If you feel it is constitutional please cite the point where we the people through our states have granted to the Federal Government the authority to take over medicine. Because I have studied the Constitution for many years and It does not grant the Federal Government such authority.If someone has posted some legal authority for why they believe that Medicare is “unconstitutional” I must have missed it. The same goes for the proposed healthcare reform. Exactly what part of the U.S. Constitution is supposedly going to be violated and which part of the current bills (that have yet to be reconciled into one bill) are proposing something that would violate the Constitution?
In my experience the term “unconstitutional” is thrown around quite often for anything the government is doing or might do that someone does not like, but rarely is there any real legal authority cited to support the assertion. If I had a dollar for every person who has tossed that term out who has no idea of what the Constitution really says or even of how our government or legal system works, I would be very rich and able to retire.
It might be helpful to do a Google search for “constitutional challenges to Medicare”. You will find that there have been numerous challenges not only of the program but also individual components of the Medicare program.If you feel it is constitutional please cite the point where we the people through our states have granted to the Federal Government the authority to take over medicine. Because I have studied the Constitution for many years and It does not grant the Federal Government such authority.
Unfortunately we have supreme court judges appointed by the political parties that have created these unconstitutional programs.It might be helpful to do a Google search for “constitutional challenges to Medicare”. You will find that there have been numerous challenges not only of the program but also individual components of the Medicare program.
It is also very probable that the Medicare is constitutional, in addition to being one of the best social programs enacted in this country.Unfortunately we have supreme court judges appointed by the political parties that have created these unconstitutional programs.
Where is it listed in the constitution then?It is also very probable that the Medicare is constitutional, in addition to being one of the best social programs enacted in this country.
Certainly you understand that not every law we have is listed in the constitution. Laws are enacted, some are tested for constitutionality in the Supreme Court, others are not. Medicare and Medicaid have stood the test of time.Where is it listed in the constitution then?
Every constitutional law is covered by the constitution. If it is not specifically listed under the scope of the constitution it is unconstitutional.Certainly you understand that not every law we have is listed in the constitution. Laws are enacted, some are tested for constitutionality in the Supreme Court, others are not. Medicare and Medicaid have stood the test of time.
I’m not the one who originally asked if it was unconstitutional and you are the one assuming you know what I think, so I don’t owe anyone a search and citation of authority for anything. I asked for the legal authority if someone has it.If you feel it is constitutional please cite the point where we the people through our states have granted to the Federal Government the authority to take over medicine. Because I have studied the Constitution for many years and It does not grant the Federal Government such authority.
No judges “create” programs of any kind. Congress enacts legislation at the federal level that becomes a law which may “create” a program if signed by the President. This is basic Civics 101. The Supreme Court "justices’’ are not appointed by a “political party” it is a Presidential nomination with confirmation by the U.S. Senate.Unfortunately we have supreme court judges appointed by the political parties that have created these unconstitutional programs.
The way the Constitution works, in general, is to lay out what the government is allowed to do, and to leave the rest up to the people and/or the states. In other words, if the Constitution does not authorize the government to do something, the government does not have the power to do it.If someone has posted some legal authority for why they believe that Medicare is “unconstitutional” I must have missed it. The same goes for the proposed healthcare reform. Exactly what part of the U.S. Constitution is supposedly going to be violated and which part of the current bills (that have yet to be reconciled into one bill) are proposing something that would violate the Constitution?
In my experience the term “unconstitutional” is thrown around quite often for anything the government is doing or might do that someone does not like, but rarely is there any real legal authority cited to support the assertion. If I had a dollar for every person who has tossed that term out who has no idea of what the Constitution really says or even of how our government or legal system works, I would be very rich and able to retire.
and then explicitly reserves all powers that are not assigned to Congress are reserved for the states in the Tenth Amendment:The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
(source)The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Don’t you think if it were illegal, it would have been challenged by groups years ago? I don’t believe that anyone has challenged it in the past and i think that if it went to the supreme court, given the balance on the bench, we’d get a fair and honest ruling.If you feel it is constitutional please cite the point where we the people through our states have granted to the Federal Government the authority to take over medicine. Because I have studied the Constitution for many years and It does not grant the Federal Government such authority.
Three words- Necessary and ProperEvery constitutional law is covered by the constitution. If it is not specifically listed under the scope of the constitution it is unconstitutional.
Good thought.For those who think Medicare or other federal funding for health care is unconstitutional and government health care should exist only at the state/local level I have some questions to start the discussion. I’m not asking to debate the constitutionality of federal funding of healthcare, only what you would propose in it’s place.
What would your plan be for state/local run health care for the following groups?
a. Should care be funded?
- seniors and disabled who have no access to employer sponsored health insurance
- those who are legitimately unable to afford private or employer sponsored insurance?
