bobbo says:

#121–Thomas==you put way too much importance on the supposed distinction between promoting and providing. Have you ever read anything from the Founding Fathers on what they meant by the word promoting? Does 250 years of legislation and court decisions interpreting the same have any impact on your “thinking?” Have you read any of those cases and statutues?

Many things “don’t work” with strong Federalism ((Note Thomas, a trap has been set here.)) Yes, States could vote themselves single payer and then get flooded by all those from other states needing healthcare. Don’t think that would work. So a Federal Program is needed.

What do you have against a single payer system nation wide if it could be done for the same or less money than is expended now?

In fact, just what are you objecting too? You are for/against universal healthcare but feel it would violate the Constitution? Is that your point bunky? If not, what is?

bobbo says:

#123–Tihz==I admire your knowledge of Amer History, but I think you have this one wrong?

I won’t comment on the socialistic bent of the Founding Fathers==but in their day and for many years after the founding==they thought of themselves as people from their individuals states. Washington was a Virginian, not an American. I don’t know when “patriotism” became the scourge it is today.

Now, I like GOUSA because it “looks nice” spelled out, and has that nice sarcastic/mournful attribute about it and it is pronounceable. Lets try this: GOCHINA. Yeah, that works too, just jars me a bit given my comfort with GOUSA. Would the Chinese see any humor in this?

Thomas says:

#122
Clearly the authors of the preamble made a difference between promoting and providing as they made that distinction for defense and common welfare. I think you are making reference to two different issues: Did the authors of the Constitution have any notions of socialistic government such as one that provides health care coverage for all citizens? Have times changed such that the Federal government should be authorized to do so?

To the first, I would say the answer was clearly no. The Founding Fathers were incredibly fearful of a powerful central government and put many restrictions on its power to the point of saying that anything they haven’t listed still isn’t in the purview of the Federal government. Over the years, those constraints have been loosened in some areas and outright broken in others.

To the second, it is questionable whether the Federal government has the authority to create a single payer system. It requires stretching the interstate commerce clause quite a bit to say that the Federal government has the authority to tax and manage health care costs for everyone.

RE: State version

I’m not sure I understand the scenario your are presenting with regards to a flood by other States. How could that not happen with a flood from other countries?

> What do you have against a single payer system
> nation wide if it could be done for the
> same or
> less money than is expended now?

That is a leading question, It presumes that we can create an efficient system out of the gate. The primary reason for having the States implement a solution first is that we really do not know what will work and what will not. The US is different from Europe with respect to size. Some solutions simply do not work when you get very big.

Specifically, I do not want the Federal government in charge of collecting, managing or dispersement of health care costs. The Federal government already wields far more power than it was ever intended to have. Thus, I do feel that having a Federally managed solution *should* violate the Constitution. Whether the Courts agree given years of precedent is another matter. The example I always present is the EU. Can you imagine if the EU wanted to create a single monolithic solution enforced on all countries? They would be aghast. Similarly, we should strive to be incredibly fearful of giving any power to the Federal government.I would much rather have a system where the States are in control and the Federal government simply sets down standards and rules by which all States must abide.