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

An irrelevant anecdote proves what?

 

It *is* an absolute truth until it is amended! If you want to change it then have at it. But it simply can't be "interpreted" to say whatever you want.

What did you study before you became naturalized?

We are individuals that are part of a society. We are *NOT* a collective with individual members. You need to read John Locke's 2nd Treatise on Government.

The pain of the masses does *NOT* determine what our Constitution says. Again, if you want to change what the Constitution says then have at it.

The suffering of the poor in this country is largely due to government policies. And you are advocating for the more of those same policies.

Daniel Patrick Monyihan, a renowned Democrat, wrote a tome in 1965 that was prescient. In the paper he basically said that the welfare state that the Marxist Democrats were implementing would cause the breakdown of the nuclear family and cause generational poverty. That is *exactly* what we are seeing today.

You *need* to read Moynihan's paper! go here: https://www.dol.gov/oasam/programs/history/webid-meynihan.htm

Half the babies born today are to single mothers on Medicaid. Which means they are not married and are not working. You call that "the pain of the masses"? I call it the inevitable result of the government becoming the "daddy" to so many families today. Half of the households in America today get some kind of government assistance. HALF!

Have you studied what "tough love" is? It is telling an addict son, daughter, father, mother, etc that you are no longer going to support their habit. You are no longer going to be an enabler. *That* is what we need more of in America today - tough love for those addicted to government dependence. Have you read all the whining when some states re-introduced the work requirement to get Medicaid after Obama waived it? That's whining from the addicted who are in withdrawal from government dependence!

The average wage in this nation is *higher* than it was in 1981, even accounting for inflation. Those in the middle class are *better* off than in 1981. If they are suffering then they need to look at what they are spending their money on. Big houses, fancy cell phones with unlimited calling and data, expensive cars instead of useful used cars able to provide basic transportation, air conditioning (i.e. electric bills), and on and on and on.

My youngest son makes $28K per year, hardly rich. Yet in six years he has managed to save *more* than an entire years salary. He hasn't knocked up any baby momma's. He lives in a small apartment and barely uses his air conditioner. He drives a 20 year old Chevy Cavalier that he puts less than 2K per year on by using public transportation to get to work. But he works seven days a week. He doesn't party much, a few drinks after work once in a while. He has a basic cell phone with a cheap plan so they can call him from work when needed. He eats cheap. Lots of chicken and rice and beans.

Yet he is happy as can be.

Where is *his* pain?

 

Reference item C in my signature line.

 

It is just frustratingly amazing how dense it is to get these points to even be acknowledged by some folks. They truly appear to speak as if they live in some alternate reality.

 

Then STOP PUTTING WORDS IN MOUTH!

Nope! How can you burden someone with a natural right when there is no one around to burden? READ JOHN LOCKE'S 2ND TREATISE ON GOVERNMENT. Learn something about what natural rights *are*. They are the foundation of the nation!

I'm not redefining anything!

John Locke:

"Sec. 4. TO understand political power right, and derive it from its original, we must consider, what state all men are naturally in, and that is, a state of perfect freedom to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions and persons, as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of nature, without asking leave, or depending upon the will of any other man."

"Sec. 15. To those that say, there were never any men in the state of nature, I will not only oppose the authority of the judicious Hooker, Eccl. Pol. lib. i. sect. 10, where he says, The laws which have been hitherto mentioned, i.e. the laws of nature, do bind men absolutely, even as they are men, although they have never any settled fellowship, never any solemn agreement amongst themselves what to do, or not to do: but forasmuch as we are not by ourselves sufficient to furnish ourselves with competent store of things, needful for such a life as our nature doth desire, a life fit for the dignity of man; therefore to supply those defects and imperfections which are in us, as living single and solely by ourselves, we are naturally induced to seek communion and fellowship with others: this was the cause of men's uniting themselves at first in politic societies. But I moreover affirm, that all men are naturally in that state, and remain so, till by their own consents they make themselves members of some politic society; and I doubt not in the sequel of this discourse, to make it very clear."

From auburn.edu

Entitlement program: "The kind of government program that provides individuals with personal financial benefits (or sometimes special government-provided goods or services) to which an indefinite (but usually rather large) number of potential beneficiaries have a legal right (enforceable in court, if necessary) whenever they meet eligibility conditions that are specified by the standing law that authorizes the program."

Please note that when it says "right" it is talking about a right to receive the benefit, not a right for the benefit to exist.

here is what Merriam Webster has to say about it:

Definition of entitlement

1. 1a : the state or condition of being entitled : rightb : a right to benefits specified especially by law or contract
   
   
2. 2: a government program providing benefits to members of a specified group; also : funds supporting or distributed by such a program
   
   3: belief that one is deserving of or entitled to certain privileges

Entitlements are *not* rights and rights are not entitlements. Entitlements are *given* by government and not the Creatro!

 

No your signature line IS BS as is your empty and baseless claim which you cannot demonstrate evidence for

 

“I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.” -- James Madison, 4 Annals of congress 179 (1794)

“…[T]he government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like the state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.” -- James Madison

"If we can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people, under the pretence of taking care of them, they must become happy." -- Thomas Jefferson

“When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.” -- Benjamin Franklin

To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.” -- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Joseph Milligan, April 6, 1816

“Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.” -- Thomas Jefferson


ARE THESE ENOUGH FOR YOU?

Or are you just going to dismiss them as well?

 

IRRELEVANT????

Million dollar per month medical treatments, $500 epipens, and unaffordable lifesaving pharmaceuticals are IRRELEVANT arguments against your resistance to cost controls??? Your apathy makes you an irrelevant participant in this discussion.

 

It *is* a job. But the people that take that job do so VOLUNTARILY. They are *not* dragooned into doing it!

