Kasz216 said:
Mr Khan said:
Kasz216 said:
Except thats not an arguement for why they can do it.
That's an arguement for why they SHOULD have the power to do that.
Except, they don't have that power.'
Additionally, even if that was an arguement. That arguement is false.
The government could decide to pass a law that created a government healthcare plan that covered everybody.... paid for by the government.
It'd have the same effect.
Goverment doesn't want to do it. They however could.
And unlike the ACA, that would be constituional. (and would work better...)
Or do you think that single payer health insurance wouldn't be cheaper, or do you think it's not constitutional?
|
I'm all for single-payer, so long as it works out some of the inefficiencies that such a system is prone to (though i would rather have inefficient single payer than what we have now, as my argument with Samuel indicated), but as I said, it's unlikely to happen. We need real reform now, and not in 50 years which will be the next time anyone gets bold enough to try this again, and given its necessity, the constitution should flex to incorporate it so long as it is indeed not a gross violation, which then is where the argument circles back around. The mandate is necessary in order to regulate a matter of interstate concern, though not by any means the best means to regulate it, in the choice that sits before the Court, we have a choice between granting congress necessary powers to enact legislative goals that are enumerated by the constitution (e.g. the regulation of interstate commerce), or denying them those powers for reasons that are not couched in the constitution at all.
The precedent here lies with the mandate.
|
Except it doesn't... the bolded makes my point.
"It's unconstitutional, but we should allow it because it will help people."
Is what the bolded says... the fact that you had to qualify "gross" indicates you admit it is indeed a violation.
You just don't see it as a big one.
You are directly argueing that they should measure in how important the law is and rule that it's constiutional because of it. Despite the fact that it is in fact... a violation.
So it's clearly unconsitutional, you just think they should close a blind eye to that fact.
|
The gross qualifier is because i am a "living document" supporter, believing that the spirit of the constitution should be obeyed and the letter thus re-interpreted as the times demand, because its the only way for the document to endure as it has in the past. Amendments only tell part of the story of how the constitution has remained valid down into days that the Founders could never have foreseen. In this case it is within the spirit of the document to allow this, even if it looks wrong on paper.
