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

Go look up Posse Comitatus Act. It was enacted in 1878 I believe to prevent the federal government from using the military to force the implementation of federal policies in the states.

The Army Corp of Engineers is a federal agency under the DoD and has a military mission.

Do you know what it costs to get an MD? Why would the military pay for that when it would be of no further use to them?

 

I am interpreting NOTHING. I am telling you *exactly* what it says. It says what it means. No interpretation is required!

 

The military would still teach shooting regardless because military shooting and civilian shooting are significantly different.

 

The constitution does not call for a standing military. The US gov. has decided it needs one and interprets the constitution in order to do so, just like you said.

 

Where in the Constitution does it say healthcare is a human right? Be specific, please.

 

______
Of course all adults between the ages of 20 and 70 yrs of age have the responsibility to be productive and not to be a burden upon society. Health care is not a right. Any sick person that goes to the hospital for treatment is not turned away. They are treated because of the ethics, devotion and medical personnel loyalty to the Hippocratic oath.
On the contrary, for the most part Europe follows Parliamentary government with a few exceptions that still use the monarchy, or are completely devoured by Socialism.
Oddly I believe you're wrong. Medicare/Medicaid has been in effect since 1965. Employers and employees are required to pay into it each pay period along with Social Security. Indigent and the poor are given free healthcare via the Medicaid system.

Understanding Employment Taxes - Internal Revenue Service
https://www.irs.gov/.../understanding-employment-taxes
Understanding Employment Taxes. ... You are required to begin withholding Additional Medicare Tax in the pay period in which it ... Employees do not pay this tax or ...
Employers generally must withhold part of social security and Medicare taxes from employees' wages and you pay a matching amount yourself. To figure out how much tax to withhold, use the employee’s Form W-4 and the methods described in Publication 15, Employer's Tax Guide and Publication 15-A, Employer's Supplemental Tax Guide.
You must deposit the wages you withhold. See requirements for depositing.
For 2016, the employee tax rate for social security is 6.2%. The social security wage base limit is $118,500.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
How to Qualify For Medicaid and CHIP Health Care Coverage ...
https://www.healthcare.gov/medicaid-chip
See if you qualify for Medicaid based on income alone. Find out if your state is expanding Medicaid and if you qualify based only on your income. Medicaid Expansion · Find Out Now

 

So your position is that there are no rights whatsoever. The good news is that you are pretty much alone in that position.

And what, do tell, makes it "the truth"? That you believe that garbage? Is that what makes it "the truth"?

Back to the real world, healthcare is a human right. Whether you want to call it entitlement or not makes no difference. It's still a right. Many rights put a burden on the Government. The right to liberty "burdens" the Government to create a defense force (or "defence" using the Constitution's spelling),. Which in turns places a "burden" on the population to pay taxes. So does the right to safety. And the right to due process.... As a matter of fact, all human rights place some burden on others to a smaller or greater degree.

So the argument that healthcare is not a right because it puts a "burden" on somebody is outright ridiculous. And even though you can claim to be a libertarian ideological purist, the fact is that, as with all extremist ideologues, the real world just stands in your face..

Ahhhh... that's so cute... that you mention being "a thousand miles away"... because the only way you can excercise anything without burdening anybody is to actually be a thousand miles away from the nearest human being.

Once again you have to resort to a fantasy world in order to justify your positions. Because in the real world they don't work.

Huh? Or course they do it under threat of government force. If they refuse to rescue the person just because they are homeless, they could even be prosecuted if the person dies. Again you abandon the real world....

This one doesn't even make sense.

But in the real world you're not, right? So you do the next best thing: you provide everybody with the same type of access to a doctor.

You are the one who is crouched in a mystical world. You're not going to draw me into it. I live and argument in reality.

Sure... like "you can exercise rights only when you are a thousand miles away". or "people don't have a right to healthcare because they are not born with a doctor attached to their butt". Real rational...

What a load of crap!

You might notice that everything I have responded to are things that you actually said. The fact that you have to make up positions for me, which i have never held, means you have run out of arguments to counter my real position. So I will just delete that part, as I am not interested in your incoherent mumbling about things that you made up.

They don't. They all descend from the basic natural rights: "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of happiness". And those three descend from the fact that we need to live in communities in order to survive as a species. Our species would not survive if we didn't have communities. So life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness must be protected because, since we live in a community (and not one thousand miles away from any other human being), other humans who live in the same community might limit our individual rights in order to extend their own. So all rights ARE a burden. Because they all impose the burden of respecting eveybody else's right in your community. But inevitably there will be conflict, . So we establish a government to solve that conflict. And there will be threats from other communities, so we establish a defense force.... and so on. All of this requires that people contribute to maintaining all of that. So we establish taxes. It's the price for living in a Society. But there is absolutely nothing there that says that some people in the community have more right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Nothing that says that these depends on you capacity to pay for them. So if you accept that healthcare is a right (as you did above), then you accept that everybody has the same right to access it.

