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

I spent three years teaching personal development skills, based around a system I devised which totally got my life in order. It was good enough that fortune 500 companies hired me to train managers in the skills. At the very core is accepting personal responsibility- for everything you think, say, do or feel. Within that is the ability to have power over your own life, total self-respect and respect for others and an ability to accurately read character- and thereby independence from the control of others. So long as an individual shares control of their life with others, their own power is diluted; invariably reduced. There is nothing wrong with strong independent people associating actions or resources for greater good- but there is something wrong with forcing them to support what they don't believe in for the benefit of someone who does.

Unfortunately, people often choose not to be all they can. Not to be responsible, not to contribute- sometimes to be nothing, because it's too much effort to be something. These people are at risk because they choose not to be prepared; it is a self-made condition that nobody can fix for them. Somewhere along the line, society decided that the value of life is determined by the fact you are here, and has no connection to the role you choose to play. While this seems magnanimous and moral, in fact it dilutes our strength and degrades our potential. While I'm not proposing an answer- I do point out that the denial of reality invariably about ourselves leads to bad decisions and ultimately very negative consequences. Insisting that we must all act together is such a decision. Note this observation by Charles Darwin written over 150 years ago:


“With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.


The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, if so urged by hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with a certain and great present evil. Hence we must bear without complaining the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind; but there appears to be at least one check in steady action, namely the weaker and inferior members of society not marrying so freely as the sound; and this check might be indefinitely increased, though this is more to be hoped for than expected, by the weak in body or mind refraining from marriage.”


“

 

Of *course* you can decide. My mother-in-law was just taken to an emergency room LAST NIGHT. She was not lucid so my wife told the EMT's which hospital to take her to!f

WITH THE SAME HEALTHCARE THE RICH GET! That's equal outcomes by definition!

Most of them are county level. They are *funded* by subscriptions! Are you unable to use google for some reason?

go here: http://www.iiabaz.com/Education/SiteAssets/Pages/FindClass/default/4-2-2015AZ Fire Sub-PHX.pdf

go here: http://www.regionalfire.org/h0me

Government ownership of business is *NOT* Socialism? Just what do you think Socialism *is*?

 

Any true believer in an unbridled free market should not only be raging against the multiple examples of advanced nations with health care systems that cover all citizens at around half the cost of the US.

They should be demonstrating their ideological purity by demanding the end of Medicare, Medicaid, Veteran's Health Care and, especially, the roughly $250 billion in annual tax breaks that subsidize employer-administered plans by which the federal government imposes that bureaucratic burden upon the private sector.

Fiction writer "Ayn Rand" (neé Alisa Zinov'yevna Rosenbaum) would be verklempt.



..."I'm verklempt."

 

We have a national interest in preventing North Korea from invading and taking over South Korea. Thus the soldiers *are* protecting US citizens from the impact of a larger North Korea on our safety.

I didn't think you knew. You couldn't even bother to look it up, could you?

Again, those 3000 dead on 9/11 would argue with you!

I *WAS* PERFECTLY CLEAR! It's not my problem that you can't read. I said nothing about protecting us from Afghanistan. I said: "The soldiers standing post in Afghanistan are not protecting us from Al Qaeda terrroists?"

Exactly what do you think is not clear in that sentence? Do I need to diagram the sentence for you?

We were *not* attacked by Germany! How did fighting Japan have anything to do with putting soldiers in Europe?

Germany didn't attack us. It was called a World War but the *entire* world was *NOT* at war. Huge swaths of Central and South America and Africa got involved on either side in the war.

Russia is an ally? What planet have you been on for the past year?

I didn't say that. I honestly don't think you can read!

I bolded the operative word in your statement! Once again, an oxymoron. Did you go look that up?

The doctor doesn't carry *everyone's* health in a bag!

 

Our constitution is one of the best documents written in history.

But no system serves well forever. They all have to be adjusted/modified to accommodate changing circumstances and human attitude evolution. Fortunately The political system-design still works very well for the most part (thanks to the political genius of our founding fathers), but not totally. But the social systems have changed much.

The way some of us take the validity of our constitutions absolutely, requiring no adjustments over centuries, reminds me of some people wanting to stick to Koran, a system of rules originated thirteen hundred years ago.

India's cast system served the society well for a thousand years. Then, for the next thousand years the society clung to it, even though the changing conditions turned it into more and more evil curse. Similarly, China suffered deeply for wanting to stay with the outmoded Confucian social system, which had served well for two millenniums.

If lessen our pride, commonsense may come to our aid.

