IT'S TIME FOR UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE

Miller wrote:

Get a new copy.

Then what article, section, clause or paragraph mentions healthcare?

0 Replies

Have to read this important info for yourself. Otherwise, it won't be appreciated.

0 Replies

Miller wrote:

Have to read this important info for yourself. Otherwise, it won't be appreciated.

Here is the US Constitution.
I will give you $500 right now if you can find the word "healthcare" ANYWHERE in that document.

I will give you $1000 right now if you find it anywhere in the Bill of Rights.

0 Replies

Miller wrote:

Have to read this important info for yourself. Otherwise, it won't be appreciated.

Here is the US Constitution.

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A2Sec2

I will give you $500 right now if you can find the word "healthcare" ANYWHERE in that document.

I will give you $1000 right now if you find it anywhere in the Bill of Rights.

0 Replies

Some documents are too spacial for people to understand.

The Constitution of the United States of America
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

We must now listen to the song and dance why this does not include universal health care.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Some documents are too spacial for people to understand.

The Constitution of the United States of America
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

We must now listen to the song and dance why this does not include universal health care.

So, you claim "general welfare" means healthcare?

Then I say it also means that everyone gets a new car, a new house, a job that pays a minimum of $150,000 per year, govt paid 2 weeks vacation every year, free groceries, free cable and internet in every home, govt paid moving to a warmer climate, etc.

After all, those are all things that will "promote the general welfare".
Are you willing to provide all of that and more?
If you say no to even one thing, then you also dont believe that healthcare is included.

BTW, where are the specific words "healthcare' anywhere in the Constitution?
That was the bet!!!

0 Replies

Something else that should be mentioned, since when does "promote" mean "provide?" I think a few people need to learn a few word definitions.

0 Replies

Where does the Constitution say anything about "providing" free education?

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Where does the Constitution say anything about "providing" free education?

It doesnt, so a "free education" should not be provided.
But once again you dodge the question.
Where in the US Constitution are the words "health care" ever mentioned?
And name one REPUTABLE Constitutional scholar that has ever claimed that "promote the general welfare" means provide free healthcare?

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:
Where does the Constitution say anything about "providing" free education?

It doesnt, so a "free education" should not be provided.
But once again you dodge the question.
Where in the US Constitution are the words "health care" ever mentioned?
And name one REPUTABLE Constitutional scholar that has ever claimed that "promote the general welfare" means provide free healthcare?

Come on now.

PROMOTE and TAXPAYER SUBSIDY mean the same thing to Socialists.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Where does the Constitution say anything about "providing" free education?

ci,
your ability to understand the Constitution is as bad as your ability to predict the future...

Quote:

by cicerone imposter on Sun Nov 28, 2004 5:38 pm

Without having read the link you provided, I can say with some confidence that Krispy Kreme is headed for bankruptcy within the year

What happened?
Why are they still around?

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Where does the Constitution say anything about "providing" free education?

A rare time we agree. I think public education is vastly over rated and needs to be at least major reformed, or scrapped. At least we need the ability to go to private schools without throwing our money down a rat hole. If you want to, fine, you can go ahead if you want, but I would rather support schools that actually do a good job of education.

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:
Where does the Constitution say anything about "providing" free education?

It doesnt, so a "free education" should not be provided.
But once again you dodge the question.
Where in the US Constitution are the words "health care" ever mentioned?
And name one REPUTABLE Constitutional scholar that has ever claimed that "promote the general welfare" means provide free healthcare?

Control yourself Mysteryman. Do you really want to go down this road? Do you seriously want to start nitpicking specific wording of the consititution? There is a spirit of the law, and that's not some poetic phrase.

CIs question about public education is directly relavant. The consitution also lacks any definition of a virtual space such as the internet. Does that mean that the web is out of jurisdiction?

Find words like...

wiretapping
nuclear
homosexuality

in the constitution for me.

So just make your point. Are you trying to say that the government cant give universal health care?

What type of backwards country do I live in when agents can enter my house without me being there and search through my belongings, but can't have the power to provide it's citizens health care?

Where do your interests lye?

T
K
O

0 Replies

okie wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:
Where does the Constitution say anything about "providing" free education?

A rare time we agree. I think public education is vastly over rated and needs to be at least major reformed, or scrapped. At least we need the ability to go to private schools without throwing our money down a rat hole. If you want to, fine, you can go ahead if you want, but I would rather support schools that actually do a good job of education.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

This kind of statement is on par with "If you don't like the crime in the ghetto, just move."

