Does it bother you, or Bricker, that every other first world country on Earth does it differently, and they spend less and typically get better or as good results?
In other words, are so in love with this ideological goal that you’re willing to spend more money for less? On a practical level doesn’t that bother you?
I seems to me that you’re equating risk of unreasonable searches with the risk of unreasonable taxes. I don’t agree that the two are equivalent because I don’t see it as unreasonable that in a more just society, the onus is on everyone to contribute to the welfare of everyone in that society. Particularly when one holds the simultaneous position that under a constitutional amendment, UHC with it’s associated tax burden would be acceptable.
You see it as a matter of law. I see it as a matter of scale. If it’s okay for Massachusetts, or Vermont, or California (for example), to invoke a UHC system for its constituents, why is it not okay for the entire country? In fact, doing so, serves to divide the country and restrict freedom of movement for its citizens to have such a difference in essential services offered from state to state.
I understand the concept. I also think it’s archaic. Perhaps because I’m a federalist and perhaps because I think state laws serve to divide the country in ways that don’t serve its citizens all that well in many important ways. i.e. UHC.
Can you briefly explain your understanding of it?
But public policy is not “aside.” It’s exactly what’s under discussion.
You’re not moved if I point to the deaths of the unborn and ask for charity; you are perfectly comfortable in seeing abortion continue – presumably because you believe that other important goals are being served. Right?
Federal enumerated powers as per Article I, Section 8 in the U.S. Constitution.
Plenary state power is the authority of each state to make its own laws not subject to federal gov’t review.
Can we move on, or do you want to continue to talk down to me?
Not quite. State laws can be subject to federal review.
Think of it this way:
The Feds can only do that which they are explicitly authorized to do.
The States can do anything they are not explicitly forbidden to do.
Yeah, I had an “except when they are” caveat but removed it for simplicity. I guess I should have left it in. Now Prof. Bricker will give me a “D” on my quiz.
There are clauses in the Federal Constitution that prevent states from doing certain things, and of course most of the BoR has been incorporated (by the court) to apply to the states, mainly based on the 14th amendment. But states also have constitutions that limit their authority, too, so states can’t just run wild and do anything they wish to do.
Is that a rhetorical question?
You guys know the old saw about wrestling with a pig, right?
Stranger
Understood, and thank you.
But with respect to healthcare, I consider that too important an issue to be left to the states to implement in the way that the recently passed house bill proposes to allow. So in contrast to the OP, anything that moves away from the ACA makes things worse for the nation as a whole. Which is not to say that the ACA was perfect or went far enough towards UHC.
Well, the problem is you can’t just ignore the constitution because something is “too important”. If, that is, you accept Bricker’s premise that the constitution does not give the feds authority in that area.
But frankly, I think the odds of success are much better if it’s done by the states. That way you don’t have Mississippi telling New York what it has to do, and vice versa. It’s a big, diverse country, and one size does not it all.
I have never been against charity or giving. Never. I believe it is a positive good. However, I do not believe in forced charity or a system of government that requires a person to give his money to another in the name of charity. That is otherwise known as theft.
I am not saying a person should “go bankrupt and die.” I am saying that the government should not be the entity that prevents bankruptcy and death.
Yeah, I had a pretty good idea what I was getting myself into. Just felt I had to try to understand Bricker’s position, as I understand it, which seems to be:
The ACA (or its equivalent) is a terrible idea because it unfairly impinges on individual rights through taxes. Besides, Fed vs. State Law! Unless it’s codified in the constitution and becomes an entitlement. Then I’m all for it!
I do not understand this.
Health insurance is merely a list of things the insurance will pay for as regards medical care. How different is that list going to be between Mississippi and New York? New York doesn’t have to cover alligator attacks?
If you want to wrestle with a pig, saw him in half first!
SCOTUS has ruled conscription constitutional as part of the ‘raise armies’ clause. While I oppose it, I think conscription logically follows from that.
I think forcing people to buy a product doesn’t flow from anything in the constitution. I know the general welfare clause has been interpreted quite broadly, but even in that before the ACA is was only construed to allow congress to spend, not force people to buy. Have Congress appropriate the funds and provide health care as an entitlement like they do with Medicare and the constitutional argument goes away.
The argument against forcing people to buy broccoli is the same one against forcing people to buy insurance or GM cars. That reading of the general welfare clause is too broad and virtually unlimited - a power that congress should not have.
I’m for a new constitutional amendment to enshrine a new entitlement for UHC.
As I see it Bricker is being a stickler for the rules to the exclusion of all else. My take on his position is:
“The rules as laid out in the constitution do not allow the federal government to provide universal health care. If the rules are amended to allow it then great. Till then no UHC for you!”
Which is exactly the thing that bedevils me about that position. Either UHC is a good thing, or it isn’t. What does it matter what legal vehicle is used to enact it? And furthermore, why is taxation to achieve the objective (UHC) immoral in one case but not the other?
You’ve never been around hogs, have you? What vile, screeching creatures hatha God wrouht upon us in swine!
Stranger