Posted on 03/05/2025 2:42:35 AM PST by Jonty30
Just a question. Is Medicare Constitutional? I don't question whether people want it or need it or not, just whether or not 3/4 or the states voted to give the federal government the power to give people Medicare or Medicaid?
I agree. However, as an economic arguement, the reason why otherwise inexpensive treatments are so expensive is because healthcare companies take that money and apply it to more expensive treatments in order to broaden access to those more expensive treatments. What would happen, if you true pricing, is that it would take longer for new treatments to become affordable.
The Democrats don’t want to the public to know how much of our money is being used in these two areas is fraud. Wonder if it is being directed to other uses!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Eliminating S.S. & Medicare/Medicaid might help help to eliminate a lot of things they had not thought about.
My understanding, which is quite suspect I admit, is the following:
1. Commerce Clause - this clause was inserted for the sole purpose of regulating trade between states, foreign nations, and Indians. Any extension beyond this basic concept was outside the intent.
2. General Welfare - James Madison (and Jefferson), who wrote the document and explained in Federalist 41, stated that the “general welfare” was not a separate power, but a simple summary of the enumerated powers.
If this is a correct understanding of the original intent, which I am certainly not a scholar of the Constitution, then anything using “general welfare” as a power is unconstitutional. And, any use of the Commerce clause beyond regulating trade or claiming some extended derivative of that is also unconstitutional.
Very little of the Federal Budget is truly Constitutional, if one uses original intent, which IMHO is the only correct way to use the document.
Fact is unless the Supreme Court says it is unconstitutional it is constitutional, no matter how outrageous it is.
The only people in a small town richer than the local doctor is the local mortician.
Wrong.
“Whether correct or not, such a restrictive reading of the Constitution is obsolete.”
I agree it is obsolete due to the judiciary power grab and the abdication of over time of congressional legislative power to the executive and judicial branches. Not to mention the crushing of state powers by the constitutional amendments and Supreme Court decrees. However, is it better to live under a limited government Constitution difficult to amend or under the current system where unelected federal judges can change the constitution and laws passed by the people’s legislature on a whim? This is a question that has been decided for the people, not by the people.
I remember hen we had none of that, so when people got sick, if they had no insurance they stayed home and hoped they got over it. Some did, some didn't. In the late 40's early 50's a hospital room was less than $10.00 a day but at $40.00 a week for most that was out of reach. Employee provided health care became a necessity and also caused the cost of everything to go up.
I remember when an office visit to the local Doc was $5.00 and that could include a shot or a few pills.
Everyone leaves off how unconstitutional the third rail is - social security. I believe there have been past USSC decisions that have declared it Constitutional. A decision made under duress to please the gaggle of FDR Era socialist Ivy League lawyer geniuses.
Necessary and Proper clause backed by United States v. Fisher (1805) and McCulloch v. Maryland (1819).
Article III Sections 1 and 2 was a huge swing and miss along with the aforementioned ambiguous Necessary and Proper clause. The Anti-Federalists were right all along.
I am watching with interest in what RFK is attempting. Most of what he says, I agree with. BUT he is still a lot further left than I am or will ever be.
He is spot on with drug companies and regulators.
Some of the non prescription things he suggests are worth trying.
During the Covid Scam, when the med industry blackballed Ivermectin it was insanity (following the money, delivering tragic death of many). I did manage to get a prescription for my 94 year old father, within 3 days, he had NO symptoms left. 6 months later, even Texas access was almost closed. You could not get a prescription of Ivermectin from a doctor. The alternative they could not stop was Quercetin (I bought enough for the whole family).
I’m 77 and never took the Jab. Nor did my wife. I almost never go to the doctor, can only remember 2 years when I met my deductible on Medicare. The supplemental insurance companies like me.
The medical malpractice rules MUST BE UPDATED. Never again to have mandatory anything.
Congress does have the constitutional authority to pass laws.
It’s an abuse of the welfare clause, as many other clauses of the constitution are abused.
“Welfare” should be narrowly interpreted but the courts have allowed a wide interpretation.
Social security, and any other government charity program for that matter, fall into this same trap.
Of course… it is not.
The near collapse of the US financial system during the Depression robbed millions of Americans of their life savings and discredited the notion of private thrift as a reliable means to provide for retirement. That was the origin of Social Security. People were willing to pay taxes on their earned income in return for a secure retirement that they no longer trusted banks, insurance companies, bonds, and savings accounts to provide.
As for Medicaid, it had long been pushed for but was only adopted because Lyndon Johnson's massive victory in 1964 made it politically possible. Moreover, the wide scale prosperity of the era made it seem like a minor cost. And, like food stamps, the US military quietly favored Medicaid as a way to assure the health of draftees needed to win the Cold War.
Against such imperatives and in the absence of clear and definitive prohibitions in the Constitution, arguments based on inferences and original intent were and are unavailing. And, contrary to what you seem to believe, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are popular entitlement programs. They were adopted by Congress and continue to have wide public support.
Shout it from the rooftop and it will still be Constitutional because it is not unconstitutional until the Court says it is. Congress or a Judicial entity makes a ruling or law that we believe is unconstitutional but the court refuses to look at a lower court that says it is ok, now tell me if the rule or law is still in effect.
We can agree that a law is unconstitutional like every Gun Law but they are still the law and because the Court has the authority it will remain the law and under the Constitution it is Constitutional for the Court to be wrong and make stupid decisions, like ruling that CO2 is a contaminent.
I remember hearing mention of “medical care for the aged” being debated in congress, at a time when I was young enough to have little interest in the news. Never thought I’d end up old!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.