Now, you have two options. You can either keep hiding in you fantasy world and just respond "that's bull..." (or something to that effect) to the above. Or you can come down to earth, analyze what I am saying and, if you have a real-world rebuttal after the analysis, then you will share it.

Or you can just forget the whole thing and not respond. Which is the option I'm putting my money on that you will take.

That is just absolute bull-crap! In fantasy-Europe, maybe. Not in real-life-Europe

Trump won because Comey happened to come out with an impertinent statement 10 days before the elections. Otherwise he would have lost.

 

Theoretically, maybe. But the law is what a judge interprets the law to be, and that is a fact.

 

Of course it is. The only way "general welfare" makes sense is as the aggregation of every individual's welfare. Unless you are advocating a Marxist ideology in which individuals don't have rights at all. In a Marxist society, you would say that individuals in the community who get sick and die are not relevant so long as the community remains cohesive. Which, in this scenario, usually requires military intervention to ensure (when this happens, people tend to leave this type of communities). But in a free society, the "welfare of the community" is unattainable unless the wellbeing of individuals is protected.

 

I'm a doctor and a patient. Medicare sucks up the ying yang. Yes, reimbursement sucks but it's all the rules and regulations that make it really suck. If you've never dealt with Medicare from either side then you should consider what I say. Medicaid is not much different. Go to a one payer system and it will be the same for all then you'll have long waiting periods and in effect you will have people deciding if you live or die who are bureaucrats.

It's likely coming but I wouldn't be asking for it.

 

It is obvious that Republicans first demonizing the ACA then being unable to come up with anything remotely as good has caused the ACA to become more popular, but it has caused a huge increase in popularity for the approach that has actually been shown to cover everyone at lower cost.

​

Of course, most Americans are not ideologues, nor do the have vested interests in the current system. They are pragmatists who just prefer what has been shown to work best

 

You claimed soldiers on the S Korean border were protecting US citizens. I corrected you.

I'll ask again. From who?

to which I correctly pointed out......no.

you should be clearer then. How are US soldiers in Afghanistan, DEFENDING the US? Afghanistan didn't attack us.

We were already attacked, on another front.

The US was attacked. the entire world was at war. That is not the case now, or any time since.

Russia is an ally. We are not at war with them, we have no business stopping them from "expanding"

you think the mail he is carrying belongs to everyone? lol

no, he is carrying EVERYONE'S individual mail. Just like hospitals treat EVERYONE'S individual health.

lol

Just like the postman provides individual mail delivery, lol.

 

where you are taken is based on your proximity to the hospital at the time of injury/illness. You can't tell EMS where to take you. which is why it's not a commodity.

no he isn't. it's meant to provide everyone with healthcare.

Are they owned and operated by the city/county/township? Or not? If not, for insurance purposes, they are considered volunteer FD and you pay higher premiums because of it.

no, it isn't.

 

Oh look -- more unsupportable nonsense.

 

The public option would be a step forward. But not the permanent solution. I'm not sure if it would just serve to delay the only real solution: the single-payer system. It would be ok, so long as it doesn't help the right confuse things and make people think that it's what we believe will solve all problems. Like they did with Obamacare.

 

No, I did not expect you to be able to refute the survey. Your ideological dogma makes you emotional and clouds your capacity to recognize reality.

 

There no need to refuse nonsense.

 

Good to see we are both fully aware of the fact you cannot meaningfully explain why people should have to pay for goods and services consumed by other people simply because said consumer could not afford them.

 

as long as we made the free insurance congress gets the same, it would be great, the gov employees need to use what the people use

 

Incrementally lowering the eligibility age of Medicare whilst freeing Medicare to negotiate Rx prices with Big Pharma would extend coverage to all and dramatically lower cost, but there could still be boutique private policies (non-subsidized) as a sort of religious exemption for true believers who are deemed insurable by a profiteer company and can afford its premiums.

 

MASLOW'S HIERARCHY OF NEEDS

Yes, invented by man but also necessary to survive a long-life.

In that sense, healthcare is not just "nice thing to have". It every bit as essential as the other basic elements of the way we live. Which is why I like to show Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs (devised in 1941 more than 60 years ago):

The above are not a ranking of lifestyle elements that are "nice to have". They summate the total potential of our lives. And, most importantly, they show the two bottom levels that are ABSOLUTELY INDISPENSABLE for mankind to subsist.

A nation should be prepared to make any and all efforts to assure all its people have those first two layers of the pyramid ...

 

Your state government certainly may. Or, an amendment could be passed granting the federal government authority to do so.

 

Because they did nothing that would warrant making it their responsibility. You can't just assign random people the responsibility to take care of someone.

Person A paying person B money is in no way a violation of person B's property rights. Don't be ludicrous.

 

Nowhere.

Nowhere.

Nowhere.

In Article I, section 8, Clause 7.

 

No they aren't. They are responsible for paying the agreed-up wage.