Controversial Michael Moore Flick 'Sicko' Will Compare U.S. Health Care with Cuba's

HM2VikingRN, RN · Aug 15, 2007

The best protection of freedom is active involvement in government. At its core within the preamble our constitution references we the people. Its pretty clear that the constitution requises some level of mutual assistance and compromise.

ZASHAGALKA, RN · Aug 15, 2007

The best protection of freedom is active involvement in government. At its core within the preamble our constitution references we the people. Its pretty clear that the constitution requises some level of mutual assistance and compromise.

The Constitution requires the mutual assistance of citizens to keep government in check. It is the heart of what the Constitution sought to accomplish.

To say that 'we the people' means that the gov't can assume any rights that our social contracts (the Declaration of Independence and Constitution) declared belonged to individuals is patently silly.

"We the people" is not an equivalent recipient of the rights of individuals. Our social contracts declare that such rights are God given to individuals, and individuals alone.

Our framers didn't envision the gov't as a vehicle to direct the rights of individuals; they considered, and rightly so, gov't to be a threat to those rights.

THAT is why the power of gov't was limited.

Oh, I know that the gov't has turned its back, without penalty, upon the limitations that helped to make us a great nation. I know that many things the gov't has no business doing are now done, in the so-called name of compassion.

That doesn't make those concepts Constitutional. At its core, the Constitution strove to limit the government from exercising even a fraction of the power over its citizens that you would give it.

~faith,

Timothy.

HM2VikingRN, RN · Aug 15, 2007

i am actually more libertarian at my heart than you give me credit for being. the people through their elected government can bring the excesses of corporatism to heel. who can protect the individual from the abuses and excesses of corporatism? how will we as a society work together to have a clean environment? how can we look beyond our own parochial interests to build a society for the common good? at its core our government was founded by "we the people". the preamble of the constitution speaks to some issues that are an overarching framework.

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/constitution/constitution.preamble.html

establishing justice speaks to the concept of equality of opportunity (not results) for people.

common defense is more than the military it most certainly includes protection against disease, clean air, clean water, and safe food for the people through their elected government.

promotion of the general welfare does mean that the people through their elected government can reshape and redesign the ground rules of society to protect commonly shared interests...

who is the freest person? the worker who is tied to his job by a benefit package or the worker who can branch out to become the small shopkeeper or farmer that jefferson envisioned because they have the security of knowing that they will be able to meet the healthcare needs of their family without the fear of catastrophic loss for their family d/t injury or illness. single payer will do more to increase freedom of choice

and reduce economic distortions than remaining with our current dysfunctional system.

the supreme court has endorsed the expansive view of the power of congress to act on behalf of the people to advance the general welfare:

hamilton, on the other hand, maintained the clause confers a power separate and distinct from those later enumerated, is not restricted in meaning by the grant of them, and congress consequently has a substantive power to tax and to appropriate, limited only by the requirement that it shall be exercised to provide for the general welfare of the united states. each contention has had the support of those whose views are entitled to weight. this court had noticed the question, but has never found it necessary to decide which is the true construction. justice story, in his commentaries, espouses the hamiltonian position. we shall not review the writings of public men and commentators or discuss the legislative practice. study of all these leads us to conclude that the reading advocated by justice story is the correct one. while, therefore, the power to tax is not unlimited, its confines are set in the clause which confers it, and not in those of sec. 8 which bestow and define the legislative powers of the congress. it results that the power of congress to authorize expenditure of public moneys for public purposes is not limited by the direct grants of legislative power found in the constitution.”544
...
steward machine co. v. davis,546 which sustained the tax imposed on employers to provide unemployment benefits, and the credit allowed for similar taxes paid to a state. to the argument that the tax and credit in combination were “weapons of coercion, destroying or impairing the autonomy[p.156]of the states,” the court replied that relief of unemployment was a legitimate object of federal expenditure under the “general welfare” clause, that the social security act represented a legitimate attempt to solve the problem by the cooperation of state and federal governments, that the credit allowed for state taxes bore a reasonable relation “to the fiscal need subserved by the tax in its normal operation,”547 since state unemployment compensation payments would relieve the burden for direct relief borne by the national treasury.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/art1frag29_user.html#art1_hd96

see also:

537 in an advisory opinion, which it rendered for president monroe at his request on the power of congress to appropriate funds for public improvements, the court answered that such appropriations might be properly made under the war and postal powers. see albertsworth, advisory functions in the supreme court, 23 geo. l. j. 643, 644–647 (1935). monroe himself ultimately adopted the broadest view of the spending power, from which, however, he carefully excluded any element of regulatory or police power. see his views of the president of the united states on the subject of internal improvements, of may 4, 1822, 2 messages and papers of the presidents (richardson ed. 1906), 713–752.

