X
The following consideration of the constitutionality of a proposed national health care system was originally composed in the comment section of Kyle Cupp's excellent blog, here. I am an advocate of a fully-nationalized, single-payer health care system. I think that to question the half-assed compromise system that is currently before congress on constitutional grounds is a joke and a diversionary tactic, being promoted in defense of corporate profits at the expense of the general welfare of the citizenry. That said, please consider the following:
The Preamble to the U.S. Constitution states that its purposes are the following: ...to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty...
I believe that ensuring access for all citizens, regardless of their ability to pay, to live-saving and life-enhancing health care fits nicely into the category "promote the general welfare." I believe that a national health care system is every bit as constitutionally sound as providing for the common defense. Is not defense against disease as important to the individual citizen as is defense against foreign or domestic enemies? Is it not, in fact, very likely to actually be much more important in the life of almost all citizens?
Much of medical research is funded by tax dollars. Why, therefore, should there not be equal, and guaranteed, access to the fruits of that science for all citizens?
I don't see the problem here. If a national health service, in which the government actually employed the health care providers were being proposed, the argument against it might be stronger. But that is not the case. The only difference here would be in who is writing the checks to pay for the services.
Government agencies are answerable to the people through their elected representatives. Insurance corporation bureaucrats are answerable only to their boards of directors and their shareholders. And what those entities are demanding of them is not good health care, but good profits. You do the math.
X
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
I am an advocate of a fully-nationalized, single-payer health care system.
I tend toward this myself. Take healthcare out of the marketplace.
Exactly. There is zero value-added to health care coming from the dollars skimmed off by the insurance industry. Never mind that they often call the shots on what procedures will be paid for; and this with an eye always on the profit motive.
Btw, thanks for dropping by!
Obviously, I don't agree with the latest incarnation of the health bill, or with you that guv'mint should be in charge of EVERYONE'S health care. Will the Amish have to pay a tax and go to jail because their religious views preclude participation in this system you champion? And if the Amish CAN opt out,n as they are allowed to opt out of Social Security reception (but not taxation) why can't I? Isn't that discrimination?
And any veteran can tell you how horrible government health care is, just look at the VA. (http://www.vawatchdog.org)
I think there are anti-public sector arguments to be made, but not if you limit the argument to exchanges between the simpletons of both Cnn and Fox News.
One thing that continually pisses me off is when I hear fox news types say, "There will be RATIONING." Apparently these conservative idiots never actually read an economics textbook, as much as they want to lecture every one else on capitalism. Every thing in life is "rationed" whether you live in America or the Soviet Union.
---MS
The government actually runs the VA system. If it sucks, it sucks. I resent being taxed to support it, now that we have an all-volunteer army.
That said, the Democratic health plan is not govenment-run; it is only government paid-for.
This whole bit about a "govenment-run health care system" is nothing but a strawman.
No, that's where you're wrong, mon frere. If it were single payer, that wouldn't be so bad. It's not (remember, I'm a legal type so I actually read the crap they craft in DC). It's just the VA writ large. Thus, the problem. Also, what of my Amish argument? I don't think the state should force people to go against their beliefs. The Amish, unlike Republican "small government" hypocrites, however, walk the walk and try to take care of their own outside of the system. As opposed to Republican pigs who tax and spend just as much as anyone else, look for the goodies, but then preach austerity to every one else.
That's why I usually steer you to Counterpunch's web site. They usually know what's going on with things that proclaim to be progressive but really aren't. Such as how this health bill is a boondoggle for international pharmaceutical conglomerates, not even remotely close to single payer. Or how Al Gore and the Nuclear Industry are secretly behind much of the "Green Movement" and are pimping unwitting (but genuine) environmental types.--MS
http://www.counterpunch.com/murphy11092009.html
I know Google is reading people's stuff. The CAPTCHA for this comment was "SACIALST" (LOL)
--MS
The take-home quote
"The bill even was stripped of the Kucinich amendment which would have permitted states to develop their own single-payer options. Americans will now be forced to buy health care plans from private insurance corporations. Forced!"
You see, mon frere, if everyone in Congress were intelligent and conscientious as you, I wouldn't have to be so cynical. Unfortunately, I used to be a legislative aide so I know how stupid our solons are, and how much legislation is written by Big Business and just handed to our elected morons are too fucking lazy and stupid to actually think, read, or write true legislation.
Same goes for journalists, which is why newspapers are dying a deserved death. Most newspapers just published whatever they were handed by public relations people, not the stereotypical Woodward-Bernstein/Lois Lane hitting-the-street journalism they would have you believe. Now, business doesn't need their newspaper shills and just bypass the leeches altogether. Try this one
http://www.amazon.com/Toxic-Sludge-Good-You-Relations/dp/1567510604/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1257963127&sr=8-1
--MS
And on this Veteran's Day, I thought you'd enjoy this rant on why we should encourage America's Little Dumplings to continue eating all those twinkies! (LOL)
http://www.counterpunch.com/cockburn11062009.html
Can't draft 'em if you can't march 'em!
--MS
I'm not arguing that the bill as it is currently configured isn't total shit; it is.
The only thing that I advocate is single-payer. That solves the Amish problem, along with all the others.
With this bill, however, physicians, nurses, et al., would not be government-employed "civil servants," as they are, I believe, in the UK. The govenment would not be taking over, for instance, the Weill-Cornell medical center, stripping the physicians of their faculty status and assuming responsibility for their salaries from Cornell.
But, I fully agree that almost nothing is gained with the current bill, other than (perhaps) the elimination of pre-existing conditions, or major illness, as factors allowing one's insurance to be denied or cancelled. That's good (if it works), but it's not enough.
Post a Comment