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

It's sad. You cannot summon the testicular fortitude to honestly admit that you cannot cite a single extant example of your airy-fairy ideological fantasy.

Meanwhile, all advanced nations cover everyone at around half the cost of the US - that successfully covers the demographic that the privateers do not want, over 40 million folks over 65, under a single payer system.

 

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

Where in the constitution does it say, give $3 trillion in tax cut welfare to millionaires and add it on to the national debt for taxpayers to pay? That's what Shrub did in 2001, and he destroyed the balanced budget doing it.

Now Trump wants to give another $800 billion to the wealthy, by taking it from the sick and elderly.

Your attempt to justify the greed of the rich is a failure.

 

I will be the first to admit that I know very little about how socialized medicine really works, however one thing I do know is that it seems to work here for us Canadians. If you have an income then you pay according to a chart. If you are low-income or disabled, you don't pay. And everybody is covered. We don't ever worry about how we are going to be able to access health care in the event that we lose our job. I feel that this is what a civilized society should do for its citizens.

 

Yes I do you just do not like being taken down a peg which you have been

 

Is English your second language? Because if it is, then I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings, but your position isn't very well articulated.

Without providing any evidence of any healthmarket operating as a complete supply side market, and claiming it is more superior than a known system is pure fantasy. It is based on belief alone, not actual experience.

 

Which is all you have offered.

belief with no evidence

 

I ASKED YOU for an example of your contention....and this is your response? We obviously have a serious failure to communicate OR you actually think this is a legitimate debating style, which it is NOT.

 

No you asked for an ludicrous specific form of proof which cannot applied to any system.

" prove it strictly the way i want you to do so or it is false "

That is a true example of a idiotic debating style

 

I asked you to name one country that is applying your supply-side system to its population. What is so hard about that?

You either have an example, or you don't.

 

No you did not ad you are now backpedaling and lying.

You asked for an example of a supply and demand system allowing access to health care for all people regardless of class.

Stupid bar for evidence which no system can meet.


http://www.politicalforum.com/index...gov-should-provide-health-care.508769/page-28

 

So you WANT a system that is only for a few? Is that correct?

 

No and nothing suggests that i wish for such a thing

 

So give me an example!!!​

 

And example of what?
As proven you asked for a stupid and idiotic example of something I never claimed or described.

Now you cough up some evidence of your claims

 

Quite simple...I want our current Medicare model expanded to those under 65. Where the costs (not the practice of medicine) are regulated by the government.

YOUR TURN

 

Costs are part of the practice.

Dictating to others what they should charge for their labor is not something the government should ever do and is always a failure at.

That is what I want to stop

 

Then how do you explain why it works so well for other countries?

 

The actual quote is PROMOTE the general welfare.

pro·mote
[prəˈmōt]
VERB
promotes (third person present) · promoted (past tense) · promoted (past participle) · promoting (present participle)

1. further the progress of (something, especially a cause, venture, or aim); support or actively encourage:
   "some regulation is still required to promote competition"
   synonyms: encourage · advocate · further · advance · assist · aid ·
   help · contribute to · foster · nurture · develop · boost · stimulate · forward · work for
   antonyms: obstruct
   • give publicity to (a product, organization, or venture) so as to increase sales or public awareness:
     "they are using famous personalities to promote the library nationally"
     synonyms: advertise · publicize · give publicity to ·
     market · merchandise · push · plug · hype · boost · ballyhoo
     antonyms: play down
   • chemistry
     act as a promoter of (a catalyst).

advance or raise (someone) to a higher position or rank:
"she was promoted to general manager"
synonyms: upgrade · give promotion to · elevate · advance ·
prefer
antonyms: demote

From the following link:
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/General+Welfare

General welfare defined:
The concern of the government for the health, peace, morality, and safety of its citizens.

According to James Madison, the clause authorized Congress to spend money, but only to carry out the powers and duties specifically enumerated in the subsequent clauses of Article I, Section 8, and elsewhere in the Constitution, not to meet the seemingly infinite needs of the general welfare. Alexander Hamilton maintained that the clause granted Congress the power to spend without limitation for the general welfare of the nation. The winner of this debate was not declared for 150 years.

In United States v. Butler, 56 S. Ct. 312, 297 U.S. 1, 80 L. Ed. 477 (1936), the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated a federal agricultural spending program because a specific congressional power over agricultural production appeared nowhere in the Constitution. According to the Court in Butler, the spending program invaded a right reserved to the states by the Tenth Amendment.

Though the Court decided that Butler was consistent with Madison's philosophy of limited federal government, it adopted Hamilton's interpretation of the General Welfare Clause, which gave Congress broad powers to spend federal money. It also established that determination of the general welfare would be left to the discretion of Congress.

 

The States, not the Feds, license medical providers.

 

Interesting post, but is has nothing to do with how ACA [didn't] lower costs.

 

It does not

 

Because the ACA does little to control how much the providers charge insurance companies.

 

The facts DO NOT support your contention.

Canada, UK, Sweden, Germany, Denmark, Australia...the list goes on. You do not see them spending anywhere as much as we do, 17% GDP, on their healthcare, and we certainly do not get more for our costs.

 

The facts do support what i say and prove you wrong.

those nations have inferior health care across the board and no greater access for all people

 

????????????????????????????

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/io...ness-no-longer-a-secret/ar-BBBKGap?li=BBnb7Kz