Should America's Constitution undergo an update for the 21st century?

SGT(P) (Join to see) - In my opinion There are a couple of threads that lead us to our current debacle on healthcare.

Prior to the Nixon administration, most people did not have healthcare insurance, and it was not the norm for employers to provide it. Then to control runaway inflation, Congress and President Nixon instituted wage and price freezes. At he same time the economy had after burners kicked in and companies were competing HARD for talented employees. Since they couldn't offer increased wages, the stared offering benefits, and health insurance became the norm. This took the consumer out of the equation. Collective buying agreements and cost sharing through insurance "collectives" meant there were large pools of money and bills got larger.

Next Congress passed a law that said any medical care provider, and medical facility, that accepted Medicare/Medicaid could no longer require proof of the ability to pay, as a prerequisite to medical care. This meant that many people received care, but never paid their bills. As an example Keno Hospital in Tucson, Arizona, one of two hospitals serving the area had to shut down. Keno had several years in a row where the medical care provided and NOT paid was in excess of $300 MILLION dollars greater than the medical care provided and paid. I do not have a credible source, but I have been told that many emergency rooms receive payment for less than 30% of the care they provide. They medical facilities make up the difference by "overcharging" 3-10 times the actual cost, to make up the shortfall.

The simple fact is that if you want to bring the costs down you only need to do three things. 1) Increase the number of medical care providers, significantly. 2) Make people pay their bills. 3) Do not allow healthcare insurance and collectivization that takes the consumer out of the cost decision. IN many cases now you have medical tourism because it is cheaper to fly to Costa Rico, Stay in a Resort, and get treated by physicians that were trained in the US, than to let insurance with deductibles and cost sharing send you to an American facility where you will be treated by healthcare providers trained in foreign medical schools.

SGT(P) (Join to see) - Their are many things beside healthcare that allow us "... to live as a free and healthy individual." and "...to live as long as we can so that we can contribute to society..." Should we guarantee a healthy diet, adequate shelter, graduate level education, an automobile, a cell phone, a computer, etc. etc. etc. It is no longer a right if you must take from one to allow another.

SGT(P) (Join to see) - The 27th Amendment applied to Congress and their pay. That's why it took from 1789 to 1992. Otherwise other amendments didn't take that long and wouldn't take that long if they were important enough.

The Amendment process is how we update it. I fail to see how we need to "update" it any further when it has been updated.

SFC Kelly Fuerhoff - One has to ask the reason for the question anyway and the underling intent. Is it to strengthen the Constitution or is it to weaken the Constitution.

You are correct with the Amendment portion. I was speaking in terms of a major revision. Your point of living in a time where "extremes are the way of the day" is spot on. With that in mind, I wouldn't be for a major revision right now if it ever came up. I was using Democracy/Democratic as an umbrella term. I should have used the specific terminology, so that's on me.

Literally any part of the constitution can be changed by amendment. Which is why you can vote for senator. Article 1 section 3 paragraph 1 was superseded by the 17th amendment which took the vote for senator away from the state legislature.

I wish that the original Constitution came with a "reboot" button - so that it could go back to the original, erasing all of the "interpretations" made by activist judges over the years.

PO2 Skip Kirkwood - You really want it to go back to the original Constitution of 10 Amendments? That's it?

If you do that then there's no Electoral College (which eh that needs revamped), slavery is legal, there's no due process, no citizen's right to vote, income tax, the way we elect Senators doesn't exist, women don't get the right to vote, no limit on the terms of the President, there would be a poll tax for voting, no amendment on what happens if the President dies or can't fulfill duties, you can't vote at 18.

Which interpretations do you wish to erase? What do you find so egregious by them, I'll assume currently, that it should be erased?

I don't know, but maybe something along the lines of making it mandatory for public service to country be it military or other. For abled bodied people that is.

SGT (Join to see) - If everyone had to serve in the military or in public service, they might have more of an appreciation for our country.

You don't need that in the Constitution to make it the law. Selective Service isn't in the Constitution - it's law.

I don't want people with me who are forced to be in the military. It's bad enough the people who volunteer.