Alright Constitutional Scholars...

[mRx 16]

Any port in a storm Colonel. However, stonewalling on this issue will lead inevitably to a massive increase in shanty towns, begging, outbreaks of communicable disease, perhaps even cholera etc. The system is already failing millions and causing financial hardship and nothing has been done to improve things - there is worse to come.

So, I assume the fact that our HC system is failing has absolutely nothing to do with the omnipresent bureaucratic intervention, right?

[almaty 19]

Any port in a storm Colonel. However, stonewalling on this issue will lead inevitably to a massive increase in shanty towns, begging, outbreaks of communicable disease, perhaps even cholera etc. The system is already failing millions and causing financial hardship and nothing has been done to improve things - there is worse to come.

Moses, is that you?

History might not repeat itself item by item, but human beings sure as hell make the same mistakes, over, and over, and over, again. I really think it's time everyone took classes in social history and actually understood what has been achieved in the past, and what has not.

spot on, sister purple

[Peikko 1,575]

Nothing? I would not be so bold as to make that claim. However, your suggestion that all would be well if one simply removed all governmental checks and balances is as fanciful as the communists claim that all would be well if everyone shared everything equally, and interestingly, while diametrically apposed ideologically, for exactly the same reasons.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Quite honestly, I don't really give a ###### what it says when it relates to things like universal health care. There are some things that society should provide for its citizens, and access to health care is one of those things. One can argue the toss about how that is to be achieved, but whether it is in the constitution or not, it's fundamental to a working, progressive and stable 1st world society.

MC, we have some on the Right making the argument that such things like universal health care are not covered in the U.S. Constitution and therefore beyond the scope of the Federal Government. So it's difficult to even have a discussion about health care when they reject it on constitutional grounds alone.

I had this out with Gary a while ago. He quoted an article that claimed the SSA (Social Security Act) was unconstitutional because it's not written into the Constitution.

Which is puerile and silly because by that standard, EVERYTHING has to be in the Constitution to be legal, and the only way to make law is to amend the Constitution.

Which we all know is ridiculous. Congress most certainly does have the power to legislate and create new Law. The SSA was passed and stood up to Supreme Court challenge in 1937. Gary et al may not like it, but that does make it the law of the land. So was Medicare in 1965.There's no reason whatsoever that a properly formulated Health care bill in this Congress could not do the same. The debate over health care is a proper political discussion: is it correct, is it cost-effective, how should it be administered, what should the public/private makeup of the system be. That is a reasonable and proper discussion in Congress and the Press and the public at large (even us here on VJ). But to argue that Congress has no Constitutional right to pass such legislation is just absurd.

Which begs the question - how do these silly notions become Right Wing talking points?

[mRx 16]

There exists such a check and balance system already; not government-driven, but market-driven. Works for every other industry. Why wouldn't it work for healthcare?

[jundp 191]

Thanks, Ron.

I was hoping for a self professed constitutional geek to show up and set the record straight. Maybe they're out for coffee?

As soon as she shows up (yes I know who you mean...) I'm outta here. I will not respond to her.

O, did someone calllllllllll?

I keed. I only know what I studied in grad school, then I switched to something more understandable...Shakespeare.

[Peikko 1,575]

There exists such a check and balance system already; not government-driven, but market-driven. Works for every other industry. Why wouldn't it work for healthcare?

You are kidding me, aren't you?

[Ban Hammer 13,354]

provide for the common defense...

......

Any arguments here over what that part means?

that means the government is supposed to subsidize ammo prices for gun owners.

I know where this is going.... and it's not to point out the Lefts military cuts.

Continue

Riiight....when Bush cut troops pay and benefits he just caught the liberal flu. Thank God it left his Right Wing intact.

really? when did this happen?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Thanks, Ron.

I was hoping for a self professed constitutional geek to show up and set the record straight. Maybe they're out for coffee?

As soon as she shows up (yes I know who you mean...) I'm outta here. I will not respond to her.

O, did someone calllllllllll?

I keed. I only know what I studied in grad school, then I switched to something more understandable...Shakespeare.

drama queen.

[AlHayatZween 2]

I reclaim the American colonies back in the name of the Empire.

My God, would you really want us?

We say things like "pants"... and we get all giggly when you ask to smoke a **.

[Danno 1,228]

It's like the bible, each man/woman interprets it in a way that suits themselves.

There is some truth to that and usually.... without having been read.

Danno, do you believe the Bible when read, requires no interpretation?

I believe both need interpretation, my only point is, too often people interpret without having read what they are interpreting.

[Peikko 1,575]

You mean, like those who censor without having read/watched the media they want censored? As if that could happen...

[mRx 16]

There exists such a check and balance system already; not government-driven, but market-driven. Works for every other industry. Why wouldn't it work for healthcare?

You are kidding me, aren't you?

Do you need to perform a detailed inspection on a new toaster oven before you plug it in to ensure that you will not die of electrocution?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

There exists such a check and balance system already; not government-driven, but market-driven. Works for every other industry. Why wouldn't it work for healthcare?

You are kidding me, aren't you?

Do you need to perform a detailed inspection on a new toaster oven before you plug it in to ensure that you will not die of electrocution?

At least a perfunctory one., and stand back for a few seconds...

[Danno 1,228]

Quite honestly, I don't really give a ###### what it says when it relates to things like universal health care. There are some things that society should provide for its citizens, and access to health care is one of those things. One can argue the toss about how that is to be achieved, but whether it is in the constitution or not, it's fundamental to a working, progressive and stable 1st world society.

MC, we have some on the Right making the argument that such things like universal health care are not covered in the U.S. Constitution and therefore beyond the scope of the Federal Government. So it's difficult to even have a discussion about health care when they reject it on constitutional grounds alone.

In that case, are there any limits as to what the Constitution allows the Govt' to furnish?

Education?

Retirement?

Healthcare?

Food?

housing?

Clothing?

Employment?

Transportation?

recreation?

Entertainment?

Vacations?

Firearms?

Computers?

Edited May 22, 2009 by Danno