did the founding fathers envision gov't health care?

Question

did the framers of the constitution and founders of the american system of gov't want to make a giant superpowerful tax collecting machine that would cease the funds of the haves and redistribute them to all the have nots in north and central america for health care? why not europe? are there any europeans who have no health care? shouldnt the un cease peoples funds and redistrubute them?

i meant to spell that one word, cease, in some different way. im still not sure exactly how, but definitely not cease.

tinman. you cannot be serious. you say the founders did not rule out gov't health care but i say you are mistaken. furthermore i assert that not only gov't health care is ruled out but also anything else that is not mentioned in the in the constitution is also ruled out by exception. there would not have been enough parchment paper nor quills nor ink for them to have individually spelled out each thing that was not the gov't work, so they instead took a shorter route and simply specified everything that is the governments job.

i am not saying that large scale, collective effort, health care is wrong. i dont know if its wrong or right. I DO know that it is not the governments job to do. government should not do anything they want even if its right.

Answer 1

No.....and it is easy to research why I say that. Read the Constitution, and the Federalist papers.The Constitution clearly says what the Federal government is allowed to control, and the Federalist Papers clearly state why. The general welfare clause is referring to the government's general welfare to carry out it's enumerated powers

Answer 2

The preamble of the Constitution is a formal statement of the purpose of federal government. It includes 'provide for the general welfare'. 'Welfare' in this sense does not mean the dole, it's a wider sense meaning the 'well being' of the nation.

Our founders believed in public institution to serve needs that could not be served in other ways. Benjamin Franklin, for instance, founded the US Postal Service even though there were private postal services already existing. Franklin and Jefferson both founded state-financed universities because education was seen as being very important and the private schools were too expensive for any but the very few.

The circumstances of health care are very different today than they were in those days. Today many working people pay more for health insurance than they do for food! I don't think they would have considered a 'single payer' plan a public insurance corporation that included everyone in the same pool, to be a totally outrageous idea.

All other civilized, democratic countries follow the US, the first real democracy in the modern world. All of them but the US see some level of health care as a right of citizenship, just like police and fire protection, education, etc.

As for 'redistributing wealth', our government has been in the business of redistributing wealth for a couple of decades now, changing tax law and corporate regulations to redistribute it -upwards-.

Our founding fathers would NEVER have stood for the power of corporations today to regulate the parts of government that are supposed to be regulating -them-! In the 18th century, corporations were given charters for a finite number of years, based on promises that their operation served the public at large. They were limited in size and power, and even in what they could do! The charters were renewed every few years based on a review of the corporation's behavior, and could even be revoked if the corporation broke laws or engaged in anti-competitive behavior.

In other words, the four or five huge powerful corporations that -own- health care in the US today could not even exist in our founding fathers' time.

Answer 3

The writers of the constitution specifically set out to limit central government but not state government as the constitution allows that powers not listed to the federal government can be taken up by the states. The Founders would therefore not be opposed to individual states being involved in healthcare. Actually, most federal health programs and the federal roads programs are optional to the states and not directly imposed on the states (but who turns down money?). The way that federal programs enter particular states is varied and more complex than is represented in most discussions.
European healthcare is also not uniform and national healthcare in most nationalized systems is for basic services. Usually, it is a true two-tiered system with separate facilities for goverment funded care vs privately paid for care. Expensive services like kidney dialysis are cut off based on age -and that is not considered discrimination. All goverment run systems talk openly of rationing and limiting care as a way to keep the system available and funded.

Answer 4

"backed by making use of public money" isn't particularly the way i'd placed it. To have commonplace well being care, there must be extra taxes to assist it, for this reason all electorate and legal immigrants get it - no questions asked. Even the point of taxes interior the brkts that now exist could be raised some to account for the a number of fees - and it is worht each and every dime, beleive me. the thank you to help finance it - and do away with clinical institution and docs' visits well being ins rates - what's finished in countries that have it is declared as 'sin taxes' - booze - gasoline(the rustic has the main inexpensive gasoline fees interior the western international countries - first international countries who've stable foundations). There are a number of different products that are additionally taxed on the source that make it so the fed gvt has the money to disperse to pay for well being care. interior the long-term it would be far extra value-effective for human beings to have this, what with extensive deductibles while an high priced value comes down the pike. suggestions you - satisfied hrs would be so plenty extra high priced and we can't have that now, can we(sarcasm). What you keep on booze of each and every style, gasoline, cigarettes(while in comparison with maximum of different countries, you do no longer actually have a clue approximately - so unhappy it is a fact) is costing you lots extra effective than no longer having well being care rates to pay to ins companies and those pesky deductibles that would get loopy. needless to say, dental care and different coverages nonetheless would desire to be offered or you need to be fortunate sufficient to have the business enterprise you artwork for pay for such issues -the rates a minimum of, needless to say.

Answer 5

Clearly the government is NOT supposed to be providing health care nor meddling in its delivery. IF the Founders saw it as a function of government, it would be enumerated.

“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”--John Adams, the FATHER OF THE CONSTITUTION.

Our Founders knew that Americans would look after their own. (We are THE premier country for CHARITY, foreign and domestic, and always have been. DOCUMENTED at last by Arthur Brooks in Who Really Cares?). We are the ones who were into founding public hospitals. That's a LOCAL choice, not the feds at work. (In the early days, our STATES frequently had OFFICIAL CHURCHES as well, so state and federal powers have always been quite different until FDR rolled in and wanted to have the feds be our nanny.)

It is STILL because of charity that much of the good health care is provided in the US:

St. Judes Children's Hospital even does massive research as well as providing care

Charities too many to mention fund research and/or other hospitals and provide for medical care.

If we look at docs who ignore the idiocy of OTHERS' control we see:

LASIK is CHEAP

plastic surgery is CHEAP

http://www.simplecare.com/ reasonable rates

http://www.azcentral.com/community/gilbert/articles/0923gr-erhospital0923Z12.html
doctors (who are NOT the enemy) providing care

The free market is THE way to go. Founders honored that.

Good plan in this PDF:
http://www.booklocker.com/books/3068.html

Answer 6

You don't want the government running your health care.

The government can't take care of the important things now so how are they going to manage your health care.

More government jobs to manage it, more taxes to fund it, more people not looking for work and depending on the free hand.

This shouldn't even be a topic concerning government.

Answer 7

The founding fathers did not rule it out. If you think that Gov't health care would do what you have said you are very wrong. If done correctly everyone would have excellent health care. The trouble is that our government can't see farther than the end of their noses. With creative thinking and less party warefare there should be no problem solving all the problems with health care, social security and medicare.

Answer 8

as you obviously know, the Framers of our Constitution did not mention health care at all.

They surely had the opportunity and decided to say nothing.

That tells me that they thought the Federal government had no role in providing health care and only a limited role in ensuring safety through regulation of health care products [the "general welfare clause"].

Answer 9

Of course not. Which does not have anything to do with the present issue of whether some sort of government health plan would or would not be a good thing.

Answer 10

No... They didn't want to have a high tax burdon...That's why they came here... eventually fighting for your freedoms. I'm certain the founding fathers are rolling around in thier graves knowing what's going on now...