bones, gunshot wounds, etc ad nauseum did not exist in the colonial
days. Nor did Doctors, hospitals or nurses. I am sure that Josiah
Bartlett of New Hampshire, Lyman Hall of Georgia, Benjamin Rush of
Pennsylvania and Matthew Thornton of New Hampshire would be happy to
know that they were not after all medical practitioners. It was no
more backward for then than medicine today will seem in 200 more
years. Every town had a Doc and there was no difference then as to
now.....if you could afford the Doctor (and MOST could not) you
went... if not......you died.
The same conditions existed then as SHOULD be now with regard to
access....Government stayed out of personal lives.
On Feb 5, 11:01 am, frankg <fran...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Tommy,
>
> > The answer is right there, please read it again. The Constitution does
> > not address many modern issues, because they did not exist 240 years
> > ago.
>
> Wrong once again. Please read and pay attention.
>
> > The authors were visionaries, but they were likely not psycic
> > with abilities to see the future.
>
> Yes, and they understood that. That's why they wrote in Article V,
> which allows for amendments to be made to the Constitution when
> necessary. Article V makes it very clear the process for which
> Amendments can be made. They are NOT made by a judge who believes the
> Constitution is lacking. When judges do that we call it judicial
> activism, and it's wrong.
>
> It's clear the ruling was Constitutionally correct, which is why Katz
> doesn't try to argue that point. You, Katz and anyone else who wants
> to change this have two options; Either argue that the interpretation
> of the Commerce Clause was in error (and no, arguing that dire
> consequences will result if we abide by it is NOT a valid argument) or
> start a petition to Congress to draft an amendment that would allow
> it. There is no third option.
>
> On Feb 5, 10:06 am, Tommy News <tommysn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Wrong.
>
> > The answer is right there, please read it again. The Constitution does
> > not address many modern issues, because they did not exist 240 years
> > ago. The authors were visionaries, but they were likely not psycic
> > with abilities to see the future.
>
> > "When our Constitution was drafted,
> > health insurance wasn't on anybody's radar (neither, for that matter,
> > was radar). Medicine was primitive; hospitals were all but
> > nonexistent; long-term care institutions did not exist. There was no
> > dialysis, no organ transplantation, no open heart surgery, no
> > angioplasty. Acute threat to life or limb generally meant...loss of
> > life or limb. And when the medical services of the day were required
> > and of any use, the barter system took care of the costs more often
> > than not.
>
> > One need not be a Constitutional scholar (and I hasten to note: I am
> > not!) to know that the Constitution was silent on health care
> > insurance for the same reason it was silent on inter-stellar travel.
> > Such concerns were not part of the world in which the document was
> > drafted.
>
> > So the Constitution is silent on health insurance per se. But it is
> > not silent, of course, on government powers and their limits, and
> > that's where the controversial interpretations pertaining to health
> > care reform originate.
>
> > The U.S. Constitution says the government can't force you to buy
> > anything. Or at least, it says something like that.
>
> > The states can force you to buy auto insurance if you drive a car."
>
> > On 2/4/11, frankg <fran...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Tommy,
>
> > > You *didn't* answer the objection, you repeated the flawed argument of
> > > someone else. Katz doesn't attempt to argue the federal insurance
> > > mandate is supported by the Constitution, but rather, suggests the
> > > framers simply didn't realize it needed to be there. To rule in favor
> > > of the law would have been judicial activism at it's worst. Thank
> > > goodness the judge understands the Constitution, Katz clearly doesn't.
>
> > > On Feb 4, 6:08 pm, Tommy News <tommysn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> I have alreaduy answered that objection.
>
> > >> Here is the answer again:
>
> > >> Health Care Law: What the US Constitution Meant to Say
>
> > >> -by David Katz, MD
>
> > >> Here is a passage lifted ver batim from The New York Times coverage of
> > >> the decision by a federal judge in Virginia that the Obama
> > >> Administration's health care reform legislation was in parts
> > >> unconstitutional:
>
> > >> "Thus far, judges appointed by Republican presidents have ruled
> > >> consistently against the Obama administration, while Democratic
> > >> appointees have found for it."
>
> > >> Richmond, we have a problem. The contents of the U.S. Constitution
> > >> shouldn't change when seen through a red lens, or blue. That the
> > >> meaning of the Constitution varies diametrically when seen from the
> > >> left or seen from the right is, in a word, wrong. It makes reading the
> > >> Constitution sound like reading tea leaves.
>
> > >> In the case of the controversial provision -- the requirement that
> > >> everyone buy health insurance or be penalized -- what DID the
> > >> Constitution mean to say?
