Obama's Health Care Plan.

[Sovereign]

Well we're going to have to agree to disagree, rapunzel. I see nothing unconstitutional about the healthcare mandate (strict construction is usually the viewpoint that has a problem with the mandate). There are generally two broad approaches to the Constitution: if it's not specifically prohibited it's allowed, and if it's not specifically allowed it's prohibited. I'm of the former school, not the latter. The latter, taken to its logical (though not practical) extreme would, for example, deny the government any control over the Internet that was not commercial. You might be able to accomplish some things with the "necessary and proper" clause but that's interpretation that I don't know strict-constructionists would permit. Another example is Title IX and gender discrimination laws in general. In Article I, Section 8, there is nothing I can see that says "The government shall prohibit sex discrimination." Attempts to enshrine this in the Constitution died with the ERA. Gender-discrimination protection is not: a tax, duty, excise, borrowing of money, regulating commerce with foreign Nations...[or]...among the several states (except in cases of business that conduct such commerce--by ultra-strict construction small local businesses with dealings in one state would be exempt however they are not), part of the naturalization process, coining money, a standard of weights, punishment for counterfeiting of money, establishing post offices, building roads, copyright, inferior courts, punishment for piracy, punishment for felonies, declaring war, granting letters of marque, a rule about captures on land or sea, raising an army, maintaining a navy, regulating the military, suppressing insurrections, creation of a militia or governing the District of Columbia. Those are the enumerated powers (summarized) directly out of my pocket copy of the Constitution. Yes, I have one. Most political science majors do I foresee many beneficial regulations endangered by an overly-strict view of the Constitution.

The other reason I am of the first school of thought is because I believe the genius of the Constitution lies in its lack of specificity. The Founders couldn't anticipate 200 years' worth of societal and technological change.

I'm perplexed as to why you speak of rationing of care by the government as being a problem as if we don't already have rationing. You said so yourself: "he didn't have insurance at the time." That is free-market rationing. I don't want to sound like a jerk, but the free market says "If you can't afford it, you're not getting it" which is exactly what happened to you. Is the contention that government rationing is worse than private-sector rationing?

"Pencil pushers and lawyers" at insurance companies already make healthcare decisions for us. Again, the words you use (assuming I am interpreting them correctly) indicate that you're running into problems with the insurance companies. The argument "healthcare will end up like the DMV" is already true in the private sector, per your own reasoning (necessary surgery as determined by medical professionals is being denied by bureaucrats).

I'm not a huge believer in state's rights or strict-construction interpretations of federalism. That's an ideological construct, though, and there's really no "logical" way to prove it (see the thread on eating meat). I can give you an example of why I'm suspicious of "state's rights" and local control, and no, I'm not going to use Jim Crow.

Give too much control to the states and you get the Texas Textbook massacre. Or No Child Left Behind's race to the bottom. My mom is a teacher (and a Democrat); she hates the law. Every teacher I know does. Every Education/Music Education major I know (I'm in University right now) does too. By giving states the ability to set their own standards, they will use the same types of creative accounting that gave us scandals like Enron in order to look good while doing poorly. I believe Texas got in trouble for holding back anyone who didn't pass a certain test so that the results on certain grade-level tests looked better than the actually were. Did the test scores hold steady or go up? Yes. But was it due to weaker students learning? No.

Free-marketers would argue "the stupid children would get left behind." That is true in theory. However, it makes no mention of how quickly the market would react. In this particular case, my contention is that Texas' standards would quickly propagate to other states. What was hitherto unacceptable would become the new norm, degrading the knowledge of the nation. I believe the market would not "fix" the situation quickly enough. This is what economists call "market failure." In cases where market failure is agreed-upon to exist (such as regulation of certain negative externalities), economists within the Keynesian and Classical schools typically agree the government has a role to play (I'm an economics major too).

I know this is long, but I hope it explains why I interpret the Constitution the way I do (which was the one argument I felt needed some exceptionally detailed discussion).

Figures someone else would post before I finished my mini-textbook chapter

To ZenitYerkes' point: I agree, Americans have this ridiculous reaction to so-called "socialism" and "evil government" but happily take both Social Security and Medicare. This isn't commentary on the solvency of the programs themselves, merely discussion of what I see as an ideological inconsistency. "Souls of Democrats and pocketbooks of Republicans" is the way my professor put it, which translates to "We like the idea of having something to fall into if we hit hard times, but we don't want to pay for it."

[rapunzel77]

Originally Posted by Sovereign

Well we're going to have to agree to disagree, rapunzel.

We probably agree on more than you think.

I see nothing unconstitutional about the healthcare mandate (strict construction is usually the viewpoint that has a problem with the mandate).

I guess I am more of a strict constructionist because it is very easy to read all sorts of things into the constitution without them actually being in there.

I foresee many beneficial regulations endangered by an overly-strict view of the Constitution.

I understand your point but I also think that the other extreme is also problematic (reading into the constitution stuff that isn't there. There is no place where it says that a person is required to buy health insurance).

