. JON EWALL profile image47
        JON EWALLposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Doug
        In my post i didn't refer to any passed legislation I believe you are referring to the healthcare reform bill passed in DEC  prior to Christmas break.
        It is my understanding that both houses are now in the process of rewriting the bill.Obama met in closed door meetings today with democrat members ( republicans not invited )( open and transparent government ) to make revisions to the bill.
        The democrat bill should proceed to the members to review (  72 hour review period before going to the floor for debate) and then to the house.
        The CBO CAN'T SCORE the bill until it's written and approved.

        I'm curious of the source  where you got a copy of Reid's letter to Mc Connell.
        Did senator McConnell respond ???
        Looking forward to a reply.

        Jon E

        1. Doug Hughes profile image61
          Doug Hughesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Jon -

          The letter is posted in full online.

          http://democrats.senate.gov/newsroom/re … 23016&

          The US House will pass the Senate version and reconcile the offensive items (take out the Nebraska deal) in a dmall bill - which is the only part that will be assed by a simple majority.

          You did not answer if the GOP Tax Bill for the rich was unconstitutional - since that bill WAS passed by the method you find objectionable.

 
working