Where in the Constitution does it say the Fed gov should provide health care.

That applies to the operation of the federal government and funding that and maintaining that and paying its debts. And it is the Tax and Spend Clause.

 

Perhaps you need to look up what the word "Pursuit" means? It doesn't mean the government forcing everyone to pay for your wants!

 

Must it be written in the US constitution?
Well ... if you cancel all the things which the Fed Gov does and what is not in constitution told, then you will have a problem to get the USA having a functional government.

And on the other side ... the duty of the Fed Gov is it to take care for the US people and so on, correct?
So ... if millions of US people fell through the healthcare system and get medical aid only out of welfare actions if at all, then has something to be done, or not?

 

Except it's not really either of those things and stands as its own unconstitutional military branch.

 

And they are EXPLICITY authorized by the Constitution and the Tax and Spend clause applies because of that and their "welfare" must be maintained so the Congress is authorized to collect taxes to pay for that "welfare".

 

And so? You are all playing "Word Games".

The essence of the matter is that both Education and HealthCare are necessities of life, and it is in the best interest of society that they are provided to the largest number of Americans at the most affordable price.

That is NOT happening. Particularly Education - where tertiary-level graduates obtain a degree and simultaneously have a $35K debt to repay. That is, those who have a degree.

I tell that to friends here in Europe and it makes eyes roll. I put my kids through university here in France and it cost me $1K a year plus room-'n-board ...

Historical footnote: Free secondary schooling did not come easy in the US. The idea was first launched in the early 20th century but all states providing high-school to residents did not happen till the 1940s.

 

No widespread complaints? Why do you think Trump won? Why do you think the Marxist Democrats have lost over 1000 elected state and local seats over the past eight years?

The Trump and GOP plan is to return to PRIVATE markets with competition in order to control prices and spending. That is the exact *opposite* of the Marxist Democrats wanting to nationalize the health insurance market sector!

Mass transport by airplane, rail, and bus have been done by PRIVATE enterprise in a free market. I don't know of a municipal bus or rail system in this country that operates at a break-even point let alone with enough profit to fund improvements!

Communications improvements have been done by PRIVATE enterprise in a free market. The government doesn't make and sell cell phones!

These are evidence that free markets *work*, not that we need government controlling everything! The Constitution is irrelevant other than it is what prevents government from nationalizing everything!

We the people are INDIVIDUALS with individual, natural rights. You *really* need to read John Locke's 2nd Treatise of Government. It was one of the most significant influences on the Founding Fathers and the founding principles they instituted in the Declaration of Independence and in the Constitution. The "collective" doesn't have rights, individuals do. And the rights are given to us by the Creator and are unalienable.

 

But the entire concept of healthcare as a system is a creation of man. So- a right owed by whom? Healthcare is not like water or air, natural resources that all must have to survive and can be shared without harm to others. Healthcare beyond us taking care of ourselves with friends/family helping, is a business. It is a service that is purchased, that someone else must be trained to do, where facilities and equipment must be invented and constructed, a system with extensive infrastructure and overhead. We also have complicated systems that produce things like cars, computers and bread- none of which we are entitled to as a right, because providing them requires the productivity of others. We are simply not entitled to make others liable for our needs at their expense. Society is simply a term that refers to those others as a group; it is not a separate entity that we can send a bill to without sending it to each and everyone of us.

You address the concept of insurance companies being able to turn down pre-existing conditions. Yet, would you think it wise for your auto insurance people to sell policies to people who had already wrecked their car, then increase your premiums to pay for fixing that car? This is what happens when insurance or any business, is forced to operate as if it were a charity or social service instead of a business. That makes it a functional charity, and your "premium" becomes a forced contribution. It is no longer insuring against a risk- it is agreeing to accept a loss known in advance.

None of this is to say we don't need to address such issues; it is to say that there is no free-money tree, no magic solution where these costs can be eliminated with legislation that does not screw someone else in the process. Some like to take the "Brother's keeper" concept to be all inclusive- we are responsible to keep our fellow man, even if he will not keep himself.

