DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Brassmask on July 07, 2007, 12:42:16 AM
-
Al Gore is the only man alive who can save us from Global Warming. Al Gore is that cool.
When the Boogeyman goes to sleep every night, he checks his closet for Al Gore.
Al Gore is not hung like a horse... horses are hung like Al Gore.
Al Gore isn't running for President. Al Gore IS President.
Al Gore only let Bush serve to prove to the world that Republicanism is a totally bankrupt philosophy and practice. It worked.
After Al Gore is elected, Al Gore will turn back time and erase the last seven years.
Al Gore was waiting for America to grow up.
Time waits for no man. Unless that man is Al Gore.
Al Gore will be the first President to win three terms since Roosevelt.
Al Gore always knows the EXACT location of Carmen SanDiego.
Al Gore gave Mona Lisa that smile.
Note: some of these are blatantly stolen. Go ahead, sue me. Al Gore is my lawyer.
Al Gore does not sleep. He waits.
Republicants want to build a wall on the border. To keep Al Gore out.
Al Gore is so smart, he can divide by zero.
Al Gore doesn?t wear a watch, HE decides what time it is.
In 2000, Al Gore should have chosen Al Gore as his running mate.
Tipper is Al Gore's wife. But afterwards, she tips him.
Al Gore is so smart, he counted to infinity - twice.
When Al Gore falls in water, Al Gore doesn't get wet. Water gets Al Gore.
Al Gore CAN believe it's not butter.
Al Gore didn't just invent the internet. All Gore invented science. And fire.
Al Gore can touch MC Hammer.
Al Gore didn't invent color TV. But before Al Gore was born, the world was in Black and White.
It takes Al Gore 20 minutes to watch 60 Minutes.
Some people wear Superman pajamas. Superman wears Al Gore pajamas.
When Al Gore is elected, Al Qaeda will follow us home from Iraq. To surrender.
Al Gore can slam a revolving door.
When the election is over, Al Gore will have won more than 50 states
Al Gore IS that tall. Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket
Al Gore just slouches to make the rest of us feel better.
Al Gore can lead a horse to water AND make it drink.
Al Gore can balance the budget. On one finger. While juggling.
Al Gore can win a game of Connect Four in only three moves.
Al Gore did in fact, build Rome in a day.
Al Gore is not running for President. He is strolling to President.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/7/6/172852/0575
-
Al Gore isn't good at soundbites and spin. He said so himself. So he isn't strolling to the whitehouse. He thinks he can change the world through the cultural impact of the media.
-
Next year, we will see a swing back to real discussion and lessening of sound bite. People are now so used to just paying problems to go away and having arguments made in 22 minute segments that they will want to hear people really hashing out problems rather than presenting sound bites in order to protect secret positions.
As I and a couple of others have attempted to do in this very forum only to have those (perhaps including myself) who see themselves as "losing" the debate revert to the old bombastic "nipitinthebud" ways of stopping resolution to the problem.
The conversation that will be started by Michael Moore's SicKo next week will be a proving ground, I hope. More and more people will realize that the fears conjured by those who don't want universal health care for all are simply trying to protect their pocketbooks. Treating the sick always trumps making a buck. At least in a world of people who aren't embodied by corporations.
Everyone should get THE BEST health care regardless of who they are or how much money they have. That they now don't is a form of social Darwinism.
-
That they now don't is a form of social Darwinism.
What is wrong with social darwinism?
-
What is wrong with social darwinism?
================================
Perhaps you are unclear on what is meant by social darwinism. It generally means that those who are the least successful in a society should be permitted to die off, since they will only make the society worse if they manage to reproduce and stay in the gene pool.
So if a person cannot afford health care, they shopuld just die, and the following generations will be healthier and more successful.
Please explain how you think that this is a good thing, or if I have not defined social darwinism adequately, please explain what it means to you and why it is a good thing.
-
By all means, lobby your congress critters and get the Constitution amended
-
PLease explain how you think that this is a good thing,
I asked first.
What is wrong with expecting people to carry their own load?
