[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Resorting to ad hominem attacks already? Of course I've read it.
You really need to bone up on your terminology. See, if I had stopped
there it would be ad hominem. However I didn't stop there. That wasn't an
argument, that was an expression of disbelief.
> But you know as well as I know that there's more than one
> interpretation of section 8 powers, and of the framers' intent. For
> example:
Er, I think it was pretty clear.
"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and
Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general
Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be
uniform throughout the United States;"
I don't see "general welfare of the people" up there. I see of the United
States.
> authorized ends. (http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj16n1-11.html)
Ironic that you would use CATO as a cite. I am almost certain that you're
getting it wrong. I mean do you honestly think a libertarian think tank would
put forth an argument for further government control into individuals lives?
In case you do let's look at the the subject in question...
From http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6243:
"Proposals for achieving universal health insurance coverage are once again
receiving serious attention. Among the ideas attracting bipartisan support is
an individual health insurance mandate, a legal requirement that every
American obtain adequate private health insurance coverage. People who don't
receive such coverage through their employer or some other group would be
required to purchase their own individual coverage. Those who failed to do so
would be subject to fines or other penalties.
Proposals for an individual mandate respond to a legitimate concern about
"free riders," the uninsured who nonetheless receive treatment and pass the
costs on to taxpayers or individuals with insurance. In practice, however, an
individual mandate is likely to be unenforceable because it would involve a
costly and complex bureaucratic system of tracking, penalties, and subsidies.
More important, an individual mandate crosses an important line: accepting the
principle that it is the government's responsibility to ensure that every
American has health insurance. In doing so, it opens the door to widespread
regulation of the health care industry and political interference in personal
health care decisions. The result will be a slow but steady spiral downward
toward a government-run national health care system."
From http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3627:
"Almost everyone agrees that the U.S. health care system is in dire need of
reform. But there are differing opinions on what kind of reform would be best.
Some on the political left would like to see us copy one of the government-run
"single-payer" systems that exist in Western Europe, Canada, and New Zealand,
among other places. Proponents of socialized medicine point to other countries
as examples of health care systems that are superior to our own. They insist
that government will make health care available on the basis of need rather
than ability to pay. The rich and poor will have equal access to care. And
more serious medical needs will be given priority over less serious needs.
Unfortunately, those promises have not been borne out by decades of studies
and statistics from nations with single-payer health care. Reports from those
governments contradict many of the common misperceptions held by supporters of
national health insurance in the United States. Wherever national health
insurance has been tried, rationing by waiting is pervasive, putting patients
at risk and keeping them in pain. Single-payer systems tend to leave rationing
choices up to local bureaucracies that, for example, fill hospital beds with
chronic patients, while acute patients wait for care. Access to health care in
single-payer systems is far from equitable; in fact, it often correlates with
income—with rich and well-connected citizens jumping the queue for treatment.
Democratic political pressures (i.e., the need for votes) dictate the
redistribution of health care dollars from the few to the many. In particular,
the elderly, racial minorities, and those in rural areas are discriminated
against when it comes to expensive treatments. And patients in countries with
national health insurance usually have less access to critical medical
procedures, modern medical technology, and lifesaving drugs than patients in
the United States.
Far from being accidental byproducts of government-run health care systems
that could be solved with the right reforms, these are the natural and
inevitable consequences of placing the market for health care under the
control of politicians. The best remedy for all countries' health care crises
is not increasing government power, but increasing patient power instead."
More articles:
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=5871
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa184.html
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=5107
Oh, and here it is, the very next paragraph, emphasis mine:
"If that sounds recursive, it is intended to be. Sorenson maintains that the
general ends or objects of the Constitution, as specified in the Preamble,
define the purposes of the enumerated powers qua powers; but the enumerated
powers, in their end-defining dimension, provide more specific meaning to the
general purposes. Sorenson concludes that the purpose of the enumeration is to
define the limited number of objects or purposes that fall within the idea of
the general terms. thus, a proposed new power must promote an object already
authorized; that is, the new power must be derived from a general term, which
means that *it must also have an immediate and appropriate relation to an
already enumerated power.*"
Must also have an immediate and appropriate relation to an already
enumerated power. I'm just got seeing the connection of national health care
as falling under the "general welfare of the United States". Not the people
of the nation, the nation itself. CATO doesn't seem to see it, either, given
the numerous articles they have published against nationalized health care.
--
Steve C. Lamb | But who decides what they dream?
PGP Key: 8B6E99C5 | And dream I do...
-------------------------------+---------------------------------------------
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