Saying that the schools that are struggling should get less money, is plain stupid. If you really believe this, then I'm sure you support the idea of helping bus students from the schools that aren't doing well to the schools that are doing well.

I'm tickled pink with the idea of the PTA WASPs talking about how there school is threatened, but too affraid to confess their fears of the daughter dating a brown kid.

T
K
O

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

So, you claim "general welfare" means healthcare?

Then I say it also means that everyone gets a new car, a new house, a job that pays a minimum of $150,000 per year, govt paid 2 weeks vacation every year, free groceries, free cable and internet in every home, govt paid moving to a warmer climate, etc.

After all, those are all things that will "promote the general welfare"

Not in the original understanding of the term "general welfare of the United States".

The first edition of Noah Webster's American Dictionary of the English Language, published 1828, has two definitions of "welfare". One applies to individuals, the other to states. For states, Webster defines "welfare" as "exemption from any unusual evil or calamity; enjoyment of peace and prosperity, or the ordinary blessings of society and civil government." (For sources, Google "general welfare, Webster.")

I claim that universal healthcare today is "an ordinary blessing of society and civil government." That's because almost every society comparable to America's has a universal health care system administered by its civil government. That makes universal helathcare "ordinary". Indeed, the US is out of the ordinary in not having one.

By contrast, there currently is no civil society in which "everyone gets a new car, a new house, a job that pays a minimum of $150,000 per year, govt paid 2 weeks vacation every year, free groceries, free cable and internet in every home, govt paid moving to a warmer climate, etc." These things are not "ordinary blessings of society and civil government". One can speculate that they might become that in the future with the state of technology far enough advanced. But however exciting such speculations may be, today your list does not contain "ordinary blessings of society and civil government." Consequently, they don't fall under the general welfare clause, according to Webster's 1828 definition of "welfare".

The conclusion is clear: Universal healthcare is covered by Congress's power under Article 1, section 8: "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States", Your list, on the other hand, does not fall under this clause. Your reductio ad absurdum has failed.

0 Replies

it would be interesting to know what mm's understanding of GENERAL WELFARE is .
would he agree that such understanding might change over time ?

speaking of INSURANCE , we pretty well take it for granted today that municipalities provide universal fire-fighting services financed through means of taxation for the good of the citizens .
it seems to me that is a type of general welfare not specifically mentioned in the constituion .
going back less than 200 years (in german history) , there were no universal fire-fighting services provided by the municipalities .
those serices were established by the fire-insurance companies .
they established fire-fighting services only for those properties insured with them !
houses that were insured had a marker installed so that when the firefighters were called out , they would know which house was insured and entitled to be saved .
i imagine that today we would find it ridiculous to handle fire-fighting services that way .
what society has decided is that it is best to prevent and fight all fires , and that we all pay some taxes for fire-fighting services whether we need them or not .

might the same be said about healthcare ? or are buildings and structures more important than people ?
hbg

0 Replies

You people fail to realize that MM is a noted constitutional scholar. He recently decreed that, according to the language of the constitution, no one in the administration is guilty of treason in the Plame scandal.

Regarding the subject at hand:

"We share a common goal: making health care more affordable and accessible for all Americans. The best way to achieve that goal is by expanding consumer choice, not government control."
-- President Bush, 1/28/08

VERSUS

"[N]early two-thirds (64%) [of the American public] say there is not enough regulation when it comes to limiting the price of prescription drugs."
-- USA Today/Kaiser Family Foundation/Harvard School of Public Health poll, March 2008

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

You people fail to realize that MM is a noted constitutional scholar. .....

The federal judge who (in apparent agreement with MM) threw out Ms. Plame's civil suit against VP Cheney was another "noted constitutional scholar", in your opinion? If not, what business does he have in the federal bench??

0 Replies

High Seas wrote:

Advocate wrote:
You people fail to realize that MM is a noted constitutional scholar. .....

The federal judge who (in apparent agreement with MM) threw out Ms. Plame's civil suit against VP Cheney was another "noted constitutional scholar", in your opinion? If not, what business does he have in the federal bench??

Did the judge through out the civil case on constitutional grounds? If so, that would be interesting.

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

High Seas wrote:
Advocate wrote:
You people fail to realize that MM is a noted constitutional scholar. .....

The federal judge who (in apparent agreement with MM) threw out Ms. Plame's civil suit against VP Cheney was another "noted constitutional scholar", in your opinion? If not, what business does he have in the federal bench??

Did the judge through out the civil case on constitutional grounds? If so, that would be interesting.

The detailed grounds of the decision are something I must look up.... by tomorrow, unless you can find it sooner.

0 Replies

IT'S TIME FOR UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know