 

Wrong. A highway is not an aggregation of all highways. Yet a highway provides for the general welfare.

National defense is not an aggregation of self-defense by all individuals. It is provided by the military.

America doesn't believe in "collective" rights. The community has no rights. Only the individual has rights.

 

Regulating is *NOT* paying for! And price and wage controls are ultimately self-defeating. That's been proved over and over.

 

Medicare is dying all on its own. So is Social Security. Medicaid doesn't cover *everyone*.

And the right *does* point out that all those nationalized health care system spend less by rationing care -- which AMERICA does not do.

Once a military serviceperson, always a serviceperson. Advocating against the VA would be saying the military shouldn't be provided health care.

Letting private entities KEEP MORE OF THEIR OWN MONEY imposes nothing on the private sector!

 

Our Constitution has been amended 27 times! Are those not recognized as "adjustments"?

 

Sure, the Amendments are adjustments. But, the question, "where in the Constitution it says that healthcare can be taken over by the government?", implies that our Constitution is an absolute truth that should never be changed. I apologize for being harsh in the response, but being a non-white naturalized American, I am deeply concerned about my country's and my white brothers' future. The only thermometer that works all the time is the pain of masses. All the laws and rules should be subservient to this factor. I see too much suffering of the poor and the middle class around, in the areas of income, education and healthcare. This has become a rich-man's land in the last 3-4 decades. When such pains get high, destructive forces become active.

 

I agree that is (mostly) correct except ACA did not slow the costs at all but rather increased them more, for instance the added over $100 billion a year the taxpayer is ponying up.

 

Any true believer in the efficacy and superiority of single payer should feel free to move to a country where it exists.
Canada. Australia. Cuba.
Absent such a move, no one can take seriously your commitment to the idea.

 

Actually, yes it does. Article I Sec. 8 of the US Constitution spells out EXACTLY what the Federal Government can and cannot do. It's called the "Enumerated Powers Clause". This is further codified in Amendment X.

 

Regarding the topic of this thread: Where in the Constitution does it say the Fed Government should NOT provide health care?

 

The Constitution lists the powers held by the federal government - what it CAN do.
See Amendment X.

 

The rise in health care cost has slowed since the passage of the ACA, but ongoing improvements should have been made - as had been anticipated since it's passage.

With the GOP's impotence in passing their long-promised replacement, McConnell may finally be forced to do what he should have been doing for years.

​

 

I don't think the mewling defeatists will see their gloomy auguries fulfilled. Abandoning American values is not in the offing, and the nation will meet the challenge.

 

The ideologues' impotence in contriving a plan acceptable to Americans furthers the prospects for the proven, pragmatic approach.

 

Just as I thought -- you do not truly believe in the efficacy and superiority of single payer.
Why then do you choose to troll as such?

 

Calm down! You'll pierce our eyes with all the screaming.

You did say (and I'm quoting) "with no one else around for you to even put a burden on". In the real world, all rights can burden somebody. Especially because there are people around you. So, whether you say it or not, the logical conclusion from your words would be that there are no rights!

I find that when you need to redefine words arbitrarily, that's sign of a weak argument.

It's like "I define the word "Republican" as meaning "a bad person", therefore all Republicans are bad people"

So, suffice it to say, that you don't get to make up what the word "entitlement" means. That has already been established by the common use. An entitlement is a right. So what you say contributes nothing. Not to this discussion, and not to the English language.

 

The American values of sincerity and compassion have been overwhelmed by pride and greed in the last 4 decades. It is not a question of loosing the American values, it is a question of lost American values. Hard work has been replaced by craving for quick gratification, honesty by greed and the sense of justice by pride.

When I migrated in 1971, I did not understand this culture. It took me two years. By then I was filled with shame for how I was. During the years I have become successful in learning some of the values. But now I am not proud of what I see around me.

This cultural change is not conducive to progress.

 

Just because you are upset by the GOP's impotence in repealing and replacing the ACA, you need not lash out at the repeatedly-affirmed inclusive and far more economical approach of advanced nations. It's unfortunate that you have no such actual examples of your airy-fairy notion that you could cite.

 

Upset? That you do not truly believe in the efficacy and superiority of single payer, and are here to troll?
Hardly. You aren't worth the effort.

 

All the ACA did was put millions more on Medicaid, which good doctors don't accept, or stick them on high deductible plans, which they can't pay.

 

The current state of the nation is clearly dismal, and the deterioration has been rapid, but the widespread public disgust with the current regime and the public resistance to its radical agenda augers a return to decency.