We all, or most of us can agree that the Constitution of the United States has served us pretty well over the centuries. But like everything else in the universe, it is becoming obsolete. Face it folks. Nothing last forever.
If we are to survive, we must seriously consider massive changes in our economic systems and how we are to govern ourselves.
A good friend of mine put forth the question: Is healthcare for everyone Constitutional? I could only reply that I am not a scholar on the Constitution but I do know that denying a human being healthcare because they don't have money is just wrong.
To survive the future, humankind will have to govern themselves in a way that is more cooperative and less competitive. Resources, food, energy, healthcare,education should be made available to all and not to those with money alone.
F. Doug Craig
* * *
Before you decide we should throw out our Constitution and become more like North Korea, I think you should look up the difference between healthcare and health insurance.
* * *
The constitution is not obsolete. The interpretation of the constitution is constantly changing. What was constitutional 25 years ago may not be today. That is how it changes to keep up with the evolving standards of living that we experience.
In fact, nobody goes without medical necessities now. Just pop into any emergency room in town and you will see dozens of folks who don't have insurance being treated to the most expensive medical treatment in town for free. Is that constitutional? Absolutely not. But it is mandated by the federal government.
What is not constitutional if for the federal government to force citizens to choose health insurance over food and clothing. A lot of people seem to think Obamacare is free insurance for everybody. The opposite is true. By forcing Walmart employees to buy insurance, their standard of living will decline, they will have less disposable income. If you have a good job, great insurance, it will soon cost you more. Your company has to cover dependents to age 26. Is that constitutional? Too bad, even if you don't have kids, your insurance will go up as a result of freeloading 26-year-olds.
So the question before the court is: Does the constitution give the federal the government the authority to require citizens, under threat of imprisonment, to send money to Blue Cross, Cigna or companies such as these?
I don't think the constitution allows it. However, the constitution is in place as it has been for a dozen generations, and hopefully will for a dozen generations to come. It exists so that no single entity can impose upon the citizens of this country infringements on the rights of the individual over the rights of the government.
The constitution is a guidepost for what the role of the federal government should be in the lives of every citizen of this country. It has been amended, battered and abused, but it still plays a vital part in our system of government. Long live the constitution.
* * *
I looked up the difference between healthcare and health insurance. It doesn't have anything to do with North Korea. In fact, bringing up North Korea in any discussion of healthcare is puzzling at best, dumb at worst.
I know one thing, as long as you are offered health insurance by companies whose first order of business is to make a profit and whose second order of business is to deny you care and whose third order of business is to do your doctor's job, you are probably not getting the best bang for your buck.
Everybody has healthcare? It's called the emergency room? Really? Ignorant excuses like these are almost always said by someone that has great healthcare, not by someone without it.
I think we should tighten the loopholes and abuses in the welfare system and the healthcare system, but to deny those that can't afford healthcare is truly a shame. To not have some level of basic healthcare for everybody, regardless of their station in life, is not something to be proud of, in my opinion.
To say, "go to the emergency room" is akin to the coach saying, "shake it off, rub some dirt on it."
Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? How can you do two out of those three if you have no healthcare, get sick and die?
* * *
I find it ironic that in his short piece, Mr. Craig both acknowledges he is no scholar on the Constitution, yet still feels confident enough to call it obsolete. This sort of thinking, or general lack thereof, is dangerous for our great nation.
* * *
I am amazed that some think that health care is a right and if so then the Constitution should just be set aside. If health care is a right why do we not just start giving everyone a house, a car, and food, wait Obama is already starting that.
The real problem is not health care but the fact that the law forces all of us to buy something we don’t want. If we do not buy it then Obama will fine you. That is why he is hiring so many new IRS agents to make sure you have health care. You should ask how an IRS agent will help you get insurance coverage. They will not, they will just take your tax return or take it from your checking account. This has nothing to do with health care, it is to take away our freedom of choice and put govt in charge of everything in our lives. If we give them this power, they will tell us what kind of car to buy (anyone for those electric cars that cost too much and don't work), the food we should eat (again Michelle is already doing that also), and how much we can make.
This will make the Constitution obsolete because individual freedom will end and government will be in charge. Obama believes that the law (Constitution) is below him and government knows best for all of us little people.
The major problem for me though is not that the Constitution cannot be changed because we have done it many times. Presdent Obama though is following the law to change the law; he is just trying to make his own law. This has nothing to do with helping people because the government does not improve our situation, just look at Social Security or Medicare, and they end up spending more than it is projected. Already ObamaCare will cost double what he told us and we will not be able to choose our doctors. This is based on lies and there is no reason to support it. We need less government, not more.
* * *
You know what else is unconstitutional? The Air Force. No where in the whole document does it state explicitly that the federal government has the right to fund and maintain an Air Force. It mentions an army and a navy but not an Air Force. Maybe we should get rid of that too.
* * *
I would just like to point out that the men who wrote the Constitution understood what it meant to be under the thumb of big government. This important document was written in order to protect us from the government. Our founding fathers gave a great deal of thought into protecting our freedoms from the government.
If we throw out the Constitution, we also throw out our liberties. These famous men were willing to obtain their basic needs without the help of the government in order to have liberty. They wanted the government out of their personal lives. They believed that they could run their own lives best without the government hampering their efforts.
Remember, “Give me liberty or give me death”? That’s a powerful statement when you think about it.