Constitutionalist View of Government Healthcare

[Justice and Mercy]

Are leftists against this, I wonder?

The Constitution doesn't give the Federal Government the power to run a healthcare system.

However, the Tenth demands that the State's have to power to run one. This means, unless the State's own Constitution disallows it, the States may run all the public healthcare they want, along with all of those other welfare programs.

So, why don't the New York or Californian leftists start pushing for a state-run healthcare system? For California especially it would be great to have taxpayer money used in-state rather than constantly sending money to the Feds and getting little benefit for it.

And the rest of us could sit by for a few years and see how it works.

[magickyleo101]

Are leftists against this, I wonder?

The Constitution doesn't give the Federal Government the power to run a healthcare system.

However, the Tenth demands that the State's have to power to run one. This means, unless the State's own Constitution disallows it, the States may run all the public healthcare they want, along with all of those other welfare programs.

So, why don't the New York or Californian leftists start pushing for a state-run healthcare system? For California especially it would be great to have taxpayer money used in-state rather than constantly sending money to the Feds and getting little benefit for it.

And the rest of us could sit by for a few years and see how it works.

It's certainly not clear either that the Constitution doesn't give the federal government the power to run a healthcare system or that the 10th Amendment reserves such a right to the states.

Article one, section eight, clause three of the US Constitution gives Congress the right to "regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes." So long as an act of Congress counts as a regulation of commerce among the several states, Congress is empowered to take that action. Moreover, so long as the action is within the scope of Congress's Article One, Section Eight powers, the power to take that action won't be reserved to the states by the 10th Amendment (which only reserves those powers which aren't granted to congress).

Moreover, depending on how the healthcare system would be structured (i.e. whether it would be a single-payer system in which the government taxed you and then paid the money directly to healthcare providers when you used services), Congress's taxing and spending power could grant Congress the power to create a healthcare system.


So you have at least two provisions in the Constitution which would empower Congress to create a healthcare system.

[Justice and Mercy]

It's certainly not clear either that the Constitution doesn't give the federal government the power to run a healthcare system or that the 10th Amendment reserves such a right to the states.

Article one, section eight, clause three of the US Constitution gives Congress the right to "regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes." So long as an act of Congress counts as a regulation of commerce among the several states, Congress is empowered to take that action. Moreover, so long as the action is within the scope of Congress's Article One, Section Eight powers, the power to take that action won't be reserved to the states by the 10th Amendment (which only reserves those powers which aren't granted to congress).

Moreover, depending on how the healthcare system would be structured (i.e. whether it would be a single-payer system in which the government taxed you and then paid the money directly to healthcare providers when you used services), Congress's taxing and spending power could grant Congress the power to create a healthcare system.


So you have at least two provisions in the Constitution which would empower Congress to create a healthcare system.

I'll PM you a reply, but I'd rather this thread not become a debate on whether or not Congress has the power to establish a healthcare system.

[SSJPabs]

So, why don't the New York or Californian leftists start pushing for a state-run healthcare system? For California especially it would be great to have taxpayer money used in-state rather than constantly sending money to the Feds and getting little benefit for it.

And the rest of us could sit by for a few years and see how it works.

Smart ones are. The reason it won't work is because states cannot seal their borders. Imagine if you live in nearby states and next door you suddenly have guaranteed health insurance? Lots of people can and will move to the state all at once. It's not even about whether the money will ultimately balance out, the immediate stress will be too great. Also, look at Massachusetts. They had lots of people who had given up on ever getting coverage join, stressing the system. No need to even move, and many of these weren't unemployed persons, they were simply people who couldn't afford insurance beforehand and had resigned themselves to expensive, last-resort emergency rooms and luck.

[Justice and Mercy]

Smart ones are. The reason it won't work is because states cannot seal their borders. Imagine if you live in nearby states and next door you suddenly have guaranteed health insurance? Lots of people can and will move to the state all at once. It's not even about whether the money will ultimately balance out, the immediate stress will be too great. Also, look at Massachusetts. They had lots of people who had given up on ever getting coverage join, stressing the system. No need to even move, and many of these weren't unemployed persons, they were simply people who couldn't afford insurance beforehand and had resigned themselves to expensive, last-resort emergency rooms and luck.

There doesn't have to be immediate stress, require that the particular citizen has been in state for a certain period of time, or has paid a certain amount of taxes before being eligible for the state's healthcare.

[Phier]

Smart ones are. The reason it won't work is because states cannot seal their borders. Imagine if you live in nearby states and next door you suddenly have guaranteed health insurance? Lots of people can and will move to the state all at once. It's not even about whether the money will ultimately balance out, the immediate stress will be too great. Also, look at Massachusetts. They had lots of people who had given up on ever getting coverage join, stressing the system. No need to even move, and many of these weren't unemployed persons, they were simply people who couldn't afford insurance beforehand and had resigned themselves to expensive, last-resort emergency rooms and luck.

