Healthcare....again

[reelguy227]

I am against it, but now that it's instituted you can't take away the benefits people were promised they'd get when they retire. Like I said, it will most likely continue, although I'd like to see it privatized and reformed, that way we would avert the fiscal catastrophe that is looming if the system continues unchecked.

I'm not saying that people shouldn't get the benefits they were promised, I'm just saying that it was originally unconstitutional and therefore should have never been enacted in the first place. But now that it's in place, we're kind of stuck with it, yet that doesn't mean we have to make the same mistake and follow the same path with another entitlement in the public option.

[CatherineM]

It's not just a matter of Social Security being a benefit people expect. People pay money into the system just like a private pension fund. Unfortunately, the government has been borrowing against those funds for too long. They used to indict people who dipped into pension plans like Unions.

I guess we haven't learned anything from the recent collapse of the stock market, if you still think privatizing Social Security would work. A lot of people lost their entire pensions up here, and they hadn't even invested with Madoff.

[reelguy227]

That stock market crash was a once every 30-75 years thing. Those don't happen often, and besides, the whole economic collapse was precipitated—and mainly caused by—government intervention in the housing market under the Community Reinvestment Act, which mandated under penalty of law that banks give loans to people who don't have the ability to pay them off (aka sub prime loans). Every time the government involves itself in the private sector the economy goes out of whack in some way, shape or form—which is exactly what happened with this recession and also the Depression of 1929 (which was also precipitated and worsened by government interference under the Smoot Hawley Tariff Act and boneheaded cyclical monetary policy by the Federal Reserve). Both of these instances were like taking a wrench and throwing it into an engine while it's running and hoping it will make the situation better, but it doesn't work that way. The free market works best without government intervention. But don't get me wrong, I'm not talking about having no regulations. I'm talking about the government not having any direct intervention, or tampering of the mechanisms of the economy and free market, (aka, price controls, the minimum wage, rent controls, cap and trade, high tariffs etc.).

And also, if you think Madoff's scandal was bad, that's nothing compared to what social security will be when it goes bankrupt. The government's doing the exact same thing he did, but legally, and on a much much larger scale. As of now it's a pyramid scheme, just like what Madoff did, whatever money people pay in now gets paid to the beneficiaries of today. The money that gets paid into the system today will never be there when people retire because it will already have been spent by then. And eventually, benefits will outweigh the FICA tax receipts and the program will go belly up. Government programs like Social Security aren't fiscally feasible or solvent in the long run, that's why they need to be reformed.

All in all, if Congress and the President (both Republicans and Democrats) would just strictly stick to the Constitution and use it as their guide during legislation and other government matters, things would be a lot better off and liberty would be much more prevalent.

Edited July 21, 2009 by reelguy227

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote name='reelguy227' post='1925681' date='Jul 20 2009, 01:24 PM']The reason the public option is unconstitutional is because nothing in Article 1, Section 8 gives Congress the power to spend money it gets from its constituents on objects of benevolence or charity, such as a healthcare plan. Congress can only carry out those powers that are specifically enumerated in Article 1, Section 8, any other powers not explicitly stated in that section belong to the states and to the people respectively, as stated in the Tenth Amendment. If it's not mentioned in those enumerated powers, Congress can't do it. Plain and simple.

This same argument goes for Social Security as well, which at first, was thought to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court back when it was introduced by President Roosevelt. That is, until the court buckled and allowed Social Security when Roosevelt threatened to pack it with justices who agreed with him, working in unison with the Democrat congress of course. Once threatened, the court cracked and allowed social security by a vote of 7-2.

Social security flung wide open Pandora's box, setting the precedent for nearly every federal entitlement program we have today—programs that now take up nearly 60% of the federal budget and are close to going bankrupt, with nearly 50 trillion dollars in unfunded liabilities that will come due one day.[/quote]

it says that they can tax for the general welfare in that section, though.

