pudge's Journal: Health Care is a "Moral Issue"

NewsHour had a story the other night in which it noted that universal health care for children is being framed as a moral issue.

I agree, it is a moral issue: it is immoral for the federal government to pay for or otherwise control health care for kids.

The only way to do this is to violate our 10th Amendment rights. The only way to do that without amending the Constitution is to say that the Constitution does not have to be followed if we "outgrow" it or if the people simply don't want to. And there is no way to do that and still preserve our other Constitutional rights.

To favor federal spending on social programs, without amending the Constitution to allow it, is to say that the government is not obligated to recognize our Constitutional rights, and I firmly believe that is immoral.

And the anti-intellectualism in this debate is terrifying to me. People who stand up on stage and say the choice is between demolishing our Constitutional rights, or hating children enough to want them to go without health care. There are other choices: states can do it, and private businesses and charities can do it.

But not the federal government, not unless you amend the Constitution, because otherwise you are saying we effectively have no rights, including the right to free speech that some of you will exercise here to tell me that I'm an idiot. The right you're exercising to rip me a new one has no firm legal protection according to any philosophy that says the federal government can fund universal health care for children.

Agreed.

[JesseL]

I also think that the way some people would use publicly funded healthcare as a back-door into controlling every aspect of an individual's life that may have an impact on their health, is highly immoral.

To me, making the public obligated to pay for something is a clear statement that the public holds ownership over that thing. Personally, I find the idea of being state property pretty disturbing.

good luck

[Bill Dog]

Being framed as a moral issue means they're going to be appealing to guilt. Can the forces that feel violating the Constitution is the bigger wrong, convince more people, than the forces that feel the current state of childrens' health care access is the bigger wrong? I believe the answer is no. More people are going to feel guilty about, or guiltier about, sick children, than abstract principles of Constitutional purity.

Exactly.

[nocomment]

I've said this over and over again. I have a friend who thinks we should have universal health. The only point of mine he's ever understood was the similarity I drew when the Government was talking about assumption after the Revolutionary war. One of the arguments made then was that assuming debt of the states was unfair to the states that had already paid it. ie. Maryland would have to pay for less of the war than Virginia who (IIRC) had already paid off it's balance.

The similarity I drew was that a un

Re:

[pudge]

The only point of mine he's ever understood was the similarity I drew when the Government was talking about assumption after the Revolutionary war. One of the arguments made then was that assuming debt of the states was unfair to the states that had already paid it. ie. Maryland would have to pay for less of the war than Virginia who (IIRC) had already paid off it's balance.

It was unfair, yes, but we did it anyway. :-) And we may have been better off for having done it. However, the argument for Assumption was a little better than the argument for Universal Health Care (being that the debt was mostly due to the war, and different states bore more or less burden for our freedom). But still: it was very possibly unconstitutional, and certainly in some cases very unfair.

Universal Health Care is absolutely unconstitutional, and absolutely unfair.

I *could* be convinced of a health care system on a state level, but the argument would have to be pretty strong.

Nod.

Re:

[nocomment]

It was unfair, yes, but we did it anyway. :-) And we may have been better off for having done it.

*cough* whiskey rebellion *cough-cough* ;)

Re:

[pudge]

It was unfair, yes, but we did it anyway. :-) And we may have been better off for having done it.

*cough* whiskey rebellion *cough-cough* ;)

Sure, but could it have been worse otherwise? And what might it have meant for the union in the long run?

On the one hand, maybe without assumption, the South would have been crippled sooner and given up slavery and we could have avoided the Civil War. On the other hand, we might have had Civil War a lot sooner, due to the South being more desperate.

But even if we avoided the Civil War, we might not have had the infrastructure (due to reconstruction) to participate as fully in WWI, and maybe Germany would

Re:

[Jhon]

Are you sure your last name is Nandor and not Turtledove [amazon.com]?

I own a car

[Talinom]

I pay car insurance because I know that things can go drastically wrong. I am insured against theft, vandalism, collision, uninsured motorist, property, broken windows, towing and several other things. My car insurance does NOT cover things like regular tuneups, flat tires, car modifications, stereos, and paint jobs. Those are expected to be my expenses since I own the car. Only exceptional circumstances will allow for insurance to kick in. I can also choose to pay more for a lower deductible and more for higher insurance coverage.

I also pay health insurance. That covers EVERYTHING that I can think of.

We are also discovering more and more about cars as they grow in complexity. Same with the human body, except it isn't advancing very fast; only our knowledge of them is growing.

So, do we treat our bodies like cars and take care of them or expect our insurance companies/government to take care of us from womb to tomb?

I think you know my answer.

Re:

[cascadefx]

My experience with insurance hasn't been terribly comforting and what I know about health care systems through my uncle who owned a medical collections company hasn't made me as confident as you.

We were in a tornado area and the number of people that were outright screwed by their insurance companies was staggering. We had replacement value coverage on our home and contents and luckily suffered minor damage in comparison, but it took 9 months of daily calls and legal threats before we got a final settlemen

Hate to show my ignorance

[multimed]

But could you get into the constitutional aspect a little more. While I find it nearly impossible to imagine the federal government is capable of solving the problem, the market is failing miserably as well, so I'd like to see a ton of pilot programs, including various government run ones try to find a better way. But it never struck me that beyond the bureaucratic nightmare and enormous waste, there were constitutional issues with universal health care.

Re:

[pudge]

But it never struck me that beyond the bureaucratic nightmare and enormous waste, there were constitutional issues with universal health care.

The Tenth Amendment says any power that the Constitution doesn't give to the federal government, the federal government cannot exercise. The Constitution does not give the power to do universal health care. It is therefore unconstitutional.

As Madison said:

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.

And:

The powers of the federal government are enumerated; it can only operate