Of course this would be countered by people moving out of the state who don't want to pay outrageous income taxes.

Oddly though I don't think that would make the problem better

On a side note my state does pay for a lot of childrens health care if you are poor. The system is abused of course, pays the doctors very poorly, and is full of sticky red tape.

Its funny how these programs fail on a state level, but are going to magically work on a Federal one.

[Ramashan]

There is honestly nothing stopping the states from individually creating their own health care system within the frame work of the US Constitution. I believe the largest factor in making this not happen is the large multi-state health insurance industry.

A state would have to have a well running and thriving as well as diverse economy to do so. Right now California would not be able to afford such a program, and although CA is thought to be a haven of liberals, recent votes such as that on gay marriage has shown that there is a significant majority who would possibily be more conservative.

But sure, if a state had a fiscally responsible government and could organize such a program then it could offer it to their citizens. Perhaps even attaching it to the drivers license in order to make sure your covering only your states citizens and that those citizens get health care when in other states.

[Justice and Mercy]

There is honestly nothing stopping the states from individually creating their own health care system within the frame work of the US Constitution. I believe the largest factor in making this not happen is the large multi-state health insurance industry.

A state would have to have a well running and thriving as well as diverse economy to do so. Right now California would not be able to afford such a program, and although CA is thought to be a haven of liberals, recent votes such as that on gay marriage has shown that there is a significant majority who would possibily be more conservative.

But sure, if a state had a fiscally responsible government and could organize such a program then it could offer it to their citizens. Perhaps even attaching it to the drivers license in order to make sure your covering only your states citizens and that those citizens get health care when in other states.

Since when does a government not being able to afford something mean it can't do it?

The Federal government is certainly in a worse condition than the Californian government when it comes to finances, no?

State-run healthcare seems better than Federal-run healthcare in every way.

[JP226]

So, why don't the New York or Californian leftists start pushing for a state-run healthcare system? For California especially it would be great to have taxpayer money used in-state rather than constantly sending money to the Feds and getting little benefit for it.

because they are too stupid to understand the constitution.

Like I always said, the nicest thing about liberals is that they don't breed and it's only a amtter of time until they die out. Unfortunately I have to be bothered with their mess in my lifetime.

[Ramashan]

Since when does a government not being able to afford something mean it can't do it?
The Federal government is certainly in a worse condition than the Californian government when it comes to finances, no?
State-run healthcare seems better than Federal-run healthcare in every way.

Well, if their 6 billion in debt and borrowing to pay all their bills and want to start up a whole new program, sure, its the voters dime. I was just outlining the best possible circumstances and i don't think California is capable of running any state run programs let alone Health Care, I just think the legislature is more concerned with party politics than how they govern.

California is in pretty bad shape right now. They just spent a trunk load of money to put on a vote a promote a plan to get us out of debt that the voters pretty much destroyed. So the state is 6billion debt and sinking with no plan to get out so are cutting all state funding and even selling off state owned property like parks and stadiums. But again, if the voters want to bet on the ability for a health care system to get them out of debt, then fair enough. I just think a state should have a working thriving economy in order to start such a thing, which, at the moment, CA's is sputtering a bit.

However, I thought your post was asking if a state could run its own state wide health care plan and it be Constitutional, not whether a states version would be better than a federal version?

[Justice and Mercy]

However, I thought your post was asking if a state could run its own state wide health care plan and it be Constitutional, not whether a states version would be better than a federal version?

Well, I was just wondering if the same people who support a Federal-run healthcare system would agree with me that State-run would make a hell of a lot more sense.

[Ramashan]

Well, I was just wondering if the same people who support a Federal-run healthcare system would agree with me that State-run would make a hell of a lot more sense.

I think it would be a hard sell though. Most liberals prefer to have the Federal government be the ones to foot the responsibility since they feel it would be fairer in the long run and most conservatives just don't think there should be universal health care in any form. (At least the ones I associate with most. Ideas, both of which, I have issues with personally)

So, even if you could convince people (liberals) that a state wide universal health care system would be better and more sensible, you still would have to deal with the ideology of the voters and politicians.

The main issue for voters is their beliefs and for the politicians is money, health insurance is one of the largest growing and highest earning corporations in the US, who wants to take away that bit o' kick back in the pocket, even at a state level?

[Justice and Mercy]

I think it would be a hard sell though. Most liberals prefer to have the Federal government be the ones to foot the responsibility since they feel it would be fairer in the long run

That's why this is here, I want them to explain why they'd support a Federal system over a State one.

