Should Government Pay? - page 2

a quick poll for allnurses.com members. reply with a "yes" or "no" please. does the federal constitution give the american federal government the authority or power to collect money in the form of... Read More

  1. by   Perpetual Student
    Quote from sharona97
    how is it then that some folks are deported?
    article 1 sec 8 directly addresses immigration: "to establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the united states."

    frankly, i think the immigration in this laws are incredibly lame and believe in much more open borders, but that's another topic.
  2. by   sharona97
    Quote from perpetual student
    article 1 sec 8 directly addresses immigration: "to establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the united states."

    frankly, i think the immigration in this laws are incredibly lame and believe in much more open borders, but that's another topic.
    so i take it then this is a government right?
  3. by   RainDreamer
    Rights are different than powers.
  4. by   HM2VikingRN
    While the constitution does not address a right to health directly. Article 1 Sec 8. does in effect give congress the right to enact laws for the general welfare. The short answer is that congress can if it so chooses as our elected representatives enact a single payer health care system under our constitution.
  5. by   Perpetual Student
    Quote from sharona97
    So I take it then this is a government right?
    No, it is a governmental power.

    For some perspective:

    http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/index.htm
    Last edit by Perpetual Student on Nov 1, '07
  6. by   sharona97
    Quote from RainDreamer
    Rights are different than powers.
    The statement was government does not have any rights. Yes they have the right to deport people and yes that is a power that is exercised.
  7. by   RainDreamer
    Still, two different things there.
  8. by   HM2VikingRN
    See:
    We the people of the United States, in order 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 to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
    http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitut....preamble.html accessed today.

    See also:

    Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States....
    ...
    To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
    http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitut....html#section7

    The short answer is yes the Congress is acting within the scope of delegated Constitutional responsibilities to establish a single payer system. Frankly, I think that this is a settled matter of law with the establishment of the Medicare and Medicaid programs.
  9. by   RainDreamer
    "General welfare of the United States", meaning the citizens, a country as a whole? Tax-paying citizens? Illegal immigrants too?

    Come one, come all ..... and we'll pay your hospital bill!?
  10. by   Jolie
    Quote from HM2Viking
    Frankly, I think that this is a settled matter of law with the establishment of the Medicare and Medicaid programs.

    Medicaid and Medicare are neither universal, nor single-payor systems. If they were, we would not be debating these issues now. They would already be in place.
  11. by   Jo Dirt
    Yes.

    I saw a bumper sticker that said If you think health care is expensive now wait until it's free.

    Those people need to get real. Of the one thing the government should be involved in, healthcar is one of them. But they already are involved in healthcare, with the politicians voting for laws that favor the big businesses/pimps that supply them with their funds. The companies are the pimps, the politicians are the prostitutes, and we are the customers.
  12. by   EmmaG
    Quote from Perpetual Student
    No way.
    Section 7 does not authorize anything. It merely lays out procedure.
    The question was if it is Constitutional for the Federal Government to use taxes to fund a universal health plan. Article I, Sections 7, 8, and 9 give it that Constitutional authority:

    Section 7. All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

    There also is no pertinent clause in Section 9.
    Ah, but there is

    Section 9. No money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.

    (i.e. the Government can spend money if approved by Congress by law)


    An argument can be made that Section 8 does support it implicitly, but it is tenuous.


    Section 8. The Congress shall have Power
    To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

    To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.


    Not "tenuous" at all.

    If it took an amendment for prohibition, it definitely would take one to legally implement a universal health care system.
    No, it wouldn't. See above.
  13. by   VivaLasViejas
    I can't give this a Yes or No answer, because it's not really a Yes or No question. To my understanding, government is supposed to provide for the general welfare of the citizenry; but what does that consist of? And who decides?

    Some people seem to think 'general welfare' would include waging war on a country that has not attacked us. Others would say that 'general welfare' means the government (and by extension, we taxpayers) should provide food, clothing, housing and medical care for each and every person living in the U.S., whether they were born here or are in the country illegally.

    Personally, I think the 'general welfare' lies somewhere between the two extremes. I have no problem with paying taxes for protection from criminals both within and outside the country, safe drinking water and food supplies, fire and police services; and yes, I believe basic medical care for every citizen should be a RIGHT, not a commodity to be bought and sold like a car or a house, and certainly not a privilege for the few who can afford it.

    HOWEVER---I also believe that health care paid for by the public should include only the basics needed to prevent disease and maintain health and dignity (Viagra and rhinoplasty don't count), and that it should be administered at the state, rather than the federal level. I think those who want and can afford more services should be allowed to purchase them, either on a fee-for-service basis or a cafeteria-type plan offered by physicians---NOT the insurance industry. I want to see that beast starved until it dies.........it is of no practical use, unless one doesn't mind the inflation of care costs due to top-heavy administration, the reams of paperwork, and the mass confusion caused by hundreds of different companies with thousands of different rules.

    So you see why I cannot answer this in a black-and-white manner. I have little faith in federal control of health care, yet my social conscience argues that every citizen of a civilized country should be able to go to the doctor when he or she is sick, regardless of income or social status.

close