-
So if a person cannot afford health care, they shopuld just die, and the following generations will be healthier and more successful.
So what happens with the alternative to social Darwinism?
What is the proper term for the altenative to social Darwinism?
-
PLease explain how you think that this is a good thing,
I asked first.
What is wrong with expecting people to carry their own load?
Nothing.
There is something wrong with being ok with those who don't just dying off or in danger of extinction.
Social darwinism leads to eugenics. Is it ok to relegate certain groups of people to extinction because of physical defects? And who gets to make the distinction as to what is a physical defect, mein herr?
Finally, social darwinism is not "expecting people to carry their own load".
-
What is the proper term for the altenative to social Darwinism?
Democracy.
-
The proper term for the opposite of social darwinism is equality.
Having universal healthcare does not require an amendment to the constitution.
What is wrong with expecting people to carry their own load?
I know that not everyone will like this, but I like to interject into the discussion a bit of reading from the Gospel of Matthew chapter 25 starting at verse 31.
31 "When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit upon his glorious throne,
32 and all the nations will be assembled before him. And he will separate them one from another, as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats.
33 He will place the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.
34 Then the king will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father. Inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.
35 For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, a stranger and you welcomed me,
36 naked and you clothed me, ill and you cared for me, in prison and you visited me.'
37 Then the righteous will answer him and say, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink?
38 When did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you?
39 When did we see you ill or in prison, and visit you?'
40 And the king will say to them in reply, 'Amen, I say to you, whatever you did for one of these least brothers of mine, you did for me.'
41 Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you accursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.
42 For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink,
43 a stranger and you gave me no welcome, naked and you gave me no clothing, ill and in prison, and you did not care for me.'
44 Then they will answer and say, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or ill or in prison, and not minister to your needs?'
45 He will answer them, 'Amen, I say to you, what you did not do for one of these least ones, you did not do for me.'
46 And these will go off to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."
If you look closely, you'll notice that it doesn't matter how the "least ones" got into the predicament they were in. There is no argument from those destined for eternal punishment that one of our posters makes, "I shouldn't have to pay for other people's mistakes." I suspect that Christ's answer to that would still be verse 45.
In Genesis God gives man dominion over the Earth. The goods of creation are destined for the whole human race. "The right to private property, acquired or received in a just way, does not do away with the original gift of the earth to the whole of mankind. The universal destination of goods remains primordial, even if the promotion of the common good requires respect for the right to private property and its exercise."
So no. Treating the poor to a poorer system of healthcare because they deserve less based on their inadequate income is in my mind one of the most un-Christian and un-civilized decisions a modern nation can undertake.
-
In the last 8 years of posting on this site i have been told that Christian ethics should have no bearing on government policy.
Why is the government the safety net of first resort. What is wrong with famililies taking care of their own? What is wrong with local communities and neighborhoods taking care of their own. Why the push for federal fixes? And what is wrong with the federal fixes in place now?
-
In the last 8 years of posting on this site i have been told that Christian ethics should have no bearing on government policy.
That is up to the individual. I think it should, but a lot of Christians tend to pick and choose what they want to apply. Often the social justice parts of the Christian faith fall by the wayside.
Why is the government the safety net of first resort.
Why shouldn't it be? The government is supposed to reflect our society and our values. I've been told over and over how this is the "greatest country on Earth." Yet, when it comes to helping our poor and neediest, I hear things like "why should I pay for someone who makes mistakes?"
What is wrong with famililies taking care of their own?
Nothing. But not all families are so caring are they? Not all families have much wealth.
What is wrong with local communities and neighborhoods taking care of their own.
Again nothing, but again it isn't necessarily effective.
Why the push for federal fixes?
Why not? It is the Government of the people is it not?
And what is wrong with the federal fixes in place now?
I think we've been down this road. Did you know that even the most obvious case of disability almost always requires a lawyer and is almost always rejected the first time for disability allowance? Our system of benefits is a joke. It is built on the notion that everyone is a case of fraud until proven otherwise. More than that, people are often deliberately humiliated and put through needless interviews and waiting rooms for the express purpose of making them feel shamed.