So, even if you could convince people (liberals) that a state wide universal health care system would be better and more sensible, you still would have to deal with the ideology of the voters and politicians.

Meh, let's not pretend that even a fraction of the ideas presented in this forum could ever get past either hurdle.

The main issue for voters is their beliefs and for the politicians is money, health insurance is one of the largest growing and highest earning corporations in the US, who wants to take away that bit o' kick back in the pocket, even at a state level?

Makes sense in California.

Californians get very little money they send to the Feds back in-state. My state is the exact opposite, for every tax dollar we send to the Feds we get over two dollars back in-state.

In other words, you Californians are paying for our infrastructure.

[Ramashan]

Makes sense in California.
Californians get very little money they send to the Feds back in-state. My state is the exact opposite, for every tax dollar we send to the Feds we get over two dollars back in-state.
In other words, you Californians are paying for our infrastructure.

Which goes to my earlier statement of a fiscally responsible state government. I think the California state gov right now is laughable and pretty much useless. I the closest there is to what your suggesting, Justice and Mercy, is San Francisco and their way of running the city using local and state tax dollars used for what would be considered very liberal programs. But, for the most part, everyone in San Fran is fairly like minded in their liberal views.

Now, perhaps in a state like Vermont or Mass you could get the populace to agree on something.

And you know, perhaps that is the way to test a Universal Health care system, is to do it by state. I just know that, living in CA, and seeing all the rallies and seeing how the votes go here, I'm just jaded that anything really revolutionary or different or even change, will or can ever take place these days.

[Justice and Mercy]

Which goes to my earlier statement of a fiscally responsible state government.

What's important is that it be compared to our much less fiscally responsible Federal Government.

If I were Californian I'd be very involved in my support of more programs becoming State-run programs, so the money stays in state.

For a State that can't afford anything, you guys sure are paying for alot of my State's infrastructure.

I'm just jaded that anything really revolutionary or different or even change, will or can ever take place these days.

Alot of things being passed now are big, really really big. It truly is a time of change, be it for good or bad is up to us to judge.

[Каие]

I think the problem here J&M is not who provides the public health care system, but rather whether or not it should be provided. Having the Federal government run it would be a logistical nightmare. This can only work on a state level. That's not he main argument around it though. The argument is centred around whether or not it should be provided, with others preferring the insurance system (since they can get it and therefore get an easy route in) and others preferring at least some form of free universal coverage. Obviously by free I mean funded out of general taxation. But god forbid we anger the mighty rich.

[JP226]

I think the problem here J&M is not who provides the public health care system, but rather whether or not it should be provided. Having the Federal government run it would be a logistical nightmare. This can only work on a state level. That's not he main argument around it though. The argument is centred around whether or not it should be provided, with others preferring the insurance system (since they can get it and therefore get an easy route in) and others preferring at least some form of free universal coverage. Obviously by free I mean funded out of general taxation. But god forbid we anger the mighty rich.

Oddly enough I have no problem with states running healthcare. Not mine of course, but if california wanted to run it, by all means please. Hell if Florida wanted to run it, I'd move, but they can run it. I know montana or texas will never do it and I can always move there.

[Justice and Mercy]

Oddly enough I have no problem with states running healthcare. Not mine of course, but if california wanted to run it, by all means please. Hell if Florida wanted to run it, I'd move, but they can run it. I know montana or texas will never do it and I can always move there.

The best thing is we would have an excellent experiment. We could carefully watch similar societies either adopt or refuse to adopt a governmet healthcare-run system, and see the effects of it.

[JP226]

The best thing is we would have an excellent experiment. We could carefully watch similar societies either adopt or refuse to adopt a governmet healthcare-run system, and see the effects of it.

Exactly. It would quite honestly create a black and white or thereabouts, analysis as to whether universal healthcare is as efficient/ inefficient as we think. It would be as close to definitive as a quasi experiment could be.

[Ramashan]

Do you mean to see how it would work in the US? Cause honestly, we can see how it works already in other countries. What would be the difference of seeing it work in California or lets say Britain?

Cause wouldn't it, in the end, be 50 different types of systems designed for the culture and people of each state?

Cause, lets toy with the idea that California does some how manage to get Socialize or Universal Health care in, and lo and behold it works, employers can now invest more money into their companies, people are healthier, etc etc. I'm sure a state like Texas would still say, "Well that's them liberal Californians, we Texans like our freedom and it would never work here."

But, I suppose, once it works in one place than its a good debate starter to get it to work at others.

Which brings my back to, why can't we just judge it by nations that are currently using such systems?