“What part of the Constitution says you get to take over health care?”
That would have been an excellent question to ask — in 1965. But I haven’t exactly seen a groundswell of conservatives asking it in the 44 years since Medicare became law, calling for the repeal of this obviously unconstitutional program.
Nor, certainly, was this question being so widely asked in 2003, when a Republican Congress and a Republican President massively expanded Medicare with a prescription drug entitlement — one that will, I might add, cost tens of trillions of dollars over the long haul, without any effort to even think about how to pay for it. Yet that, apparently, was constitutional. But when a Democrat does something with health care, suddenly it’s an anti-constitutional outrage!
*sigh*
Actually, they HAVE been making this arguement since 1965. In fact they have been making it since the 1930’s.
And under the ORIGINAL, INTENDED interpretation, federal health care is indeed unconstitutional, as it is not one of the government’s enumerated powers, thus forbidden to the government.
Then along comes the Bill of Rights, and now, since no where does it say the government can’t provide healthcare (which the Founders had no idea needed to be included since it wasn’t one of the ENUMERATED powers and thus forbidden) all of a sudden the government is in the healthcare business.
How long until internet access is declared a right and the government goes into the ISP business?
http://mediamatters.org/reports/200903050012
Actually, they HAVE been making this arguement since 1965. In fact they have been making it since the 1930’s.
Oh, have they? Ah, that must explain the grassroots effort to convince Reagan to repeal Medicare. And how the repeal of Medicare was in the Contract with America. And how Bush was forced by his principled conservative base to make the repeal of Medicare a central tenet of his agenda.
Wait, none of those things happened? You mean Republicans have controlled the levers of power in this country for the balance of the last three decades, and the only effect on government’s role in health care has been to EXPAND it? And yet these oh-so-principled conservative voters have kept electing those Republicans again and again, with barely a peep about their reckless, unconstitutional ways? And now suddenly, because the president who wants to do exactly what Republicans have been doing all along — expanding government’s role in health care — has a “D” next to his name, suddenly this “constitutional” argument resurfaces, and you’re pretending they’ve been making it all along?
Oh.
If you ask me, this is an excellent reason why comprehensive “public option” programs shouldn’t be introduced: nobody wants to get rid of Medicare now, even those who feel it’s unconstitutional, and it’s broke to boot. Once enacted, these “rights” can never be redacted, and if the “public option” is a flaming disaster we’re tied to it for the rest of our lives.
Meanwhile, of course, Bush’s tax cuts had to be sunsetted in 2010, regardless of the fact that if they turned out to bring some sort of economic catastrophe (never mind how), they could always be easily reversed.
That’s an interesting argument in one sense, and a total copout in another. If conservatives truly believed that a significant government role in health care was “unconstitutional,” they should have been pushing for its elimination all along, period, end of story. That they haven’t done so, means necessarily that they don’t actually believe this. Some wishy-woshy nonsense about how “nobody wants to get rid of [it]” and thus it “can never be redacted” strips our leaders of their agency in their own decisions. Nobody has TRIED to get rid of it, because they DO NOT ACTUALLY BELIEVE that it’s unconstitutional. Maybe some Federalist Society law dorks do, but conservative leaders don’t. They’re only saying this because Obama is president.
Not to speak for Mike Marchand, but when he said no wanted to get rid of Medicare, I think he meant no one wanted to commit the electoral suicide involved in redacting an entitlement, as opposed to arguing that all groups necessarily liked it.
If that’s what he meant, I think the dude’s got a point. You don’t have to stop with entitlements; farm subsidies, special interests, giveaways, etc, the story of our government has been the story of goodies to which no specific opponent is nearly as opposed as any recipient is for. Its an uneven math that cripples our government, don’t know if anyone has an answer to it.
As such, it seems to me that outside of entitlements that happen on their watch, the harshest criticism you can levy at Republicans is that they are unwilling to fall on their sword for principle. I guess it would be good to have politicians willing to fall on their sword for principle, except that such folks wouldn’t win elections very often, so I’m not sure what practical effect they would have in solving the burden of explosive entitlements.
Care to elaborate on Medicare being a disaster? Last I checked it was the most efficient health care provider with the lowest overhead of health insurance program in the country. This makes it an unmitigated disaster how?
Jazz: that is what I meant, and thank you.
dcl: uh, it’s broke. And given that the recipient-to-taxpayer ratio is growing and not shrinking, it’s not going to get much better over the future. Estimates of its unfunded debt obligations are marching inexorably toward the fifteen-digit mark.