The other reason I am of the first school of thought is because I believe the genius of the Constitution lies in its lack of specificity. The Founders couldn't anticipate 200 years' worth of societal and technological change.

I understand your point there.

I'm perplexed as to why you speak of rationing of care by the government as being a problem as if we don't already have rationing. You said so yourself: "he didn't have insurance at the time." That is free-market rationing.

I don't like either one. I understand what you are saying and I agree with you. I don't want the government nor the insurance companies to "ration".

I don't want to sound like a jerk, but the free market says "If you can't afford it, you're not getting it" which is exactly what happened to you. Is the contention that government rationing is worse than private-sector rationing?

I don't like either one. However, if it is between the choice of fighting the government or fighting a silly insurance company, I would choose to fight the insurance company because there is a slim chance of winning. If you are fighting the government, you won't win.

"Pencil pushers and lawyers" at insurance companies already make healthcare decisions for us. Again, the words you use (assuming I am interpreting them correctly) indicate that you're running into problems with the insurance companies. The argument "healthcare will end up like the DMV" is already true in the private sector, per your own reasoning (necessary surgery as determined by medical professionals is being denied by bureaucrats).

I agree. Like I said before, I think that the system is in grave need of reform. Its just that I am skeptical that allowing the government to have more control is the answer.

I'm not a huge believer in state's rights or strict-construction interpretations of federalism. That's an ideological construct, though, and there's really no "logical" way to prove it (see the thread on eating meat). I can give you an example of why I'm suspicious of "state's rights" and local control, and no, I'm not going to use Jim Crow.

I have a problem with to much overcentralization either of government or private corporations.

Give too much control to the states and you get the Texas Textbook massacre. Or No Child Left Behind's race to the bottom.

I agree that those two were stupid. The states can be just as bad. This is an extreme example though.

My mom is a teacher (and a Democrat); she hates the law. Every teacher I know does. Every Education/Music Education major I know (I'm in University right now) does too. By giving states the ability to set their own standards, they will use the same types of creative accounting that gave us scandals like Enron in order to look good while doing poorly.

I totally agree. That is another system that is shot: the Education system.

I believe Texas got in trouble for holding back anyone who didn't pass a certain test so that the results on certain grade-level tests looked better than the actually were. Did the test scores hold steady or go up? Yes. But was it due to weaker students learning? No.

That is bad .

Free-marketers would argue "the stupid children would get left behind." That is true in theory. However, it makes no mention of how quickly the market would react. In this particular case, my contention is that Texas' standards would quickly propagate to other states. What was hitherto unacceptable would become the new norm, degrading the knowledge of the nation.

Sadly, as you know, the knowledge of the Nation is at abysmal levels.

I believe the market would not "fix" the situation quickly enough. This is what economists call "market failure." In cases where market failure is agreed-upon to exist (such as regulation of certain negative externalities), economists within the Keynesian and Classical schools typically agree the government has a role to play (I'm an economics major too).

I'm in between on this. I'm not totally free-market and not totally on the socialist side either. Since I don't have an extensive knowledge of economics I probably can't state a decent argument for the economic side of things .

I know this is long, but I hope it explains why I interpret the Constitution the way I do (which was the one argument I felt needed some exceptionally detailed discussion).

No problem. It is helpful. I still remain skeptical about it. I have heard some alarming stuff about the law (specifically the conscience clause, etc). I might have got wrong information. I just know there are a lot of scared people out there and there are a ton who are against it. We will just have to wait and see I guess.

[Jamza]

In my opinion, I doubt America will ever get a full Universal Health Care system like in other parts of the world (like Europe). I am surprised It has gotten this far to be honest. Being in the UK, I am looking at this from an outsider's perspective.

It seems that anything that happens in the US, the question people ask is "What about me?" and that their first concern is themselves and not that of concern for the greater good of the country. Now don't get me wrong, I am not calling everyone in America self-centered, just that in places like Europe, even the most self-centered, egotistical people still have a little part of them that think of the greater good of their nation.

If you look at other countries that have Universal Health care, it has generally happened after some sort of uprising. Looking at the UK, the first act of Universal Health care was the National Insurance Act of 1911 but What spurred this on? The general, working-class public off the country were getting restless with the rich, powerful people in charge of the country at the time and were banding together and threatening the people in power (See: The Formation of The Labour Party). In attempt to quell this, the government passed many acts to show that it cared for the people. It did this as it was becoming afraid of the people, whereas in the US, the public are afraid of the Government. I think this needs to shift before any major changes (like Universal Health care can really take shape).

[rapunzel77]

Originally Posted by Sovereign

I don't want to sound like a jerk, but the free market says "If you can't afford it, you're not getting it" which is exactly what happened to you. Is the contention that government rationing is worse than private-sector rationing?

You don't sound like a jerk here. You have expressed what I have felt about the insurance company for a while. I don't hate much of anything but I admit that I have a special hatred in my heart for the insurance companies. They have robbed my husband and I. I won't go into details into the specific problem but they are robbers. Pure and Simple. I just fear that the government will be worse .