either.
The premise of this article is, however, chilling. Katz's argument is
that the framers of the Constitution could not predict issues the
country would face more than 200 years after it was drafted, and
therefore it's up to the judge to determine they got something wrong
and correct it from the bench. That is not how our system works. The
Judge was asked only to determine if the mandate to purchase health
insurance was constitutional or not. He was NOT asked to determine
whether it was a good idea or not. He is not empowered to modify the
Constitution, only to interpret it. If you disagree with the ruling,
then argue how it is an incorrect interpretation. Do not argue based
on the repercussions.
Aside from the fact that Katz's entire argument is built around an
invalid premise, it's also fundamentally flawed. If we should make
'health' insurance Federally mandated, even though not explicitly
allowed by the Constitution, because not doing so is too costly, then
why shouldn't we make 'life' insurance mandatory as well. As Katz
writes; "Alrighty, then; what about involuntarily bleeding to death?".
Well yes, David, what about that? Health insurance will do nothing
for someone who has involuntarily bled to death, yet there are
definite financial repercussions to someone dying without having life
insurance in place. Who will pay for any outstanding debt on the
estate? What if there are dependents who will now be forced into the
'system' at the public's expense? Why should WE have to pay for this
because the person dying didn't think to carry life insurance? So
lets mandate that as well. How many more things should the government
mandate of us? This is precisely what the Constitution protects us
from.
On Feb 1, 4:57 pm, Tommy News <tommysn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Wrong 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 blue nor red. Perhaps an uncolored lens would show us more
> clearly what the Constitution meant to say in this case.
>
> While waiting for the politics to play out, while waiting to see if
> the prevailing view of the Constitution is to left or to right, I
> maintain that inconsistent access to health care is wrong.
>
> Our modern politics, and the polarization that currently prevails, is
> inviting us to infer what the Constitution meant to say yesterday.
> That it is open to interpretation and changes when viewed from left or
> right seems to indicate we are far from sure. We are putting words
> never spoken into the mouths of our Founders.
>
> Maybe they just didn't answer this question for us, and we are left to
> figure out for ourselves what constitutes the right thing to do.
>
> More:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-katz-md/left-right-wrong-health-c...
>
> On 2/1/11, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > That Conservatives often confuse 'sanctity of
> > life' with slavery notwithstanding ...
>
> > What this Abelson person is saying is (within
> > your assertion) the 'santity of life' for those
> > who will have their health care provided by
> > others ... and that those who will be FORCED to pay do not matter.
>
> > EVERYONE has a right to life; their OWN life;
> > self-ownership. Legitimate Government serves to SECURE this right.
>
> > Regard$,
> > --MJ
>
> > "If a man has the right to self-ownership, to the
> > control of his life, then in the real world he
> > must also have the right to sustain his life by
> > grappling with and transforming resources; he
> > must be able to own the ground and the resources
> > on which he stands and which he must use; in
> > short, to sustain his human right" -- Murray Rothbard.
>
> > At 04:08 PM 2/1/2011, you wrote:
> >>But conservatives say they believe in the sanctity of life. Oh
> >>right, the sanctity of rich people's lives. The rest of us don't
> >>matter.
>
> >>On 2/1/11, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> >> > REED ABELSON
> >> > Federal Judge Rules That Health Law Violates Constitution (February
> >> > 1,
> >> > 2011) The legislation put an end to lifetime limits on coverage for
> >> > the first time, erasing the financial burdens, including personal
> >> > bankruptcy, that had affected many ailing Americans.
> >> > MJ
> >> > So OTHER PEOPLE should be FORCED and ENSLAVED
> >> to provide payment for 'care'.
>
> >> > REED ABELSON
> >> > For example, Hillary St. Pierre, a 28-year-old former registered
> >> > nurse
> >> > who has Hodgkin's lymphoma, had expected to reach her insurance
> >> > plan's
> >> > $2 million limit this year. Under the new law, the cap was
> >> > eliminated
> >> > when the policy she gets through her husband's employer was renewed
> >> > this year.
> >> > Bastiat
> >> > "But how is this legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if
> >> > the
> >> > law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other
> >> > persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen
> >> > at
> >> > the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do
> >> > without
> >> > committing a crime.
>
> >> > "Then abolish this law without delay, for it
> >> is not only an evil itself, but
> >> > also it is a fertile source for further evils because it invites
> >> > reprisals.
> >> > If such a law which may be an isolated case is not abolished
> >> > immediately, it will spread, multiply, and develop into a system.
>
> >> > "The person who profits from this law will complain bitterly, defending
> >> > his
> >> > acquired rights. He will claim that the state is obligated to protect
> >> > and
> >> > encourage his particular industry; that this procedure enriches the
> >> > state
> >> > because the protected industry is thus able to spend more and to pay
> >> > higher
> >> > wages to the poor workingmen.
>
> >> > "Do not listen to this sophistry by vested interests. The acceptance of
> >> > these arguments will build legal plunder into a whole system. In fact,
> >> > this
> >> > has already occurred. The present-day delusion is an attempt to enrich
>
> ...
>
> 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