Steve,
Thank you for clarifying. I do agree that many of the rights mentioned in the first 10 amendments appear elsewhere in the Constitution, implicitly or explicitly. However, I think that clarifying such implicit statements has a use. I mean, let's look at one statement that, when analyzed from an English perspective, has an extremely straightforward meaning: the 2nd amendment:
2nd amendment said:
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Aside from the fact that it has too many commas, and the version given to the states was gramattically correct: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," this statement is quite simple: the federal government cannot infringe upon the right of people to bear arms. Ever, because doing so would prevent the security of a free state. I don't see where this is stated elsewhere in the Constitution, but I don't have the time to go back and read it again right now.
Now, where you have a point is that this simple statement has resulted in numerous debates and political maneuvering by focusing on the modifying phrase of "a well regulated militia," when all that part of the statement does is explain why the framers wrote the amendment. People are barred from owning certain types of firearms, and felons cannot obtain them in many states. This blatantly contradicts the amendment.
Now, as for the elastic clause: there has been a lot of debate over what "necessary and proper" means. Wikipedia says it better than I can:
wikipedia said:
Like many others in the Constitution, the necessary and proper clause is open to interpretation, and reasonable minds can disagree over what laws are "necessary and proper" for Congress to exercise the express powers granted to it by the Constitution. Not surprisingly then, its interpretation has been controversial, especially during the early years of the republic, and with the powers asserted under the New Deal. Strict constructionists interpret the clause to mean that Congress may make a law only if the inability to do so would cripple its ability to apply one of its enumerated powers ("foregoing powers"). Others argue that the elastic clause expands the authority of Congress to not only "carry into execution" the enumerated powers, but to get whatever result those who apply an express power might seek in doing so. It is often known as the elastic clause because of the great amount of leeway in interpretation it seems to allow; depending on the interpretation, it can be used to "stretch" or expand the powers of Congress, or allowed to "contract," limiting the implied powers of Congress by the expansion of the implied powers of other branches. It is usually held, however, that it may not be used to deprive other governmental branches of powers expressly granted to them in the Constitution.
The bottom line is that this clause has historically been used for Congress to expand its power beyond what is explicitly stated elsewhere in the Constitution. However, even the most staunch liberal could not argue reasonably (if a liberal could argue reasonably at all) that Congress can make laws that infringe upon the Bill of Rights, because the Constitution explicitly states that they can't.
Look, I personally think that the Federal government should stay out of as many things as possible. It usually messes shit up. But I do think that a single-payer health insurance system would be best for bringing down the cost and covering more people. As I said before, the best way to go about this is for the federal government to pass a law of what the insurance company must offer in terms of coverage, and then give an independent 5-year contract to the lowest bidder. If that company fucks it up, you give the contract to someone else when the term is up.
I'm not for a single-payer UHC system because I'm liberal, communist, or anything else. I'm for it because it makes much more sense and would save people much more money than the system we have now. If anyone has a better idea to cut medical costs and provide coverage to more
working people aside from "limit frivolous lawsuits" (not saying that that doesn't increase the cost, but it's only a piece of the equation), I'm all ears.
As for the economics lesson: look, there are too many inter-connected businesses here to look at a simple supply/demand curve. The current trend is that businesses are cutting healthcare benefits, which means that they're not buying them from the insurance companies. People, by and large, cannot afford coverage on their own. As this continues to occur, insurance companies will be forced to jack up their rates to keep even. You could say "well, they'll just lower their rates." Right? Well, there are these guys called doctors who are charging what they do for healthcare for various reasons. They also have to pay malpractice insurance, which keeps going up. So now you have less people buying insurance, which causes the insurance company to be stressed to meet the benefits of its customers, and you have doctors which are charging increasing costs for medicine. Oh, now we have pharmacy companies who are charging an arm and a leg for prescriptions. They're also putting commercials on TV so that you can "ask your doctor to put you on drugs." When they face some competition, Congress suddenly turns protectionist and passes a law that we can't buy foreign meds. Those insurance companies I talked about before have to cover these.
What this boils down to is that insurance companies will have to jack their rates to break even. Even as demand goes down, their price is dictated by what doctors, hospitals, and prescription companies charge for care. And as the cost of insurance approaches the cost of medicine, people are going to be much less inclined to buy into it. The thing is, insurance giants are investors and businessmen. They can do their business anywhere, and they'll do just that. They'll declare bankruptcy, cash out, and move onto the next profitable thing. The professionals - doctors and pharmacists, aren't trained elsewhere and can't cash out a billion dollars by declaring bankruptcy. They're going to be the ones stuck with no patients as people cannot afford their care. And then you're going to have a very angry populace who can't afford to go to the doctor, at which point the system will rectify itself somehow, either via a single-payer, UHC system or other means.
There is a very delicate balance going on with our current healthcare system. Business owners buy from insurance companies, whose rates are dictated by doctor, hospital, and prescription fees. Sometimes they have help from employees who have to pay into the plan. Hospital fees are dictated by the cost of paying the attending physicians, nurses, technicians, and the cost of real estate. Doctor's rates are dictated by the amount of training they go through, the high cost of supplies, and the high cost of malpractice insurance. Malpractice insurance is dictated by legal fees. Supply cost goes up as technology increases. Prescription fees are probably the most independent part of the equation here, but they're not going to cut their costs so long as they have people taking their meds.
A slide in any one of those parts of the equation can screw things up dramatically. It's not so simple as saying "oh, well people will always want healthcare, so it's never going to implode."
And, actually I could make an argument that the combination of those words is close to what it means.