The majority of healthcare costs are for conditions that could have been avoided by our own choices had we acted more responsibly and prudently. Not all by any means, but through carelessness in our action and the way we care for ourselves, we create much of the problems we expect heath care to cure. That is to say that our lack of personal responsibility comes with a sort of justification that whatever affects us must be somebody elses fault, and somebody else should pay. Always, the miraculous somebody else turns out to be you.

 

Yes our poor tend to eat themselves to death.

And BTW life expectency is not an accurate measurement of the effacacy of the healthcare system.

 

It is a power delegated to the federal government by the people.

 

Actually it is a hybrid of both and in fact the Air Force was a part of the Army until is was made a separate branch for strategic and tacticle reasons. It is more closely our navy in the sky although.

 

Well it is delegated and authorized by the Constitution to pay for the operation and maintenance of the government in its enumerated powers. For instance the welfare of the capital and its buildings and operations.

 

And it was made a seperate branch with zero constitutional basis or authorization.

 

Who pays for it is the question.

In the US, for the most part, an insurance companies pays and the company one works for pays, and finally ObamaCare pays (for the moment). In Europe, the government pays.

As it does for the police, the firemen, the Army - just like in America. But, also, inexpensive housing, all medical bills, most dental work, summer camp for poor kids, all tertiary-level education, pension at 63 years of age (in France, but not everywhere), etc., etc.

One must ask the question - with similar (if not identical life-styles) why is it that Europeans are outliving Americans by 3 full years ... ?

 

No it is just another form of an army/navy. What you are saying, that if we change the name back to Army Air Force it would constitutional, is folly.

 

But you that when the Constitution was done, there were no planes existing yet? Hard to include in 1787 an Air Force by name then wordly, eh?

 

No, it would be constitutional if it was moved back to be wholly under the authority of the Army.

 

Similarly, when the Constitution was written, no concept of universal healthcare existed.

 

Individual health does *not* affect the general welfare, it only impacts INDIVIDUAL welfare.

You are trying to conflate the responsibility of the individual with the government providing health insurance. It is the *individual's" responsibility for their own health care, not the federal government's. It is up to *YOU* to live a responsible lifestyle that leads to good health. The government can't do it for you.

Medicare is going broke! By 2028, just a little more than a decade, tit will be paying only 60% of medical costs. And that is what you want to condemn all Americans to? And you don't even begin to offer a method for paying for the health care costs of those added to Medicare. All you will do with this proposal is further advance the bankruptcy of Medicare and lower even further the amount of health care costs it can afford to pay!

The reason the GOP didn't want Medicare negotiating prices is that it would drive up the prices for everyone *NOT* on Medicare as the pharma companies recoup their costs in developing, producing, and distributing new drugs. Americans already carry an unfair burden for this because other countries refuse to pay.

You keep spouting off talking points with nary a detail offered for how to pay. That is *exactly* why the Marxist Democrat's ACA is not working today. They simply wouldn't listen to reason as to what it would actually cost and they didn't raise taxes nearly high enough to support the ACA. And now it is collapsing.

Someone *better* come up with something else because there won't be any ACA insurance to buy in two years, if it even lasts that long!

 

As I said utter folly.

 

Sorry I haven't read all the posts in this thread so perhaps I'm being redundant.

It doesn't and the 10th Amendment strictly prohibits the federal government from exercising powers not specifically granted. Those are reserved to the states or The People. It also doesn't say anywhere that the US government has the power to wage endless undeclared war whenever and wherever it wants. The US government hasn't ever been restrained by the chains of the Constitution.

"The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first." - Thomas Jefferson

But if the US government violates the Constitution 24/7 and spends $trillions on endless war, I think it would be so much better if all that money was unconstitutionally spent on healthcare for all instead of using it to murder hundreds of thousands of innocent people, don't you?

 

Healthcare existed.

 

Similarly, it would be utter folly for the government to not provide healthcare for those who cannot afford it.

 

"provide for the common Defence"

"To raise and support Armies"

Note carefully the word "Armies". It doesn't say "Army". It says "Armies". Plural.

The Air Force is an Army. An Army that fights in the sky.

 

In the same way transportation existed, but they would not have been able to conceive of modern cars.