The Massachusetts plan thus violates the individual’s right to spend his own money according to his best judgment for his own benefit.
Unfortunately, that “right” isn’t actually anywhere in American Constitutional law. Would that it were. The closest we get is “unlawful takings.”
Of course there’s always the 10th Amendment, but who ever got that one enforced? No one I know.
Actually, Brock, mandatory health coverage turns health care into “from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs”. So, as long as we’re not in a communist or socialist society, the individual DOES have the right to spend their own money according to their own best judgement.
John B.,
Where in the Constitution does it say this isn’t (a can’t be) a Communist country?
These patients all have “coverage,” but that’s not the same as actual medical care.
That sentence summarizes neatly the fallacy of the current “health care” debate. Health care and health insurance are not the same thing. Health insurance is how most people pay for health care. For most of America, the problem isn’t with the health care* people receive but with paying for it.
If we expected the same kind of comprehensive coverage for our car insurance as we want for health insurance, people couldn’t afford it either. No reasonable person would expect car insurance to cover oil changes, gas purchases, and other routine maintenance like tire changes but people demand that just about every imaginable health care cost gets covered by insurance. It’s crazy.
*There are large parts of America – especially rural and poor regions – where health care isn’t easily available. This is a separate issue from the “health care” debate. Unless we’re going to start forcing health care professionals to move to these areas, we’re always going to have problems providing care to the people who live there.
“Unless we’re going to start forcing health care professionals to move to these areas, we’re always going to have problems providing care to the people who live there.”
Please, larry, don’t give Il Dufe any more ideas..
.
There are already programs that “reward” doctors who are willing to practice in remote and rural regions by subsidizing part of their salary. Although I wouldn’t put it past someone to start to change that to a mandatory “service learning” portion of medical school…
Unfortunately, that “right” isn’t actually anywhere in American Constitutional law. Would that it were. The closest we get is “unlawful takings.”
Of course there’s always the 10th Amendment, but who ever got that one enforced? No one I know.
With the powerful analytic tool of hindsight, one could certainly make the case that the framers should have enumerated every possible natural right they could think of to secure them as convetional rights in that document. However, given they were living in an age before proper IT, I cannot excoriate them for their brevity. The 10th was clearly an attempt to bound the inevitable problem — it’s not their fault their descendents failed set theory.
Unfortunately, that “right” isn’t actually anywhere in American Constitutional law. Would that it were.
Madison thought it silly and pointless to write individual rights against the will of the majority (including the Bill of Rights) into the Constitution. His point of view was that if the enlightened self-interest of the majority wasn’t enough to convince it to limit its assertions of authority over the individual — after all, we are all always individuals, but only sometimes members of the majority — then no mere elegant prose on parchment could substitute for it.
Or to put it another way, he felt that if the time ever came that the majority needed words in the Constitution to remind it not to trade liberty for fatuous promises of security, the Republic was doomed already.
Or to put it another way, he felt that if the time ever came that the majority needed words in the Constitution to remind it not to trade liberty for fatuous promises of security, the Republic was doomed already.
Idiot.
Truthfully, Madison is probably my favorite FF. But he got this one wrong. Quite often the public (and it’s elected Representatives) only see the moment and forget the long term view. The Enumerated Rights have proven to be both effective and necessary bulwarks against short-term thinking.
We would be greatly served by explicit protections of our ability to enter into contracts and dispose of our property as we see fit.
Other times I feel though that Madison is ultimately right – some people just refuse to learn, and what we really need is better entry & exit in the market for political arrangements. Voting with the feet as the ultimate protest. But for that to happen the US Constitution would have to be stripped of most of its powers, so that the States would have more room to innovate. Let Massachusetts have its socialism as long as I can move to Texas.
I believe the founders would have said that your money is your property and therefore you spend it how you wish. To do otherwise means it isn’t really your money. Property is, indeed, a very important part of the constitution.
But go ahead and tell me how the founding fathers thought overwhelming taxes were okay. 😉
“Unfortunately, that “right” isn’t actually anywhere in American Constitutional law. Would that it were.”
