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

EXACTLY! Read John Locke's "2nd Treatise on Government". Your rights are those rights you have in nature, with no one else around for you to even put a burden on. The minute you have to make someone your slave to meet your wants it is an entitlement created by government force.

Of course it is a human right. But only insofar as you can provide for yourself. When you have to burden someone else it becomes an entitlement. And if you use government force to create that entitlement then those subject to the government force become your slaves.

You don't like hearing that do you? It takes you down off your moral high horse. But it *is* the truth whether you like it or not!

But I don't have to burden anyone to exercise that right. I could be a thousand miles away from the nearest human with no means of communication and I could still exercise that right!

They do not do it under the threat of government force. They *volunteer* to do it! That is part of their natural rights as well.

But that is a responsibility the doctor takes on voluntarily. It is not done at the end of a government gun.

If healthcare from others were a RIGHT, you would be born with a doctor attached to your butt.

The only rational arguments being made here are being made by me. *YOU* are the one trying to justify slavery of everyone in order to meet your *WANTS*. I have the Enlightenment writers like Locke and I have the Founding Fathers backing me up. You have nothing but Marx and Engels and their arguments have been proven to not work in the real world over and over again. We are watching them fail in Venezuela today.

There is a reason why America is different. Europe *ALL* have the background of being subjects to the government. It is driven so far into the racial background that it will never be removed. It's even true of England -- WHICH IS WHY WE DECLARED OUR INDEPENDENCE ORIGINALLY!

We are, or at least used to be, a nation of sovereign individuals, just like Locke described. We are *not* subjects of a government, our rights do not descend from government. Yet that is *still* the dominant view in Europe, that government defines what the subjects rights are.

You can see it even in their laws. In America you are allowed to do what you want unless it is specifically illegal. In Europe you are only allowed to do that which government has made specifically legal, everything else is illegal.

*YOU* and the Marxist Democrats have had your worldviews contaminated. You are more European than American.

THAT is why Trump won and why the GOP has taken over 1000 elected seats in the past eight years.

 

Constitution doesn't specifically mention a Coast Guard, Air Force, Marines, Border Patrol, Federal highway system, and a lot of other things that we have.

 

WHO IS GOING TO PAY FOR THIS?

And you *truly* think you would get better care from a government "health care army" than from private doctors?

And, AGAIN, who is going to pay? There simply isn't enough earned income among the rich to pay for this!

 

Except the Army is to provide for the national defense. It is specifically authorized in the Constitution.

Health care is not.

 

Congress has the authority to use tax funds in order to provide for the General Welfare of the US population

 

Those are not considered actual law enforcement in the form of police. They do not patrol, they do not provide assistance. The CIA doesn't even truly have domestic arrest authority.

Interstates are less than 1% of the total highways, roads, and farm-to-market roads in the US. They are POSTAL and NATIONAL DEFENSE highways, both authorized under the Constitution.

 

Healthcare has nothing to do with the powers of the federal government. It has everything to do with the right of the people.

 

But "general" welfare is *not* INDIVIDUAL welfare.

 

Health care is part of national defense. Ask the current US military who have serious recruiting problems due to healthcare issues among the recruitable population.

 

Where in the constitution does it call for a standing military force? Where does it give rights to women? The constitution was inherently designed to be interpretive and malleable.

 

The Constitution says "ARMIES", plural, not "Army" singular!

And the federal highways, i.e. the interstates, began under Eisenhower to facilitate our movement of troops around the country. They are part of our NATIONAL DEFENSE strategy, not ways for people to go on vacation. It's nice they meet that need also but that is *not* why theiy were developed.

 

Much too right wing for my taste. Prefer a moderate who considers all sides and not just his or her own.

 

Since recruits being able to shoot and handle a rifle is also a recruiting problem should the government issue everyone an M-16 rifle?

 

There is only ONE side. The side of the Constitution!

 

Does the current US military have a serious problem with recruits being unable to learn how to shoot?

 

You have never actually sat down and read the Constitution, have you? Did they not make you do that in civics class/

Article 1, 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;"

"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;"

Do I need to go on?

Amendment 14: "1: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Do I need to go on?

I suggest you get a full copy of the Constitution and read it for MEANING, including all of the amendments to the Constitution since they are actually part of the Constitution also.

 

Armies for how many years?

 

I suggest you get off your high horse and reread what I wrote. Nothing in there about standing military forces. Also nothing in the original constitution about women. Notice that it was the 14th amendment.

 

There are no such things as collective rights. That means there are no such things as the right of the people as a collective. There are the rights of individuals.

If I were to move to Alaska and settle in a place 500 miles from the nearest human would the federal government be denying me my "right of the people" if they don't force a hospital with all necessary staff to locate there with me?

Or is my right to healthcare in that location what I can provide for myself?

 

You know, for the longest time I always wondered why we do not use the military far more effectively to fill civilian needs of the country. The biggest and most well known one is that of the Army Corp of Engineers. Why couldn't we do the same for health care?

Ever since the military ended the draft, the biggest recruitment incentive has always been the ability to pay for a college education. What better way to recruit health professionals than free tuition for their medical degrees?

It sure beats building another redundant aircraft carrier.

 

What in Pete's name do you suppose Number 12 *IS*?

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

It doesn't say "militia", it says ARMIES. The Founding Fathers never expected the federal government to reauthorize the standing army every two years but that *IS* what it has become. The War of 1812 had a lot to do with that when America didn't have a large enough standing army to defend itself against invasion by the British.

You didn't say the ORIGINAL Constitution, you said "Where in the constitution". So now you are moving the goalposts. Besides, the Constitution today includes the Amendments to the Constitution!

 

it's like interstate highways, I do also support people that can afford it the right to choose their own health insurance, that is why I support a public option

think of the private option like a toll road

 

It's right there in the Constitution. You can't find it?

 

My point was that the constitution is interpreted as you are doing and is changed through amendments as you have noted. Keep getting all riled up though it's totally worth it....

 

Yes, it takes a significant amount of time and resources to teach a recruit how to handle a rifle and how to shoot. Time and resources much better spent on other things such as small unit tactics.