Article 1 Section 8 does not enumerate Congress with the power to provide healthcare, so Medicaid should onoy be a state level program.
I know removing it harms those at the low end of the income spectrum, and that is a bummer, but I really would prefer Congress ammend the Constitution instead of just passing laws of which they have no authority to pass.
Well according to the unitary executive theory the US president has complete authority over all government actions and congress is only able to give legitimacy to the president's actions. Under this regime the president would be allowed to stop the execution of any law passed by congress.
I think this is insane and a complete destruction of the balance of power written in the constitution that congress can't enact enforceable laws but only "suggestions" for the president
> UET is a constitutional law theory that gives the President sole authority over the executive branch.
I think UET applies only to the Executive branch, which to me makes sense as he is the head of the Executive branch.
It would seem a violation of checks and balances for Congress to be able to install unfirable persons in the Executive. The checks and balances come from Congress's subpoena and investigatory powers, which can ultimately result in impeachment and removal of office of the President if he is derelict in his duties of executing the laws set forth by Congress.
Though I would agree that UET would violate the balance of the Constitution if it applied outside the Executive branch.
That is... bonkers. At the risk of feeding a troll, I find it difficult to take the argument that voluntary contributions to public health through charity is more "moral", which in the case of health care I would argue is equivalent to "effective", than a system implemented by an organization with enormous power (the government) which at least theoretically has a direct duty to its stake holders (voters), who in turn have the power to enact change in that system if it's not serving them? (by voting)
They just kind of have to give up their power and hope?
Buddy, one cursory glance at history will show that hoping gets you nowhere.
I assure you I'm no troll. I think difference in our perspectives is that I form the basis of my "moral" at the individual vs. the collective.
"Moral" for me means that individuals are empowered to own their private property and should only need to sacrifice it to society for public goods, where I take the economic definition of a private good: nonrivalous and nonexcludable.
Forcing all persons to pay taxes to cover healthcare for only a subset of the population is, to me, akin to forcing all your friends to give to the charity you like because you like that charity and want it to be able to do more, where that more is a level of spending above what you can or are willing to provide.
Economically, this creates deadweight loss: people's individual preferences are violated because they are forced to spend money for something of which they receive no benefit, or at least the direct/indirect utility occupies a lower utility than the opportunity cost of those specific taxes.
I'm not saying that such a policy won't result in undue death. But since I use the individual as the basis for morality, I consider it more moral to have some death than it is to steal from others to prevent it.