- persons who through their own negligence have no insurance and no hope of paying their medical bills but need catastrophic medical care?
b. How should it be funded?
c. If the funding source runs out of money do you cut benefits or provide unfunded care?
d. If you cut benefits, how do you decide who/what gets cut?
What about poor states vs wealthier states. Should there be any obligation for a wealthier state to help those that are poor?
Janet, in a uptopian world that might work, but there are so many varibles that I don’t think its feasible to accomplish.Good thought.
I was raised in Germany and looking at my family I see how the government healthcare fails. The rates they have to pay are steadily going up, the care is not as good as for those with private care and more and more things are being taken out. (For example they have to pay an office fee every quarter, they pay up to a certain amount for hospitalization, glasses are not included anywhere, going to the dentist can be very costly, emergency services charge the office fee on top of the quarterly fee, they have to pay part of the cost for prescribed medication, etc. The services are not as good and not all doctors really accept public healthcare, even though they have to in theory. The treatment in hospitals is nowhere as nice as for private patients who are treated with a lot of courtesy and the waiting time can be pretty long - even with an appointment I sometimes had to wait half an hour to an hour to see my doctor… )
My mom recently was struggling, because she had a situation where they had to take her to the hospital and keep her there for nearly 2 weeks. The bill was way to high for her low income and it took her a while and some help to get it paid.
I would suggest a different system… than both.
If the state wants to help those effectively who cannot afford healthcare why not just help those who cannot afford it?
For example like this:
People under a certain income level are the group who gets it.
Specialists come together and calculate the amount that a reasonable health insurance for the average person of that group would cost. That amount of money is being provided under one condition: The person finds a health insurance and provides the contract. Then the government pays up to the set limit. If the insurance costs less the state keeps half of the additional money (making the losses through the system smaller, but giving a bonus for smart shopping) and if it is more the state provision is at least helping with a major part in it.
Just my 2 cents.
May God bless you.
In Him,
Janet
See my previous post.Don’t you think if it were illegal, it would have been challenged by groups years ago? I don’t believe that anyone has challenged it in the past and i think that if it went to the supreme court, given the balance on the bench, we’d get a fair and honest ruling.
Acceptance through silence.See my previous post.
When people do not stand up to one little thing (like forcing the citizenry to purchase insurance), it creates precedent that justifies similar encroachments.
Don’t use the lack of legal challenges as a barometer of whether the government is behaving appropriately. For our Constitution to be circumvented takes time and a lot of deception.
Peace,
Dante
5th ammendment: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.I’m not the one who originally asked if it was unconstitutional and you are the one assuming you know what I think, so I don’t owe anyone a search and citation of authority for anything. I asked for the legal authority if someone has it.
If you don’t think it is constitutional then feel free to post the actual evidence. Just stating that you’ve studied the Constitution for years is not a legal citation and if you were a Constituational scholar you would be able to give us the exact portions of the Constituion that are applicable to your assertion. Instead, you have done just what I mentioned, say something is unconstitutional without a shred of proof to back it up. I could state that I have a law degree and many years as a practicing attorney but that is not legal authority to prove any particular point.
You obviously misread what I posted and you quoted. I did not say the judges created programs, I said they were appointed by the same parties that created the program.No judges “create” programs of any kind. Congress enacts legislation at the federal level that becomes a law which may “create” a program if signed by the President. This is basic Civics 101. The Supreme Court "justices’’ are not appointed by a “political party” it is a Presidential nomination with confirmation by the U.S. Senate…
This was not a factual error it was failure in your reading of my post.When you make factual errors on simple things such as what powers and duties each of our 3 branches of government have under the U.S.Constitution, it really ruins your credibility when you assert that something is or is not constitutional. In fact, you support my point that the word “unconstitutional” is tossed around without genuine understanding or proof. Simply repeating the word “unconstitutional” does not shore up unsupported arguments.
We no longer have individal members of congress and the executive branch independently representing the voters and appointing supreme court judges who were also equally independent. We now have two corporations fighting for power and forcing their representatives to tow the party line. Those who are not willing to do the bidding of their respective parties are not going to be appointed to the bench.Don’t you think if it were illegal, it would have been challenged by groups years ago? I don’t believe that anyone has challenged it in the past and i think that if it went to the supreme court, given the balance on the bench, we’d get a fair and honest ruling.
As much as people claim Americans want the Canadian or other socialist medical program, you don’t see many people leaving to go to those countries.Janet, in a uptopian world that might work, but there are so many varibles that I don’t think its feasible to accomplish.
I have several friends who are Canadian citizens and every single one of them feels the system they use there works very well. Of course they mentioned that there are flaws in the system but each year the government works to tweak it so it gets better. I’d def take their socialized system in heartbeat.