You tried to imply that if they refused to rescue someone then government would force them to do so. Now you've changed your story!

It's an argumentative fallacy called Moving the Goalposts!

There are *lots* of homeless that come by the Salvation Army that *ARE* homeless voluntarily! And they are usually poor voluntarily as well because they don't want to work. Not all are this way but a good percentage are!

Have you ever got to know homeless people?

You aren't fooling anyone with your Moving the Goalpost argumentative fallacy. Why do you even try?

 

yes an anecdote is always irrelevant and that is all you have

 

Any perspective contrary to your own you will ALWAYS arbitrarily deem irrelevant, which is why this is the last response you can expect from me.

 

MALARKY! You tried to make fun of me for even suggesting such a "fake" hypothetical!

So the government is only obligated to protect your freedom of speech if it doesn't cost too much? So the government is only obligated to protect your freedom of religion if it isn't too hard to do so?

If the government doesn't want to spend the money to prosecute someone suppressing your rights they don't have to do so?

Wow! Just WOW!

You may want to rethink that after your answer about the government not having to protect your rights if it is "unreasonable" to do so!

The US has probably spent over a million dollars on Chelsea Manning, a military member that committed treason! So your answer is *YES*.

Some private insurance will cover experimental treatments, especially if the medical provider is willing to negotiate on costs. That's why you don't get the same health care in nationalized health systems that you do in America!

Again, you don't have a right to make slaves of others to make them meet your wants. You have a right to the healthcare you can provide for yourself. Nothing more.

Government *mandating* that you buy a government product and *mandating* that providers make a specific product is FASCISM in all its glory.

If the single payer systems of the VA and Medicare are the best then why are they having such problems?

You have no right to a private product. And if insurance companies didn't make a profit there would be no insurance companies.

Insurance companies prevent people from having to save up large savings accounts to pay for possible medical issues. It's no different for healthcare than it is for your car! What do car insurance companies provide?

So it isn't a burden on *YOU* for you to respect the rights of others but it *is* a burden on others for them to respect *your* rights?

That's about as cognitively dissonant as it gets!

WHAT DO YOU THINK I HAVE BEEN TRYING TO GET ACROSS? National defense *can* be provided collectively. The Army protects all of us in general. The Post Office provides mail on a collective basis, not on an individual basis.

But healthcare cannot be provided collectively. It has to be provided individually. And it is *NOT* a right if you have to burden someone else to provide it for you!

STOP PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH! STOP PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH. STOP PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH!

I have said *nothing* about "free" healthcare. In fact I keep pointing out that it is *NOT* free. You just want others to pay for your individual healthcare!

 

And by safeguarding it you mean they have to provide it, right?

If the government has to enslave others to meet your wants then it is *NOT* a right to be protected by government. It is an entitlement given by government!

 

Thinkitout,

I cannot scroll down to read your full message. I tried 3-4 different ways, including re-login. Do you know why?

Sounds like it will be fruitful to exchange ideas with you. By the time we are done, we probably will have some issues unresolved between us. But that is how I learn. None of us are Socrates, who cannot be wrong.

Thank you.

 

Anecdotes are not evidence regardless of perspective or view points and that why only the weak use them

 

To repeat my previous post:

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.

 

Respond to the message or post in question so that I may identify it; it may have been shorter than you expected.

 

It slowed the rate of increase, but did not reverse it.

The annual increase in the medical cost of the US had been occurring since 1980, at a far greater rate than all advanced nations.

​

 

It is *YOU* that are saying that the aggregate health care of individuals is a right, not me!

There is no redefinition. They might be words *YOU* don't understand.

from wikipedia: "Group rights, also known as collective rights, are rights held by a group qua group rather than by its members severally;[1] in contrast, individual rights are rights held by individual people; even if they are group-differentiated, which most rights are, they remain individual rights if the right-holders are the individuals themselves"

Nope. they are not. This nation was founded upon the idea of INDIVIDUAL rights, not group rights. The problem is that when you try to recognize group rights then individual rights wind up being subjugated to the group rights, i.e. "for the common good". Individuals can be members of a group but their individual rights remain their individual rights and cannot be subjugated by the group. The Founding Fathers recognized that anything other than individual rights quickly leads to tyranny of the majority group!

The right to assemble is the right of the INDIVIDUAL to choose who they want to associate with. There is no *group* right to assemble. National defense is but an extension of the individual right to self-defense. And even owning land collectively requires the voluntary joining of the group by an individual. It is but an extension of the individual right to own property!

Nope. Read the definition from wikipedia above. There is no such thing as "group" or "collective" rights in America. There are individuals with rights that can group together but the rights remain those of the individuals making up the group. There *is* no such thing as group or collective rights.

Go back to the Declaration of Independence if you need to. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

It says nothing about the Creator endowing groups with rights, only men that are created equal.

You just simply don't understand the difference between individuals exercising their individual rights together in a group as opposed to "groups" having rights. If I get five individuals together on the steps of the country courthouse, that *group* has no rights. The individuals in the group have rights, rights endowed by their Creator. Those individuals can exercise their rights jointly but the *group* cannot since it is not endowed by the Creator with any rights!

This isn't a matter of redefinition. It is a basic matter of understanding the difference between individuals jointly exercising individual rights versus a "group" having rights that can be exercised separately from the individual's rights!

 

The general welfare in the Constitution is defined by the enumeration of the responsibilities in the Constitution. Health care is not mentioned any place in there.

It truly is just that simple. " Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.” -- James Madison"

 

Then the proper thing to do is contact your State legislators.

 

The part where you said, "general welfare", but didn't cite any part of the constitution.

 

So he says, totally ignoring the entire clause.

 

Totally irrelevant.

There's no need to alter the Constitution since it is Futuristic in scope.

 

Constitution allows Congress to raise tax revenue to pay for social programs