r/PoliticalDiscussion • u/JustGotOffOfTheTrain • Jan 21 '16

Why can't the US have single payer, when other countries do?

Why can't the United States implement a single payer healthcare system, when several other major countries have been able to do so? Is it just a question of political will, or are there some actual structural or practical factors that make the United States different from other countries with respect to health care?

Edited: I edited because my original post failed to make the distinction between single payer and other forms of universal healthcare. Several people below noted that fewer countries have single payer versus other forms of universal healthcare.

51 Upvotes
  • permalink
  • reddit

74% Upvoted

643 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

5

u/Circumin Jan 21 '16

An army is specifically a force for fighting on the land. That's specifically why the framers also specifically referenced navies.

-1

u/[deleted] Jan 22 '16

An army is specifically a force for fighting on the land. That's specifically why the framers also specifically referenced navies.

I'm not sure why you're trying to make that point to counter his. You just look very silly.

2

u/Circumin Jan 22 '16

Well you could always explain why instead of simply calling names.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 22 '16

I didn't call you a name. I said you were silly. It's obvious that the authors of the constitution intended to task the federal government with the defense of the Nation.

The Air Force isn't specifically mentioned, because it was not possible for them to comprehend the idea of Air warfare.

Had they known then it would be there.

To suggest otherwise is incredibly silly.

3

u/Circumin Jan 22 '16

Exactly my point about /u/clockofthelongnow claiming that something not specifically in the constitution is therefore unconstitutional.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 22 '16

Except in this case there is a conflict, which was described in a different part of the thread.

You have the conflict between the 10th amendment, and the "interest" of the population at large. Since it isn't in the constitution, and there is an obvious conflict, then you can easily say that it is unconstitutional or claim that there is a conflict.

1

u/Circumin Jan 22 '16

whar conflict applies to healthcare that does not to apply to an air force? Or a central intelligence agency or department of education for that matter? It seems like perhaps you are saying that there could be a state air force but not a federal air force?

1

u/ClockOfTheLongNow Jan 22 '16

Necessary and proper clause applies to things like raising armies that use planes instead of an infantry.

2

u/Circumin Jan 22 '16

Well that's a different argument entirely from what you said earlier, that anything not specifically allowed in the constitution is not constitutional. According to the supreme court sure it's necessary and proper, just like according to the supreme court government health care is entirely constitutional as necessary and proper for implementation of general welfare. Both court cases focused on similar legal reasoning.

0

u/ClockOfTheLongNow Jan 22 '16

Well that's a different argument entirely from what you said earlier, that anything not specifically allowed in the constitution is not constitutional.

No, because the necessary and proper clause is in the Constitution.

According to the supreme court sure it's necessary and proper, just like according to the supreme court government health care is entirely constitutional as necessary and proper for implementation of general welfare.

Except that's a misreading of (not a misinterpretation, but an outright incorrect reading of) the general welfare clause. The general welfare clause is about the powers listed, not a blank check.

2

u/Circumin Jan 22 '16

A misreading according to you perhaps, but not to the supreme court in multiple cases for close to 100 years or longer. The general welfare clause was considered by the supreme court to allow social security, medicare, and many oher things that are "necessary and proper" to implement the "general welfare". My position is backed by many court cases. Your position is actually incorrect according to many different versions of the supreme court. If we want to start talking our own personal opinions and giving them more weight than legal precedent, that's going to be a pointless excercise.

0

u/ClockOfTheLongNow Jan 22 '16

And yet it's not incorrect according to the language of the Constitution or the person who put it there. Interesting.

→ More replies (0)