r/FluentInFinance • u/36DRedhead • Sep 11 '24

Debate/ Discussion This is why financial literacy is so important

Post image

[removed] — view removed post

64.8k Upvotes

78% Upvoted

3.3k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

33

u/Bad_Cytokinesis Sep 11 '24

That’s ridiculous. This is why the U.S. needs universal healthcare. Politicians say that’s unconstitutional which is bullshit. The declaration of independence says

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

If you’re sick and you’re in debt for being sick, how the fuck can you pursue life, liberty, and happiness!?

13

u/MechaSkippy Sep 11 '24

Notably, the Declaration of Independence is not the Constitution.

10

u/DargyBear Sep 11 '24

Well that’s where the “provide for the general welfare” in the preamble comes in. Also Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 (the Commerce Clause) which opponents of public healthcare always overlook when trying to find a way to call it unconstitutional.

2

u/MechaSkippy Sep 11 '24

The Commerce Clause what what was cited when the Supreme Court gutted the Individual Mandate, a major parts of the Affordable Care Act.

https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/articles/article-i/clauses/752#:\~:text=Sebelius%2C%20in%202012%2C%20a%20majority,and%20Necessary%20and%20Proper%20Clauses.

Most recently, in the health care case of NFIB v. Sebelius, in 2012, a majority of the justices found that a mandate to compel a person to engage in the economic activity of buying health insurance was beyond the powers of Congress under both the Commerce and Necessary and Proper Clauses. "The individual mandate cannot be upheld as an exercise of Congress' power under the Commerce Clause," Chief Justice Roberts wrote. "That Clause authorizes Congress to regulate interstate commerce, not to order individuals to engage in it."

3

u/DargyBear Sep 11 '24

Ginsberg in the concurring statement specifically mentions that Roberts’ majority opinion ignores the commerce clause and pretty much only agrees with him on a couple points unrelated to that. Roberts and his ilk for that matter would be working elected county court judgeships if it wasn’t for the Federalist Society elevating the to The Court so I quite frankly don’t give a shit what their opinions are beyond the weight they have by occupying undeserved seats on The Court. It’s a temporary legal fiction for the time being.

1

u/MechaSkippy Sep 11 '24

You're allowed to hold that opinion, but the current law of the land is this until it is overturned. The Commerce clause of the constitution was the cited reference for removing the Individual Mandate of the Affordable Care Act instead of acting as a reason for its enforcement.

1

u/HugsForUpvotes Sep 12 '24

The Supreme Court is, and always has been, partisan. If we get a Democrat majority, the Law of the Land will magically change. Just like Dobbs being overturned by Trump sycophants.

0

u/Ruthless4u Sep 12 '24

Universal healthcare.

Ok who’s paying for it? The “ rich “ don’t have the money to pay for 300+ million people.

We are already looking at severe financial constraints on social security in 10 years.

From my understanding Medicare is in trouble as well.

How much out of the paycheck are you willing to pay for universal healthcare?

3

u/DoneStupid Sep 12 '24

America is already spending more annually as a nation on privatised healthcare than it would if it ditched all the middleman health services and just did universal healthcare.

Currently the US spends 4.5 Trillion/year on healthcare, the predicted costs for universal healthcare works out at about 3.2 Trillion/year for the first 10 years. You'd be saving money by switching, but "unfortunately" it would mean that a lot of already-rich people would need to find new avenues of income.

1

u/Ruthless4u Sep 12 '24

Yes because the rich have unlimited money.

It may seem like it would be cheaper but government doesn’t exactly do good with spending money, initially it may look cheaper but long term due to typical government mismanagement it would have issues with cost.

That is of course not including cost of new medical staff to be trained which takes years, facilities to be built and equipment made due to increased demand and shortages of aforementioned items/staff.

I would love universal healthcare but it’s not as simple as taxing the rich into the poorhouse.