I mean, we could do like Jamaica and just arrest anyone who is poor, homeless, aged, infirm, and basically imprison them. That is another option, would that be more suitable?
-
I think we've been down this road. Did you know that even the most obvious case of disability almost always requires a lawyer and is almost always rejected the first time for disability allowance? Our system of benefits is a joke. It is built on the notion that everyone is a case of fraud until proven otherwise. More than that, people are often deliberately humiliated and put through needless interviews and waiting rooms for the express purpose of making them feel shamed.
And yet you want the same government that came up with this fix to come up with its replacement. Anything wrong with that picture.
-
And yet you want the same government that came up with this fix to come up with its replacement. Anything wrong with that picture.
It depends what values are applied. If it is this neo-liberal disdain for the poor, then I don't expect they will even bother to fix such a system. They will just keep harping on about how any government benefits are horribly evil and the less taxes the wealthy pay, the better off everyone will be after they tinkle down on us all.
If another system of values is applied, one that has honest compassion for the poor and the well-being of the neediest in society then I think the system can most certainly be fixed to the benefit of social equality.
-
Watching Algore since 2000 leaves little doubt that the man is insane.
-
Having universal healthcare does not require an amendment to the constitution.
Yes, in fact it does, as the Fed is not mandated to PROVIDE healthcare to everyone. I concede that hasn't stopped prior Executive and Legislative bodies from ramrodding extraconstitional entitlements all over the place, but that doesn't refute that it SHOULD be made Constitutional, if its the end all be all to compassionate government. And obviously if enough folks feel like you, it shouldn't be a problem. Right?
-
If another system of values is applied, one that has honest compassion for the poor and the well-being of the neediest in society then I think the system can most certainly be fixed to the benefit of social equality.
Are you optimistic this will happen with the current elected class? Even localities with homogenized populations haven't enacted a universal health system based on a sales tax. What makes you think a federal govt approach with competing special interests would be an easier sale?
-
In the last 8 years of posting on this site i have been told that Christian ethics should have no bearing on government policy.
Why is the government the safety net of first resort. What is wrong with famililies taking care of their own? What is wrong with local communities and neighborhoods taking care of their own. Why the push for federal fixes? And what is wrong with the federal fixes in place now?
True rightwing misrepresentation of someone else's position.
While it is true, there are those who have said that religion and usually, judeo-christian religion should have no bearing on government policy, that is overwhelmingly meant to apply to dogma and the evangelical position of "Because a god said so..." which is the endgame to every evangelical position.
The disingenuous cherry-picking of "christian ethics" (a farcical term) is the problem with their having bearing on government policy. Those who purport to be in favor of certain stances due to their "christian ethics" will inevitably be in favor of banning abortion but then be in favor of the death penalty. They are certainly pro-birth but they are never in favor of pro-quality of life so to speak.
As we have seen again and again, if the evangelical's positions are given weight, then they won't stop with banning abortion, they will then want to force every child to prayer in public schools.
If there were some consistency to their stances, say in favor of banning abortion and in favor of socialized medicine to ensure the unexpected and unaffordable pregnancy were completely covered including training the pregnant mother in how to keep a baby healthy, then I'd be in favor of "christian ethics" but they're never in favor of going all the way with their "chrisitian ethics" but rather prefer to enforce their "christian dogma".
If christian ethics were simply "harm none, do what you will", then I'd be in favor of that. If they were "we're all in this together; we all win or we all lose together", then I'd be for that. But they're not. They essentially boil down to "god loves me and mine and you better get right with jesus (and us) or you're totally fucked, both here and in the afterlife".
And as we've seen with Bush and bin Laden, if you're not with us, you're agin us; let's roll; shock and awe"...
That's what's wrong with christian ethics.
By the by, what's wrong with just doing health care nationally and not burdening local (mostly bankrupt) cities, communities, states with even more taxes? We could fund universal health care for like three years for the about the same amount of money we've pissed away in Iraq killing people. But see, that's some "christian (Bush's) ethics" at work.