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall "

and i'm not sure where those 'charity' ideas came from, if that's like a paraphrase, or?
and i guess if we assume a power need be enumerated in conjunction with the taxing power, given that language? is it just a matter of "if we allow any tax and spend for anything, we've nullified congress's limited role", and not a matter of strict constructionism textually?

and even if it didn't provide for general welfare, what about the 16 amendment?
[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixteenth_Ame...es_Constitution[/url]

i guess when i earlier said there was an amendment, i must've been thinking of this one. this one, though, only deals with the argument 'income taxes are illegal'. cause that makes em legal.

[reelguy227]

The General Welfare Clause was never meant to mean that Congress could just spend money on whatever it wanted, it only meant that Congress could spend money on those items that are specifically enumerated in Section 8. James Madison (who was the principle author of the Constitution and is considered the Father of the document) anticipated that people would blow the General Welfare Clause out of proportion, take it out of its original context and use it as an excuse so that Congress could spend on anything it deemed fit to be the "general welfare". With that said, there are numerous occasions of him consistently debunking such an interpretation of the general welfare clause and being opposed to near limitless congressional spending, and I'll list them here for further clarification:

"If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions."-James Madison, Letter to Edmund Pendleton

“I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.”-James Madison

“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected."- James Madison, The Federalist # 45

“With respect to the two words "general welfare," I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." -James Madison, Letter to James Robertson, April 20, 1831

"For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars” –James Madison, The Federalist # 41

"To refer the power in question to the clause ‘to provide for common defense and general welfare’ would be contrary to the established and consistent rules of interpretation, as rendering the special and careful enumeration of powers which follow the clause nugatory and improper. Such a view of the Constitution would have the effect of giving to Congress a general power of legislation instead of the defined and limited one hitherto understood to belong to them, the terms ‘common defense and general welfare’ embracing every object and act within the purview of a legislative trust." -President James Madison, Veto of federal public works bill, March 3, 1817

"It would be absurd to say, first, that Congress may do what they please, and then that they may do this or that particular thing; after giving Congress power to raise money, and apply it to all purposes which they may pronounce necessary to the general welfare, it would be absurd, to say the least, to super add a power to raise armies, to provide fleets, &c. In fact, the meaning of the general terms in question must either be sought in the subsequent enumeration which limits and details them, or they convert the Government from one limited, as hitherto supposed, to the enumerated powers, into a Government without any limits at all.” –James Madison, Speech in Congress, February 6, 1792

The bottom line is that if something is not specifically located in the enumerated powers of section 8, Congress can't do it, can't spend on it, can't carry it out etc. But wit the onset of FDR's presidency, that notion was thrown out and has been the precedent to this very day. Once that took place, Pandora's box was flung wide open and now nothing can stop Congress from spending on virtually anything it wants and deems in the "general welfare", seeing that it is the sole arbiter and interpreter of what exactly is in the general welfare.

Madison foresaw all of this and warned against it, but nobody listened and look what's happening now. Congress is out of control and we now have a 1,000,000,000,000,000 dollar deficit and an 11,000,000,000,000 dollar debt (ya, you read right, 12 zeros, which is utterly mind boggling), and they're both climbing. And don't get me wrong, Republican's and Democrats alike are the both to blame for the out of control spending.

Edited July 21, 2009 by reelguy227

[Hassan]

[quote name='reelguy227' post='1926084' date='Jul 20 2009, 11:48 PM']The bottom line is that if something is not specifically located in the enumerated powers of section 8, Congress can't do it, can't spend on it, can't carry it out etc. But wit the onset of FDR's presidency, that notion was thrown out and has been the precedent to this very day. Once that took place, Pandora's box was flung wide open and now nothing can stop Congress from spending on virtually anything it wants and deems in the "general welfare", seeing that it is the sole arbiter and interpreter of what exactly is in the general welfare.[/quote]

That's simply false. To begin with FDR used the commerce clause to justify many of it's programs. perhaps you don't like just how far they stretched it, but that is quite distinct from the notion simply being "thrown out". Things can stop congress, in fact the Reinquest court slapped congress back quite a few times. Congress is not, never has been, and never will be the sole arbiter and interpreter of anything in the constitution.

[reelguy227]

I never said Congress was the sole arbiter of Constitution, that would be ridiculous. Please indicate where I said that? Don't put words in my mouth. Read what I said again.

