Where in the Constitution does it say the Fed gov should provide health care.

Where in the Constitution does it say the government should provide healthcare? In the same place the Constitution says the government cannot provide healthcare.

Bottom line. If a way can be found to make it work, then it should be seriously considered. I would suggest a few test states for trials.

 

Actually, Corporate Private Insurance is fascism. People's health as a business is not supported by the left or the right in any developed nation in the world other than ours.

 

So roll the Tax Rates to what they were 40 years ago when you didn't spend for wars and put it on the USA Credit Card !

 

Go google it yourself. I'm not your servant ...

 

Partially correct. The antifederalists are also considered, as well as British common law.

My interpretation is currently the correct one, and the Supreme Court agrees.

 

Where does it say in the constitution that we can invade other nations, when they have done nothing to us?

I would imagine the General Welfare clause could be used for healthcare, for it is for the best welfare of americans to have healthcare, since we now actually have something that looks like healthcare as opposed to 1781.

The founders were flexible enough to make some things vague so as to use it for the good of americans They never thought, or perhaps they did, that our rulers would trample all over our god given rights.

 

You probably shouldn't assume. It will help you avoid looking silly.

If you have an individual plan, the federal government regulates it under the ACA. The only plans they don't is self funded employer based plans.

 

The same right to healthcare applies to each and every citizen of the United States. Only thing that needs to be negotiated is prices for the providers. This needs to start at a federal level. If a state can somehow negotiate better prices for the same service, then a special provision can be made. But the Federal government can do that too. They can negotiate better prices for skiing related injuries in Florida than they are in Colorado (just an example... don't bite my head off)

 

The general welfare clause does not grant the government unlimited power, that would contradict all of the rest of the Constitution which grants the federal government specific, limited, enumerated powers. And it would defeat the 10th amendment, the "general welfare" is sop broad, why would the creators of the Constitution have a 10th amendment reserving to the states and the people all powers not specifically enumerated in the Constitution to the federal govt?

 

What pathetic nonsense!

First of all, get your language right. "Socialism" no longer exists since all production was owned/managed by the central government. The only "socialist" state to remain is North Korea.

Europe has evolved into Social Democracies, the definition of which is:

Just because some public services, such as healthcare and education, are run by governments so as to assure that the largest part of the population benefits from them at the lowest possible cost does not make those governments "socialist" ...

 

Exactly right AND now we have the liar extraordinaire-in-chief signing whatever piece of crap paper the corporate owned GOP sticks in his face. As if the nation was not becoming corporate ruled enough as it is. The Democrats in office are a bunch of wussies to put up with the **** that the radicalized GOP dishes out. The current GOP needs to be treated like the homegrown terrorist organization that they are. Any group that holds the healthcare of people in their hands and plays this type of political pay to play game, deserves to be the ones that reach their own expiration dates sooner than later.

 

True however it doesn't say the member States can't have a Federal level program the idea is they are morally and by treaty supposed to try some do it better and differently than others in our nation we have various programs which is how we do this, in some countries they have a single national approach and others such as Switzerland use private insurance providers who must set the same price for everyone for the government set benefits. They are forbidden from making a profit in this BASIC PACKAGE but can on additional benefits to these. In some the countries are too poor to do much then the UN is I suppose obligated to offer aid as far as they can.

But I would say for a capitalist democracy we are doing okay in these obligations the ACA loss wouldn't do that much most people has health care from some option workplace insurance, Medicaid, Medicare and well some will fall through the cracks.

I'm just saying there is an obligation, at the Treaty level which makes it Constitutional to offer health services at the governmental level which is true and you agree. How this is done is clearly up to the United States.

 

The health of the nation is most definitely part of the general welfare.

 

So what.

A lot of things "aren't" in The Consitution.

Who cares.

The Consitution is a flawed document anyway.

 

Don't let them trick you into debating The Constitution with them. They have proven that it meant nothing as soon as their leader was sworn in and was and is in breach of it by his uncountable conflicts of interest. They only bring it up to grossly misinterpret and that includes their beloved 2nd amendment and their injecting religion into it. Just another reason for the blue states to sever federal ties with the red states.

 

I like to think of it as a return-on-investment. You pay higher taxes, you get healthcare without medication or hospital treatment breaking the bank.

 

Human rights do not require 2nd and 3rd Parities to fulfill.

The general Welfare clause is limited specifically to:

Section 8
1: 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; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

2: To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

3: To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

4: To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

5: To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

6: To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

7: To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

8: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

9: To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

10: To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

11: To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

12: To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

13: To provide and maintain a Navy;

14: To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

15: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

16: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

17: To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;—And

18: To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Spending less does not equate to costing less.

 

Because the Constitution enumerates and specifically limits the powers of the federal government.

Yes, and who governs insurance companies? That would be the State nsurance regulators and commissions who write the laws and regulations.

The States can enact legislation to require pre-existing conditions be covered, and they can do that anytime they want.

Neither was education, yet both doctors and educators existed at the time the Constitution was written. Since healthcare is not in the Constitution, it is a power left solely to the States.

No, nothing may be implied. You need to read relevant case law on the matter.

 

Not in the Constitution.

James Madison in Federalist 41:
"Some, who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation, have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution, on the language in which it is defined. It has been urged and echoed, that the power “to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,’’ amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction. Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases."

The Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall agreed in his opinion in the 1824 case Gibbons v Ogden.

 

The U.S. Constitution doesn't make any such provision. But every other advanced nation on the surface of the planet does provide health care for its citizens. The U.S. Constitution was written in 1787. We don't limit ourselves to living like the Founding Fathers did when it was written. We enjoy the benefits of social, scientific and technological changes made during the 229 years since that document was written. The Constitution was always intended to be altered to fit the needs of each new generation. It's not a static document--though for sure there are "static," followers opposed to any change. As 21st Century Americans we have the right to alter our lives, our society, our nation and even our U.S. Constitution to meet the new and different needs we feel we face in our own daily lives, and health care is one of those new needs. For the first time in our history, many Americans view health care for every citizen as a RIGHT, NOT A PRIVILEGE!

 

Then alter it. The constitution specifies the method by which it may be amended.

 

If you have a right to something, is it legitimate for someone to charge you money to give you that thing?

For example. If you have a right to healthcare, can a medical professional charge you money for that healthcare, or must she provide it to you for free. It would stand to reason that if you have a right to something, then nobody may deny you that thing.

But that then would imply that your "right" to healthcare requires that other people are essentially your slaves. The medical profession MUST give you healthcare because you have a right to it.

This is where you end up when you fail to understand the nature of rights.

 

Here is where I got the healthcare being a right and why shouldn't the gov pay for guns and stuff type thing. This guy is sharp. You can see why Barry hated him lol.

 

Right. Like I said, Heath care is under the general welfare clause.

 

Yes, in the constitution.

The Supreme Court disagrees now. It's why Obamacare is constitutional.