CRNI-ICU20 · Aug 15, 2007

Some people view national health care as some sort of government conspiratorial with socialism attached to overthrow the masses....NOT!

If that was the case, then one only has to look to our neighbors north of us and see how the citizens there are not oppressed or "socialized" or taken advantage of....however, their drugs are cheaper, more accessible, they have good health care...it isn't perfect, but it's better than 13million children going without a doctor until they nearly die on an ER cart! Even our own USA citizens go to Canada to get their drugs, because they are cheaper....the same exact drug....many are manufactured here in the US...sold to Canada, and sold for much less than what is charged here in this country....so something is terribly wrong with a system that perpetuates that kind of price gouging.

How this can be misconstrued as a way for socialistic agendas to overthrow our country is beyond me....it sounds alot like the blather that many ultra=right wing fundamentalist radio talk show hosts holler into their microphones....it's interesting, that one of the precriptions being abused by Mr. Limbaugh was obtained via Canada....it was cheaper!!! ugh.

Roy Fokker, BSN, RN · Aug 16, 2007

I generally do not like engaging in "label talk", but for the sake of this discussion:

I am actually more libertarian at my heart than you give me credit for being.

A libertarian does not support the curtailment of choice. Freedom to choose is one of the guiding lights of libertarian political thought - because moral action arises out of free choice, not coercion.

A libertarian does not condone levies on personal property. Libertarians condemn taxes in general and income taxes in particular.

A libertarian does not condone the use of (government) "force" save to protect the life, liberty or property of another.

"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law’, because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual. No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another, and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him."

The State is naked force. Power. Coercion. Those of you who disagree are free to stop paying their taxes (for example) and see what happens. It doesn't have to be just taxes - given the size of our government today, I could give you dozens of things you can do that will detail the coercive power of government.

Libertarians recognize the State for what it is - naked force. Which is why they oppose the leviathan in the first place.

The best protection of freedom is active involvement in government.

Anyone who can make that claim either does not believe in libertarian philosophy or doesn't understand it.

Sorry Mr. Viking, but much as I disagree with ZASHAGALKA on many issues, I don't see anything amiss in his opinion.

Common defense is more than the military it most certainly includes protection against disease, clean air, clean water, and safe food for the people through their elected government.
promotion of the general welfare does mean that the people through their elected government can reshape and redesign the ground rules of society to protect commonly shared interests...

If you interpreted that general welfare clause broadly enough, the Federal Government could do anything it wants, which, come to think of it, it already does anyway.

It is clearly known that the founders intended that the Federal Government should be limited to a few, well defined powers. General Welfare meant that the Federal Government was to keep general order within the United States, so that the states could fulfill their obligations, unimpeded. The ONE place where the Federal Government had health obligations were at the points of entry to the United States and on Federal Facilities and within the District of Columbia. Regulatory power over health care in general was reserved to the states.

In fact, until FDR's unconstitutional usurpations of state powers by the Federal Government, the Fed did not mess with general health care. The usurpation was completed in 1953 with the establishment of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare, all three functions patently unconstitutional, by the way.

“Our tenet ever was… that Congress had not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were restrained to those specifically enumerated, and that, as it was never meant that they should provide for that welfare but by the exercise of the enumerated powers, so it could not have been meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action; consequently, that the specification of powers is a limitation of the purposes for which they may raise money.”

The “general welfare” clause was not intended to give Congress an open hand “to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare.”

"With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers (enumerated in the Constitution) connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators."

Think about it. If the general welfare clause of the Constitution allowed unlimited federal powers, why bother with Article I, Section 8, which sets forth the specific powers and duties of the federal government?

Who is the freest person? The worker who is tied to his job by a benefit package or the worker who can branch out to become the small shopkeeper or farmer that Jefferson envisioned because they have the security of knowing that they will be able to meet the healthcare needs of their family without the fear of catastrophic loss for their family d/t injury or illness.
Single payer will do more to increase freedom of choice and reduce economic distortions than remaining with our current dysfunctional system.

