Wouldn't a Constitutional Amendment requiring government Healthcare force Congress to solve the problem?

Answer 1

First: The US is the only industrialized nation in the world that doesn't have some form of universal healthcare. Everyone saying that is a failure everywhere else are GROSSLY misinformed. Yall getting your info from Limbaugh? It would seem so.

Second: Judging by our near or dead last place on every health indicator, despite having THE most expensive healthcare on the planet, it would seem that maybe we are the ones that are in need of changing.

Third: A constitutional ammendment is not what is necessary. A C/A really outlines specific rights as to what you have and specific things saying what the government can't do. The document is way too vague to handle something like this.

Fourth: There is no reason in the world we have to reinvent the wheel. Some of the systems these countries employ are woefully inefficient and cumbersome. Others are excellent models. Why not just copy what works, and innovate where we find room to innovate? We're Americans, we SHOULD be able to do it better and FAR less expensive than we are now, and hopefully even out do the other countries.

However, I feel that as far back as we lag behind in education and as quickly as the gap is growing, the more and more people we will turn out that are in need of this, but the fewer we will turn out who can actually relate the pros and cons of such a system depending instead upon oneliners from the press to make irrational judgements.

Answer 2

Amendments are for allowing something the US Constitution doesn't currently allow, or to ban something the Constitution currently allows; there's nothing in the Constitution to prevent universal healthcare from being implemented
Healthcare cannot be a right. Rights are those things believed to be bestowed upon humans by God, such as the right to self-destiny, freedom to worship, freedom to speak, right to vote, etc. Those things do not have a dollar price affixed to them. If you want to implement taxpayer paid healthcare, it simply requires Congressional approval, which would reflect a majority opinion of voters.

I don't think we should have universal healthcare, but I do think the government should spend much less on healthcare for the old, and much more for the young. Unfortunately, kids can't vote and old people can.

Answer 3

A national insurance program is an interesting concept. There are good examples where it worked. A constitutional Amendment can be drafted out. However, having the organization to administer the system and staffing the system would be a monster of a task. We just cannot wave a magic wan and bibadi-bobadi-boo it is done. Come to think of it, we use to have the Pony Express and eventually it grew up to be the US Postal Service. However, it became such a disgrace we ended up with UPS, FedEx and a whole bunch of private competitors. Realistically, do we want the likes of the postal worker in charge of our health care?

Answer 4

A constitutional amendment requiring government healthcare would guarantee mediocre healthcare and mean we would have 50% of the country living in poverty instead of 10%. The government already takes 27% of my salary, they would need to take between 50 and 55% and the good doctors would get out of medicine leaving mediocre doctors to take up the slack.

And now when you appeal an HMO's decision to not provide treatment you can appeal to a court. When the government decides its time for you to die who can you appeal to?

Answer 5

i agree that this country needs to do something about healthcare...i'm not sure about the details of a constitutional amendment. maybe some of our neighbors from canada could answer that since their healthcare is regulated by the government.

on a side note, something needs to be done about the massive amounts of lawsuits. lawsuits have single-handedly made healthcare costs skyrocket in the past 10-20 years.

Answer 6

There should be a law passed that every American has the same health care as members of senate and congress. That would solve a lot of the problem.

Answer 7

Since you need 2/3 of congress to pass an amendment, I don't think that this is the best way to "get around" the gridlock. Best way to get heathcare problem fixed is to elect Democrats.

Answer 8

And while the fee selection isn't balanced, who comes to a decision what to diminish? in case you could define what 'earmarks' are, it incredibly is, you could examine out the fee selection and say A is an earmark venture, and B is mandatory spending, then you definately purely could make an modification to restrict earmarks and frivolous spending. the priority with forcing a balanced cost selection, i think of, would be what gets decrease/left in and who comes to a decision.

Answer 9

Do you really think they would pass an amendment forcing them to solve a problem they really don't want to?

If they wanted to truly promote health care, we'd be seeing some serious pre-election bi-partisanship on this.

Answer 10

Not really. You would have to first get them to pass the amendment. It needs a 2/3 majority before it is sent to the states for ratification.