What does our Constitution say on health?what does our constitution says on health
Answers
Answered by
1
“Thus far, judges appointed by Republican presidents have ruled consistently against the Obama administration, while Democratic appointees have found for it.”
Richmond, we have a problem. The contents of the U.S. Constitution shouldn’t change when seen through a red lens, or blue. That the meaning of the Constitution varies diametrically when seen from the left or seen from the right is, in a word, wrong. It makes reading the Constitution sound like reading tea leaves.
In the case of the controversial provision — the requirement that everyone buy health insurance or be penalized — what DID the Constitution mean to say?
Almost certainly: not a thing! When our Constitution was drafted, health insurance wasn’t on anybody’s radar (neither, for that matter, was radar). Medicine was primitive; hospitals were all but nonexistent; long-term care institutions did not exist. There was no dialysis, no organ transplantation, no open heart surgery, no angioplasty. Acute threat to life or limb generally meant...loss of life or limb. And when the medical services of the day were required and of any use, the barter system took care of the costs more often than not.
One need not be a Constitutional scholar (and I hasten to note: I am not!) to know that the Constitution was silent on health care insurance for the same reason it was silent on inter-stellar travel. Such concerns were not part of the world in which the document was drafted.
So the Constitution is silent on health insurance per se. But it is not silent, of course, on government powers and their limits, and that’s where the controversial interpretations pertaining to health care reform originate.
The U.S. Constitution says the government can’t force you to buy anything. Or at least, it says something like that.
The states can force you to buy auto insurance if you drive a car. But, they can’t force you to drive — or own — a car. So, free will prevails! The Constitution is OK with this.
The state can’t force you to buy or rent an abode.
The controversy now is: What about health care, and the insurance that generally pays for it?
The decision in Virginia suggests that health insurance is like any other commodity, and the federal government does not have the authority to force us to buy it. Specifically, Judge Hudson stated that the government lacks authority “... to compel an individual to involuntarily enter the stream of commerce by purchasing a commodity in the private market.”
The crux of the matter, then, is involuntarily entering the stream of commerce.
Alrighty, then; what about involuntarily bleeding to death? What about a case of involuntary HIV? What about involuntary meningitis, or heart failure? Few people I know volunteer for medical calamities. Medical calamities are, quite predictably, involuntary. And there’s the rub.
On any given day, any of us can be involuntarily thrust into the “stream” of health care commerce by an involuntary disaster. Then the only question is: will we, or won’t we, have a paddle?
When life and limb are imperiled, we intervene — and worry about the bill afterward. Human decency requires nothing less.
While waiting for the politics to play out, while waiting to see if the prevailing view of the Constitution is to left or to right, I maintain that inconsistent access to health care is wrong.
Our modern politics, and the polarization that currently prevails, is inviting us to infer what the Constitution meant to say yesterday. That it is open to interpretation and changes when viewed from left or right seems to indicate we are far from sure. We are putting words never spoken into the mouths of our Founders.
Maybe they just didn’t answer this question for us, and we are left to figure out for ourselves what constitutes the right thing to do.
Richmond, we have a problem. The contents of the U.S. Constitution shouldn’t change when seen through a red lens, or blue. That the meaning of the Constitution varies diametrically when seen from the left or seen from the right is, in a word, wrong. It makes reading the Constitution sound like reading tea leaves.
In the case of the controversial provision — the requirement that everyone buy health insurance or be penalized — what DID the Constitution mean to say?
Almost certainly: not a thing! When our Constitution was drafted, health insurance wasn’t on anybody’s radar (neither, for that matter, was radar). Medicine was primitive; hospitals were all but nonexistent; long-term care institutions did not exist. There was no dialysis, no organ transplantation, no open heart surgery, no angioplasty. Acute threat to life or limb generally meant...loss of life or limb. And when the medical services of the day were required and of any use, the barter system took care of the costs more often than not.
One need not be a Constitutional scholar (and I hasten to note: I am not!) to know that the Constitution was silent on health care insurance for the same reason it was silent on inter-stellar travel. Such concerns were not part of the world in which the document was drafted.
So the Constitution is silent on health insurance per se. But it is not silent, of course, on government powers and their limits, and that’s where the controversial interpretations pertaining to health care reform originate.
The U.S. Constitution says the government can’t force you to buy anything. Or at least, it says something like that.
The states can force you to buy auto insurance if you drive a car. But, they can’t force you to drive — or own — a car. So, free will prevails! The Constitution is OK with this.
The state can’t force you to buy or rent an abode.
The controversy now is: What about health care, and the insurance that generally pays for it?
The decision in Virginia suggests that health insurance is like any other commodity, and the federal government does not have the authority to force us to buy it. Specifically, Judge Hudson stated that the government lacks authority “... to compel an individual to involuntarily enter the stream of commerce by purchasing a commodity in the private market.”
The crux of the matter, then, is involuntarily entering the stream of commerce.
Alrighty, then; what about involuntarily bleeding to death? What about a case of involuntary HIV? What about involuntary meningitis, or heart failure? Few people I know volunteer for medical calamities. Medical calamities are, quite predictably, involuntary. And there’s the rub.
On any given day, any of us can be involuntarily thrust into the “stream” of health care commerce by an involuntary disaster. Then the only question is: will we, or won’t we, have a paddle?
When life and limb are imperiled, we intervene — and worry about the bill afterward. Human decency requires nothing less.
While waiting for the politics to play out, while waiting to see if the prevailing view of the Constitution is to left or to right, I maintain that inconsistent access to health care is wrong.
Our modern politics, and the polarization that currently prevails, is inviting us to infer what the Constitution meant to say yesterday. That it is open to interpretation and changes when viewed from left or right seems to indicate we are far from sure. We are putting words never spoken into the mouths of our Founders.
Maybe they just didn’t answer this question for us, and we are left to figure out for ourselves what constitutes the right thing to do.
Answered by
0
Answer:
chota answer chahiye tha
Similar questions