Second Amendment.
A little aside… Is the Class Act which regards long term care going to replace long term care insurance?
Unfortunately, that “right” isn’t actually anywhere in American Constitutional law. Would that it were. The closest we get is “unlawful takings.”
Of course there’s always the 10th Amendment, but who ever got that one enforced? No one I know.
Actually, Brock, mandatory health coverage turns health care into “from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs”. So, as long as we’re not in a communist or socialist society, the individual DOES have the right to spend their own money according to their own best judgement.
John B.,
Where in the Constitution does it say this isn’t (a can’t be) a Communist country?
These patients all have “coverage,” but that’s not the same as actual medical care.
That sentence summarizes neatly the fallacy of the current “health care” debate. Health care and health insurance are not the same thing. Health insurance is how most people pay for health care. For most of America, the problem isn’t with the health care* people receive but with paying for it.
If we expected the same kind of comprehensive coverage for our car insurance as we want for health insurance, people couldn’t afford it either. No reasonable person would expect car insurance to cover oil changes, gas purchases, and other routine maintenance like tire changes but people demand that just about every imaginable health care cost gets covered by insurance. It’s crazy.
*There are large parts of America – especially rural and poor regions – where health care isn’t easily available. This is a separate issue from the “health care” debate. Unless we’re going to start forcing health care professionals to move to these areas, we’re always going to have problems providing care to the people who live there.
“Unless we’re going to start forcing health care professionals to move to these areas, we’re always going to have problems providing care to the people who live there.”
Please, larry, don’t give Il Dufe any more ideas..
.
There are already programs that “reward” doctors who are willing to practice in remote and rural regions by subsidizing part of their salary. Although I wouldn’t put it past someone to start to change that to a mandatory “service learning” portion of medical school…
Unfortunately, that “right” isn’t actually anywhere in American Constitutional law. Would that it were. The closest we get is “unlawful takings.”
Of course there’s always the 10th Amendment, but who ever got that one enforced? No one I know.
With the powerful analytic tool of hindsight, one could certainly make the case that the framers should have enumerated every possible natural right they could think of to secure them as convetional rights in that document. However, given they were living in an age before proper IT, I cannot excoriate them for their brevity. The 10th was clearly an attempt to bound the inevitable problem — it’s not their fault their descendents failed set theory.
Unfortunately, that “right” isn’t actually anywhere in American Constitutional law. Would that it were.
Madison thought it silly and pointless to write individual rights against the will of the majority (including the Bill of Rights) into the Constitution. His point of view was that if the enlightened self-interest of the majority wasn’t enough to convince it to limit its assertions of authority over the individual — after all, we are all always individuals, but only sometimes members of the majority — then no mere elegant prose on parchment could substitute for it.
Or to put it another way, he felt that if the time ever came that the majority needed words in the Constitution to remind it not to trade liberty for fatuous promises of security, the Republic was doomed already.
Idiot.
Truthfully, Madison is probably my favorite FF. But he got this one wrong. Quite often the public (and it’s elected Representatives) only see the moment and forget the long term view. The Enumerated Rights have proven to be both effective and necessary bulwarks against short-term thinking.
We would be greatly served by explicit protections of our ability to enter into contracts and dispose of our property as we see fit.
Other times I feel though that Madison is ultimately right – some people just refuse to learn, and what we really need is better entry & exit in the market for political arrangements. Voting with the feet as the ultimate protest. But for that to happen the US Constitution would have to be stripped of most of its powers, so that the States would have more room to innovate. Let Massachusetts have its socialism as long as I can move to Texas.
I believe the founders would have said that your money is your property and therefore you spend it how you wish. To do otherwise means it isn’t really your money. Property is, indeed, a very important part of the constitution.
But go ahead and tell me how the founding fathers thought overwhelming taxes were okay. 😉
“Unfortunately, that “right” isn’t actually anywhere in American Constitutional law. Would that it were.”
Second Amendment.
A little aside… Is the Class Act which regards long term care going to replace long term care insurance?