LBJ signed medicare into law in 1965. So i would say no, not constitutional, but law by congress.
I doubt it. The only thing that would be good is if they shut down the government, they’d shut down everything. Democrats want to shut it down. Let’s make it hurt!
Providing health care services and/or health care insurance is not listed in the Constitution as an enumerated power of the federal government. The tenth amendment states, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
So you want to take the overwhelming victory that President Trump is bringing us and turn it into a complete and utter loss??
I’m guessing that many would argue the Commerce Clause.
https://www.usconstitution.net/constitution-and-healthcare-policy/
This might help...
Most is done under Article 1; Sect. 8 ...”provide for the common Defense and General Welfare” clause
see also: https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/article-1/section-8/
It would be a massive undertaking to rid ourselves of Medicare/Medicaid and by extension, Social Security. Given SCOTUS precedents, it won’t happen. Given those programs’ 3rd rail status, I doubt any Congress will even try to eliminate them.
USSC ruled Obama care constitutional so why wouldn’t they do the same for Medicare/Medicaid?
Same as SS and any welfare. They’re gimmicks to get votes.
90% of what the fed gov does is unConstitutional
General health care should be cheap and plentiful. A visit to a health care provider shouldn’t cost $250. Licensing, insurance, regulations, and grifting cartels cause the problem. That’s Goobermint wrecking stuff.
Major health care will always be rationed, by delivery or availability, and expensive.
MAHA is the best opportunity for a healthy society in my lifetime.
Focus on maintaining health, not treating illness afterwards.
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!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
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.
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.
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.
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!