>
> > >> Almost certainly: not a thing! When our Constitution was drafted,
> > >> health insurance wasn't on anybody's radar (neither, for that matter,
> > >> was radar). Medicine was primitive; hospitals were all but
> > >> nonexistent; long-term care institutions did not exist. There was no
> > >> dialysis, no organ transplantation, no open heart surgery, no
> > >> angioplasty. Acute threat to life or limb generally meant...loss of
> > >> life or limb. And when the medical services of the day were required
> > >> and of any use, the barter system took care of the costs more often
> > >> than not.
>
> > >> One need not be a Constitutional scholar (and I hasten to note: I am
> > >> not!) to know that the Constitution was silent on health care
> > >> insurance for the same reason it was silent on inter-stellar travel.
> > >> Such concerns were not part of the world in which the document was
> > >> drafted.
>
> > >> So the Constitution is silent on health insurance per se. But it is
> > >> not silent, of course, on government powers and their limits, and
> > >> that's where the controversial interpretations pertaining to health
> > >> care reform originate.
>
> > >> The U.S. Constitution says the government can't force you to buy
> > >> anything. Or at least, it says something like that.
>
> > >> The states can force you to buy auto insurance if you drive a car.
> > >> But, they can't force you to drive -- or own -- a car. So, free will
> > >> prevails! The Constitution is OK with this.
>
> > >> The state can't force you to buy or rent an abode. But the authorities
> > >> can hassle you interminably if you attempt to rest your head in just
> > >> about any alternative place -- just ask a homeless person in any major
> > >> city. Let's call this one a bit gray.
>
> > >> The controversy now is: What about health care, and the insurance that
> > >> generally pays for it?
>
> > >> The decision in Virginia suggests that health insurance is like any
> > >> other commodity, and the federal government does not have the
> > >> authority to force us to buy it. Specifically, Judge Hudson stated
> > >> that the government lacks authority "... to compel an individual to
> > >> involuntarily enter the stream of commerce by purchasing a commodity
> > >> in the private market."
>
> > >> The crux of the matter, then, is involuntarily entering the stream of
> > >> commerce.
>
> > >> Alrighty, then; what about involuntarily bleeding to death? What about
> > >> a case of involuntary HIV? What about involuntary meningitis, or heart
> > >> failure? Few people I know volunteer for medical calamities. Medical
> > >> calamities are, quite predictably, involuntary. And there's the rub.
>
> > >> On any given day, any of us can be involuntarily thrust into the
> > >> "stream" of health care commerce by an involuntary disaster. Then the
> > >> only question is: will we, or won't we, have a paddle?
>
> > >> When life and limb are imperiled, we intervene -- and worry about the
> > >> bill afterward. Human decency requires nothing less.
>
> > >> But afterward, there IS a bill -- and someone has to pay it. Leaving
> > >> out the details, that someone will be us. It will be paid through our
> > >> taxes, or paid in our health premiums. In other words, we, the
> > >> insured, ARE being forced to 'enter the stream of commerce'
> > >> involuntarily, to pay the bills of those who opted out. Bad enough to
> > >> be forced to buy something for yourself -- how about being forced to
> > >> buy something for the other guy, who opted out of the system and left
> > >> the bill to you and me?
>
> > >> That's the problem with thinking of health care -- and the insurance
> > >> to pay for it -- as if it were any other commodity. People can just
> > >> say no to any other commodity. They can't say 'no' to resuscitation
> > >> from cardiac arrest -- at least not until after they are a beneficiary
> > >> of it!
>
> > >> And worse than that- the only bills we pay on behalf of those who
> > >> choose not to play are the high-cost, post-calamity bills. We don't
> > >> pay for preventive care, so those opting out don't get it. They won't
> > >> get their cholesterol checked, but they will get CPR. They get, and we
> > >> pay for, the worst kind of care: post-catastrophe, high-cost,
> > >> questionable outcome, totally involuntary care.
>
> > >> These are facts, readily substantiated. So where do they leave us?
>
> > >> In doubt, perhaps, about what the Constitution meant to say. But maybe
> > >> the Constitution did not mean to say anything about health insurance,
> > >> because health insurance is not like any other 'commodity.' It flows
> > >> in a current quite apart from the prevailing 'stream of commerce.'
>
> > >> My personal opinion is that health care access should be in the
> > >> Constitution as a case apart. Namely, it should be codified in the
> > >> Bill of Rights as an amendment: everyone has a right to acute medical
> > >> care at a time of crisis. I have made that case before. How can we
> > >> rally around a right to bear arms, but not protect the arms that do
> > >> the bearing? How can we protect the right to assemble, without
> > >> protecting the limbs that carry us to the assembly? Life and limb
> > >> would seem to qualify as priority items, and their protection a public
> > >> good, with widespread public support.
>
> > >> But the Bill of Rights, for now, includes no such entry. In the
> > >> absence of such a constitutional right, perhaps we need the 'No Label'
> > >> movement to help us see the Constitution through a lens that is
> > >> neither
>
> ...
>
> read more »
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
No comments:
Post a Comment