Doesn't healthcare for all "promote the general welfare" as prescribed by the constitution?

Question

For reasons of National Security isn't providing medical care necessary to protect the citizens of the country from plagues and pandemics?

Things like AIDS and this new "Superbug" that's being spread in our schools?

If the same amount of money is taken out of your pay as a tax that is equal to or less than what you are paying now for monthly insurance premiums so everyone can be covered for every medical procedure prescribed by a physician, what is the problem?

The government wouldn't decide what is covered doctors would.

If administrative costs were removed because of all of the various insurance policies and practices and we had a unified paper system wouldn't the cost be radically reduced?

Answer 1

At the risk of sounding like a "Liberal", yes... I would be happy to pay for both healthcare and education for ALL legal citizens of the United States.

I am paying through the nose now for NOTHING, I would rather see my tax dollars spent on “we the people” rather than; billions upon billions of taxpayer dollars disappearing into the dust of Iraq.

Answer 2

The "spending for the general welfare" clause of Article I Section 8 is the justification for Congress being able to have a universal healthcare program -- and the goal of "promoting the general welfare" in the Preamble is one of the many justifications used by proponents of that plan.

But, even having a mandatory universal health care system -- where everyone most pay into it -- doesn't guarantee that diseases won't spread -- so, national security really isn't an issue in the debate.

Personally, I object to any mandatory program by the govt -- even mandatory universal health care -- because there is nothing that requires anyone to actually use it, and if they don't use it, it's one more thing they're paying for and getting no benefit from.

Answer 3

Yes, a healthy society does promote the general welfare of that society. If some in the society cannot afford health care insurance and thus are not able to get quality health care except in dire emergency situations is not good for the society as a whole.

Sadly, there are people in America losing their savings, homes and everything they own because they lose their jobs dut to fighting some disease like cancer. How is that benificial to society? It isn't. We want everyone to have an opportunity to live the American Dream. When that dream is smashed because of a disease one cannot help getting and because they have no insurance to help cover the costs of treatment it is despicable.

Unfortunately some among us, those on the right, are so selfish and greedy that they don't care about the well being of others. They think only of themselves. This is why we need to support the Democrats and their plan for AFFORDABLE health care.

Answer 4

That’s a very weak and simplistic argument. In one place in the Constitution they use the word "provide" in relation to the general welfare (Article 1, section 8) and in the Preamble they use the word "promote." The concepts are obviously not mutually exclusive and in any case your point is unclear. The "general welfare" is about as broad a term as one can imagine being used in a constitution. It was apparently meant to be so.

Answer 5

the problem is the quality and the wait time. in england people are pulling their own teeth because drs' are either refusing the gov insurance or people cannot afford to go to a private dentist. also, why should anyone pay for someone else? if your best friend got an "F" and you got an "A" would you split your grade so that they could pass. even though they did not study. i am all for the gov helping 17 and under, the infirmed and the elderly but why can,t someone who is able take care of themselves. do you really think it is the job of the gov to take care of you on a day to day basis. and yes, the gov will control what dr's you see. why else do yopu think people from around the world come to the USA for medical treatment? to get the best care. my son likely qualifies for the s-chip program but i work and do not want the gov in my life like that. and the plague and things of that nature are different. hence the free flu shots and shots kids have to have before they start school.the gov can't run itself yet you wonder why we can't let them run healthcare.

Answer 6

No.
The "promote the generalwelfare" clause does allow the governmetnt to provide ealth care--it doesn't imply it is a requirement--or even a goood dea.

There is a legitimate role for public health agencies (which has zero to do with "national security")--but it should be in the context of a public/private partnership. Our current system is a mess and is corrupt. but simply turning it over to the govenrnment is not the best way to solve the problems

Unfortunately, that's probably what's going to happen. there are a host of alternatives--but the right has chosen to resort to political rants about "socialized medicine" instead of acknowledging that there are problems and offering concrete policy alternatives. Consequently, they've left the whole issue of what should be done to the libera.s--and while some of their ideas are good, others are not. We need real ideas from BOTH sides--and that's not happening.

Answer 7

What you're saying makes sense to me. And apparently to the other folks that answered. I would much rather that the insurance companies and the greedy doctors would be dragged away from the udder of the cash cow that they are milking dry right now.

Answer 8

You bet. Everyone pays in a certain percentage of what they earn each week, matched nby the employer, just like social security is now. It's fair and simple; national health insurance POLICY. All the other industrialized countries have it and we should too.

Answer 9

First off, administrative costs wouldn't be removed---they would just transferred to a level of governmental bureauracy.
Secondly, if there was a plague or pandemic medical care would be provided--------heck, I can already get a flu shot at the health department for $10.
Thirdly, when has the government ever imposed a tax that was equal too or less than what someone could pay to receive the same service?

Answer 10

You are wrong on every point. Your comments look like liberal rationalization to me. In the US, we have health care available to everyone. You are trying to put something in that is not in the Constitution. It is not the responsibility of government to provide health insurance. It is private enterprise.
If the US government ran health care industry, there would be no guarantee against plagues and pandemics that are greater than our present protections. When health problems come up, health care professionals treat or solve the problems.
If you have money taken out of your pay for health insurance premiums, it could mean your employer is paying for the bulk of the costs. Many employers do. Also, you are paying premiums with pre-tax dollars.
The government take over would mean no more employer subsidies and no tax deductions.
Finally, there is the matter of "loss ratio." The insurance industry uses it to compare payments to premiums. It is possible that an insurance company can pay more in benefits than it takes in, in premiums and still operate at a profit.
The US government bureaucracy will add 50% to the direct cost of health care, just to run the bureaucracy.