The first part of your argument doesn't match the second part.

A single payer system will deny "competition" - when there are no "choices", how can there be "competition"? Lack of competition promotes monopoly. Your argument is that a monopoly is better and more efficient than competition in the provision of goods and services.

How does this "promote freedom of choice" ? Single payer isn't "choice" - it is a "mandate".

I agree that the current system is dysfunctional - but the roots of this lie in corporate welfare promoted by government intervention in the market making HMOs and managed care mandatory and the norm.

I oppose both, by the way. Making something "mandatory" isn't "freedom of choice".

The supreme court has endorsed the expansive view of the power of congress to act on behalf of the people to advance the general welfare

The Supreme Court also supports Conscription - tying itself in knots over questions of how Conscription doesn't violate the Thirteenth Amendment.

See also: Sixteenth Amendment. Kelo V City of New London etc.

So essentially - the Constitution is whatever the Supreme Court says it is?

yours in liberty,

Roy

HM2VikingRN, RN · Aug 16, 2007

The supreme's are the final umpire for the constitution. (And yes they do make mistakes.)

What is particularly interesting is that Hamilton's viewpoint about Congress's power to act on behalf of the general welfare is the one that has held sway throughout the history of the US. This debate really does fall to the heart of the originalist vs the "living" constitution debate. One of the problems with originalism is that it does not allow for the growth of understanding about the nature of society and its needs over time. (Remember the 3/5ths person rule for enumeration of blacks.) Ultimately, I think that at some level the constitution involves points of common agreement and understanding about rights and liberties of individuals.

I stand by my assertion that single payer will confer far greater individual freedom of medical choice than our current system.

UKRNinUSA, RN · Aug 17, 2007

I'm just wondering how the guy that threw his terminally ill wife over the balcony because she didn't have insurance and he couldn't afford to pay for her medical care any longer is enjoying his "freedom of choice".

http://www.thekansascitychannel.com/news/13903694/detail.html

I really would like your input on this Kashagalka et al

ZASHAGALKA, RN · Aug 17, 2007

I'm just wondering how the guy that threw his terminally ill wife over the balcony because she didn't have insurance and he couldn't afford to pay for her medical care any longer is enjoying his "freedom of choice".
http://www.thekansascitychannel.com/news/13903694/detail.html
I really would like your input on this Kashagalka et al

No problem, as it's a very easy question.

You do not have the freedom to violate the criminal statutes of the State in which you reside. That has nothing to do with Federal power, or the Constitutional limitations upon that power.

A criminal is a criminal, subject to sanctioning by the States. If you think that euthanasia should be legal, or more to the point, this particularly heinous form of euthanasia should be legal, then take it up with your State gov't. The Federal gov't has no right or Constitutional power to interfere.

Perhaps you are suggesting that he had no other options. That is a nice piece of hyperbole. In fact, both EMTALA and SS disability/Medicare/Medicaid provides for the safety net here that you believe is lacking.

Plus there are a whole variety of means tested programs. Perhaps you are suggesting that he made too much for those programs. Then he should have provided his wife with insurance, just like 85% of the population does for their family members.

Perhaps you believe that the gov't system is such a mess of red tape that this man and his wife couldn't avail themselves of the system, even had they wanted to do so. Well, that just makes my case.

This little piece of hyperbole doesn't prove that the system is in trouble. It proves that the man in question is a criminal. Libertarianism doesn't protect criminals from redress by gov't; It protects citizens from abuse by gov't.

Taking from me to give to somebody that didn't earn it - because I did; that's abuse. I could see the point if it actually aided the people being given my stolen booty; alas, it doesn't. It stifles their freedom and motivation to excel, thereby entrenching them in place. It's not only a heinous crime for the gov't to take from me, it's just not very compassionate to its intended recipients.

"Take Tim's money and stay out of our economy and society" is just not a user-friendly message, for anybody.

Trillions of dollars later and the war of poverty is an abject failure of worse proportions than Iraq. When is the left wing going to demand that we defund this failure, in the name of protecting our fellow citizens directly in harms way as a result of this gov't action?