Edited July 21, 2009 by reelguy227

[Hassan]

[quote name='reelguy227' post='1925681' date='Jul 20 2009, 02:24 PM']The reason the public option is unconstitutional is because nothing in Article 1, Section 8 gives Congress the power to spend money it gets from its constituents on objects of benevolence or charity, such as a healthcare plan. Congress can only carry out those powers that are specifically enumerated in Article 1, Section 8, any other powers not explicitly stated in that section belong to the states and to the people respectively, as stated in the Tenth Amendment. If it's not mentioned in those enumerated powers, Congress can't do it. Plain and simple.[/quote]


So when congress passes a budget which allocates some of the public funds to pay for the medical care of soldiers injured in combat they are overstepping their constitutional bounds.

Interesting.


Btw. You may want to check of of those ammendmenets that come after the Bill of Rights. Perhaps 13 and 14.

[Hassan]

[quote name='reelguy227' post='1926130' date='Jul 21 2009, 12:35 AM']I never said Congress was the sole arbiter of Constitution, that would be ridiculous. Please indicate where I said that? Don't put words in my mouth. Read what I said again.[/quote]
[i]seeing that it is the sole arbiter and interpreter of what exactly is in the general welfare.[/i]

[Lounge Daddy]

[quote name='fidei defensor' post='1925788' date='Jul 20 2009, 05:48 PM']Your comparison kind of implied you were against public health insurance because of it being unconstitution, like social security. That implies you are also against social security.[/quote]

I am. But I am against the entire Federal State. Privatise the whole system. *shakes fist in the air *

[reelguy227]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1926135' date='Jul 21 2009, 12:43 AM']So when congress passes a budget which allocates some of the public funds to pay for the medical care of soldiers injured in combat they are overstepping their constitutional bounds.

Interesting.


Btw. You may want to check of of those ammendmenets that come after the Bill of Rights. Perhaps 13 and 14.[/quote]

That medical care issue is iffy, but I believe that it would fall under military spending, seeing that the soldiers were injured while in defense of the country. It would be no different than paying for a medic's services on the field of battle, which is obviously a component of defense spending.

And secondly, what exactly do 13 and 14 have to do with what's being discussed here?


[quote name='Hassan' post='1926140' date='Jul 21 2009, 12:45 AM'][i]seeing that it is the sole arbiter and interpreter of what exactly is in the general welfare.[/i][/quote]

Again, I didn't say anything about the Constitution, just the general welfare clause. So what you said earlier was mistaken. And it is obviously the case that they are the sole arbiters of what is in the general welfare seeing that are the ones that spend the money. This can be seen in the fact that Congress has now spent taxpayer dollars on pretty much anything you can think of, barring flat out paying people's bills for them. The stimulus bill and other pork spending proves this.

Edited July 21, 2009 by reelguy227

[reelguy227]

Oops, double post, sry.

Edited July 21, 2009 by reelguy227

[Lounge Daddy]

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1925806' date='Jul 20 2009, 06:07 PM']It's not just a matter of Social Security being a benefit people expect. People pay money into the system just like a private pension fund. Unfortunately, the government has been borrowing against those funds for too long. They used to indict people who dipped into pension plans like Unions.

I guess we haven't learned anything from the recent collapse of the stock market, if you still think privatizing Social Security would work. A lot of people lost their entire pensions up here, and they hadn't even invested with Madoff.[/quote]

Government meddling and experimentation caused the Great Depression. And Government meddling made the cost of healthcare go up. More Government "fixes" will only bring more trouble, while also granting more power to the State.

The answer is less Government. Not more.

[reelguy227]

Well said.

[Archaeology cat]

[quote name='Sacred Music Man' post='1925767' date='Jul 20 2009, 10:24 PM']Better not let LD see this thread

Btw, I got to "choose" my doctor. But it's not always that easy to "choose" the doctor of your liking. Sometimes it is physically impossible for he/she to have you as a patient. It's called full schedules.[/quote]
Which can also happen in the US. My uncle stopped taking new OB patients years ago, as he already had so many patients, that he couldn't take on more. There are other doctors in his practice, and so new patients can go to them.