It may be a great service, but we can’t afford it. Which, of course, is the very problem Obama seeks to ameliorate, and the very thing that anyone even remotely schooled in economic reality can see: at best, socializing medicine may be great, but it will bankrupt us; or it will be cheap, but not that great.
Of course, in the real world, it’s often crappy AND expensive. You can’t provide more care for less money by adding a layer of red tape.
It’s just another stunning (ok not really) example of the hypocrisy of the right wing.
“We are pro-life!”
Except when it comes to criminals and sick people.
“That’s unconstitutional!”
Unless its done in the name of “national security” by President Bush, ala the warrantless wiretapping.
Funny how they cry foul at something not actually forbidden by the constitution like the health care plan, but have no problems with something that actually is.
Oh they decry the President abusing his power to indoctrinate our children by *gasp* encouraging them to study hard and stay in school. But when we complained about Bush’s abuses like aforementioned wiretaps, accessing library records, indefinite detention of prisoners without providing them legal rights, etc. we were told that we were being disrespectful of the office and hating America.
Evidence, logic, and facts aren’t important. Whats important is towing the party line and placing the Party above all else. The absolute inflexibility to consider that “gee maybe absolute free market capitalism isn’t the best approach all the time.”
Remember folks, ignore the existing death panels that for-profit insurance companies allready have and focus on the imaginary ones made up by Sarah “What number comes after two” Palin and championed by the GOP ever since. These are the people who the right wants us to trust with leadership, liars and hypocrites. Stunning, simply stunning.
Broke does not mean broken. Medicare the program works. And as a cost to performance measure far out performs private insurance. Unlike a private insurer Medicare can’t just decide to raise revenue though. Medicare also tends to have it’s budget tossed into the shell game that is the federal budget.
There are two things we need to do. First is figure out what it is we want our Government to do. (e.g. medicare, national defense etc.) and then we’ve got to figure out how to pay for it. Right now people want a lot more from government than they are willing to pay for. It leads to a lot of programs being broken if being broke is the definition of that.
Put simply. Our government has a tendency to act irresponsibly. Nobody wants to raise taxes but everyone wants to send home programs to their districts.
And under the ORIGINAL, INTENDED interpretation, federal health care is indeed unconstitutional, as it is not one of the government’s enumerated powers, thus forbidden to the government.
What do you think Alexander Hamilton would have to say about that statement?
Hamiliton did believe in the current interpretation of implied powers. (One of the few disagreements I have with the man) However Madison, Jay and most of the rest of both the federalists and anti-federalists would be greatly opposed.
It wasn’t until the 1930’s and FDR’s bullying of the U.S. Supreme Court that the doctrine of enumerated powers was fully destroyed.
I notice that while you engage in a nice abstract/academic debate about implied powers you are ignoring Bush’s violation of an actual ammendment gahrie. Only wrong when a Democrat does it I guess?
(I know I’m going to regret this…)
OK..I’ll bite..which amendment did Pres. Bush supposedly violate?
gahrie: Ah, I see. So what you are saying is there isn’t a single intended view of the constitution. Thanks.
No there was an intended view of the Constitution, expressed by the people who wrote it (of which Hamilton wasn’t one) that was changed by the addition of the Bill of Rights and a series of really awful Supreme Court decisions.
The government was INTENDED (by it’s creators) to be one of ENUMERATED powers and evolved into one of IMPLIED powers.
That would be the fourth amendment, you know, the one that prohibits search and seizure without cause.
I see..and what court has ruled that his administration violated it?
By the way, since the Obama administration has continued the policies of the Bush administration with regards to FISA and the lawsuits brought against the Bush administration, apparently you believe President Obama has violated the Fourth Amendment also.
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/09/nsa-email/
gahrie: Who do you list as writing the constitution Gahrie?
John Dickinson, Gouverneur Morris, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Thomas Paine, Edmund Randolph, James Madison, Roger Sherman, James Wilson, and George Wythe
Sorry. Been really busy at work.
gahrie: If we were to take such a narrow view of who is responsible for the creation of the constitution so as to only include those you list above (and not those present at the convention, which of course includes Hamilton himself), how does Gouverneur Morris not count as someone who believed in implied powers?
Heck, even Thomas Jefferson used the doctrine of Implied Powers to justify the Louisiana Purchase.