Let me bring the point home: gov't interference, in neomercantilist league with corporations, is WHY healthcare is so inaccessible NOW. THAT is why this man was in such desperate straits. Why on earth would you think that I would advocate rewarding gov't for making healthcare so inaccessible with an exclusive contract that would only make the problem far worse? You seem to be pointing to gov't as the potential solution to this problem. Far from it, it was the CREATOR of this problem.

Uncle Daddy is the illegitimate and uncaring father of the healthcare problems that we have. I don't see why it would be such a good idea to give him sole custody? Especially since he invariably proves himself to be completely unfit for the role.

~faith,

Timothy.

ZASHAGALKA, RN · Aug 17, 2007

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20297388/

For the record, the woman in question owned private property, received oil royalty payments of more than 700/month, and was receiving SSI.

The case happened in Missouri. In Missouri, anybody receiving SSI is entitled to Medicaid automatically so long as their income is less than 250% of the Federal poverty level.

She was either already covered by insurance, didn't try to get medicaid coverage that automatically was available, or she was by no means 'poor'.

http://www.kentucky.com/513/story/151150.html

"An official with the Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art who spoke on condition of anonymity said that Reimer had worked in the museum's finance department since 1996 and that the museum offers full family insurance coverage to its employees. She would not say whether the Reimers had that coverage, citing privacy concerns."

From your link, above: "Neighbors said they had heard the couple fighting during the past year." Your link also suggest that in addition to SSI, they had been receiving 1,600/month in oil royalties, or, 400/week.

One of the links suggested that the husband was trying to probate off her estate. Maybe he thought inheriting it would be easier.

I think this is a 'poor' example.

~faith,

Timothy.

allnurses Guide · Aug 17, 2007

tim - "it proves that the man in question is a criminal."

that was exactly what i thought when i read it.

steph

Roy Fokker, BSN, RN · Aug 17, 2007

The supreme's are the final umpire for the constitution. (And yes they do make mistakes.)

The Supreme Court's power for constitutional review, and by extension its interpretation, did not come about until Marbury v. Madison in 1803. The concept for a "living constitution" therefore relies on an argument regarding the writing of the constitution that had no validity when the constitution was written.

By the way: The Supreme Court is as bound by the Constitution as the other branches of government. The United States are a Constitutional Republic - the Rule of Law is supreme. Nothing and no one is above it.

This debate really does fall to the heart of the originalist vs the "living" constitution debate. One of the problems with originalism is that it does not allow for the growth of understanding about the nature of society and its needs over time.

The Constitution was not designed to be flexible, it was designed, as Thomas Jefferson put it, "to bind men down from mischief in the chains of the constitution".

The problem with a "living, breathing" constitution is that it has no lasting, objective meaning. If somebody wants to interpret the Second Amendment as authorizing a national guard, they can just as easily interpret the "free press" clause of the First Amendment as authorizing state run newspapers with enforced monopolies.

There is a way to change the Constitution to keep it modern, and that way is amendment. It is a difficult process, and for good reason. It is by amendment that the Bill of Rights could be removed legally from the constitution. But if we subscribe to the idea of a "living, breathing", changing constitution, it can be removed much more easily by simple judicial fiat.

Trying to justify extremely broad readings of the Constitution on the grounds that we need a "living, breathing Constitution" that "changes with the times" is actually recommending the very system the colonists sought to escape. The British constitution was very flexible indeed-too flexible for the colonists, who were inflexibly committed to upholding their traditional rights. The "living breathing" British constitution was no safeguard of American liberties.

Yours in liberty,

Roy

PS: The 3/5ths clause is often misunderstood. The Southern states wanted slaves to be fully counted for representitives, the Northern states said they shouldn't be counted at all. Ironically, if slaves had been counted as 5/5 of a free person, the southern states would have had more power in the federal government. This compromise was made irrelevant by later amendments (14th - 16th), which is the proper way to change the constitution.

PPS:: EDIT - HM2Viking: I really don't think we ought to continue this discussion (in depth about the Constitution) further in this thread as I don't think it really pertains to the thread topic. If you'd like, we can continue on a different thread in Current Events or Break Room forum. :)

BBFRN, BSN, PhD · Aug 17, 2007

I hope the guy that threw his wife off the balcony isn't enjoying any sort of freedom at all. What a horrific story.

I personally don't think of him as the poster child for what's wrong in health care today. What an animal!