Thread: Constitutionality of Obamacare

All those examples are different from healthcare... most of them are tangible commodities. You can touch them, you can resell them if they are no longer useful to you or bought too much (draconian contract not withstanding).

Another big difference with food as an example:
You can't afford food on a certain day and get really hungry. That doesn't preclude you from getting food the next day if you can suddenly afford it. It won't be more expensive because you didn't buy it for a day and you won't get the side-dish denied for pre-existing hunger.

Healthcare on the other hand? If you get sick without coverage, good luck getting coverage after that. Or if you get sick while covered and become unemployed because of the disease... well good luck getting covered after that, even with increased fees.

Notice a slight difference?

No, no difference noted. Should lawyers not be allowed to turn a profit? they only provide a service. How about auto mechanics? They provide is a service. How about plumbers, electricians, carpenters, HVAC technicians, computer network administrators, ...? All they provide are services. No profit for them. Their profits should be redistributed to provide more services for others that cannot afford their services.

The argument was that profit should be redistributed to provide coverage for those that can't afford coverage. If this applicable in the healthcare industry, then it is applicalbe in all industries.

Originally Posted by honedright

Why? Did the framers want something different from what you want?

Do you think that the framers were unconcerned with health?

Did you know that 3 of the framers (McClurg, McHenry, and Williamson) were physicians?

Did you know that some of the framers saw no problems with slavery? They also didn't care enough to make sure and make clear that women and colored people had rights. What does that tell you? It tells you that the framers were just men. No more, no less.

Originally Posted by khaos

Of course they were worried about their personal health. But to use that as an argument pro-healthcare is a normative fallacy. Can you tell me if they thought that private insurance was better or government insurance? Did they even have a concept of wide spread insurance? (Remember, banking and financial affairs were not as developed, in depth, or red-taped as they are today)

Furthermore, did they want to make everyone pay, to insure a few? Did they want Congress to even have that power? No one knows! This is why we have the amendment process. Even they knew that in the future things would change, thats the reason the amendment process exists!

I hate to bring it up again, but lets talk slavery. Slavery, in my opinion, is the most basic example of LACK of healthcare. The original constitution allowed for the imprisonment, torture, and physical abuse of other human beings, UNTIL IT WAS AMENDED.

And to point out a flaw in your argument, do you think the framers would have wanted to be enslaved themselves? This could be, as it so often is with high minded politicians, a case of "not in my backyard". "This tax is good, so long as I don't pay it." "Wind turbines are good, so long as I don't see them." "Health care is important, so long as others are paying for it."

The writers of the Constitution were certainly aware of insurance since it has existed since ancient times. They were also very aware of the historical significance of what they were doing in framing a constitution unlike any before in the world. They realized that very few before them, and probably none after, would have the awesome responsibility of founding a nation from scratch. To that end they were very mindful of the mistakes other governments, throughout history, had experienced and certainly were motivated to avoid them. And additionally to the purpose of creating a government that would allow the most liberty experienced by man at any time in history, they were very careful in limiting the powers afforded to a central government. They were very specific in enumerating powers. Everything else they left to the States and the People. Did they consider government insurance?? Nothing I've read indicates that they considered it. They could have added any type of insurance they'd wanted if they'd felt it was warranted. Government insurance certainly existed in one form or another before the time of the founders. But we don't find insurance anywhere in the Constitution. I believe the Constitution was a carefully drafted, debated, and finished document. The framers probably rushed through some of it as it was a very hot summer in Philadelphia that year. Imagine, if you dare, a room full of hot, sweaty, bewigged gentlemen practicing 18th century hygiene. Sometime about August, or September, most were very anxious to get out. One of the last issues they debated, if I remember correctly, was the role of the Judiciary. And I think that, also if I remember correctly, is one area where the framers may have goofed a little. But I believe that the framers put everything into that document that they believed was necessary. Health care and insurance issues are State and People issues, not Federal.

Now,that said, please cite the sections of the Constitution that "allow" the abuses you mentioned above.

Originally Posted by mhailey

The argument was that profit should be redistributed to provide coverage for those that can't afford coverage. If this applicable in the healthcare industry, then it is applicalbe in all industries.

My argument isn't that profit should be redistributed, my argument is that health isn't a commodity and shouldn't be treated as such.

health may not be a commodity, but services are, including those services provided to maintain your health. Since health is not a commodity, are we going to have a nationalized health club system to promote a healthy lifestyle?

If I may add some perspective to the commodity aspect:
Doctors and pharmacists earn plenty of money here. Anesthaesists, gynaecologists, etc... are definitely on the 'rich' side of the spectrum.
Over here, there is a lot of money in meds, and in treatment. There just isn't ANY money in the administration and insurance side of things.

Doctors and other people / instituations providing services CAN compete against each other.

Insurers can and will make money, just not on the things that are medically relevant. For example: burn victims will get treatment. If they want cosmetic surgery afterwards, that is where insurance comes into play. If a woman has to give birth, all medically relevant things are taken care of. But if she wants a single room instead of double, that is where insurance comes into play.
If your eyesight is bad enough, glasses are free (though they have to be really bad). However, for ultra thin lenses or non scratch coatings...
You get the idea.

Insurance companies can and do exists here, and compete against one another. They just can't make any money off of people for basic necessities.

I don't know, maybe you could look at how other industrialized countries have managed their healthcare systems and learn from the various successes and failures to build something better than what you currently have?

Silly anecdote... an American friend that was on a 3 years contracting bout at the 52nd FW hurt himself badly on a Saturday night. As the base hospital no longer has an emergency service, he had to use a local hospital. Funnily enough, his expensive employer-mandated private insurance didn't cover foreign hospitals so he ended up having to pay everything. That "everything" ended up being cheaper than his co-pay for a similar procedure in America, same thing for the medication. He is now back in America so his kids can finish high-school, but is looking for a permanent position in Europe for the near future. By the way, he is a doctor.

I know what the Constitution is, what is Obamacare?

And until somebody can explain the topic to me, I'll just go off-topic.

Originally Posted by honedright

They were also very aware of the historical significance of what they were doing in framing a constitution unlike any before in the world. They realized that very few before them, and probably none after, would have the awesome responsibility of founding a nation from scratch. To that end they were very mindful of the mistakes other governments, throughout history, had experienced and certainly were motivated to avoid them.

So how come they we so big on rights and liberties for white men, but not for non whites and women? Surely there was no lack of historical examples in that aspect.
Can you explain for me the conundrum of inalienable rights being reserved for only a minority.