-
By the by, what's wrong with just doing health care nationally and not burdening local (mostly bankrupt) cities, communities, states with even more taxes? We could fund universal health care for like three years for the about the same amount of money we've pissed away in Iraq killing people. But see, that's some "christian (Bush's) ethics" at work.
Because health care like water supplies and any other critical commodity should be under local control. One size does not fit all. Granted some communities will be more affluent than others. The leveler can be the state. Same should happen with education funding.
-
So, more affluent communities would have better health care than less affluent communities. So, the rich get healthier and richer and the poor get sicker and poorer. God Bless
America Social Darwinism. Kill the poor slowly so that the rich have plausible deniability.
Why not cover it all federally and be done with it?
And you might want to re-think that "one size does not fit all comment". What conceivable different sizes could be needed in regard to health care?
-
Granted some communities will be more affluent than others. The leveler can be the state. Same should happen with education funding.
Please reread my post.
Some communities will have different demographics than others and therefore need to service different needs. Local governments, just like small business are quicker to change direction on a dime.
And we have already seen a critique of federally based health care. It is called Medicare and Medicaid. JS wasn't impressed. And then there are the Walter Reed stories run by the DOD.
-
>>So, the rich get healthier and richer and the poor get sicker and poorer. <<
Medicare ... Medicare anyone?
Personally, I think rich folks like the Gore's and the Limbaugh's should pay for their own drug rehabilitation.
-
Granted some communities will be more affluent than others. The leveler can be the state. Same should happen with education funding.
Please reread my post.
Some communities will have different demographics than others and therefore need to service different needs. Local governments, just like small business are quicker to change direction on a dime.
And we have already seen a critique of federally based health care. It is called Medicare and Medicaid. JS wasn't impressed. And then there are the Walter Reed stories run by the DOD.
What does different demographics have to do with what kind of health care a human being might need? What does a black woman need that is different from a white man? Both have hearts, lungs, blood, brains, and so forth. Every hospital should be equipped with everything necessary to meet every need. Pregnant women usually shouldn't be carted across the state on the day of their child's birth.
Take the profit out of it and everyone wins.
-
>>What does a black woman need that is different from a white man?<<
Let's see ...
A gynocolgist ... a prostate exam ... then there's the cycle cell ...
That enough for ya?
:D
-
Given.
So we just need to make sure we have all those specialists on staff in high numbers being paid a decent wage.
-
>>So we just need to make sure we have all those specialists on staff in high numbers being paid a decent wage.<<
Not if chairman Clinton has her way. If you recall, specializing wasn't in her 5 year plan.
-
>>So we just need to make sure we have all those specialists on staff in high numbers being paid a decent wage.<<
Not if chairman Clinton has her way. If you recall, specializing wasn't in her 5 year plan.
Yet another reason to oppose the nomination of the ambitious and conniving POS.
-
What does different demographics have to do with what kind of health care a human being might need? What does a black woman need that is different from a white man? Both have hearts, lungs, blood, brains, and so forth. Every hospital should be equipped with everything necessary to meet every need. Pregnant women usually shouldn't be carted across the state on the day of their child's birth.
Demographics is not based solely on race. Age, gender ratios, income levels and education could also be a factor.
Remember under a government system you are commoditizing a service.
And basically service would be rationed.
So demographics would play an important part in designing rationed services to meet the needs of the community. You might not need a gunshot trauma word in Beverly Hills as much as you would in downtown LA.
-
You're using a buzzword like "rationing" in order to set up some fantasy of people standing in line to get aspirin when that is not even remotely the case.
They do the same thing as what you're talking about now but they don't call it rationing. It's just plain old fashioned planning.
-
You're using a buzzword like "rationing" in order to set up some fantasy of people standing in line to get aspirin when that is not even remotely the case.
They do the same thing as what you're talking about now but they don't call it rationing. It's just plain old fashioned planning.
Been to an HMO lately?
Service is rationed.
Same way at the VA.
-
You can have a Federal system that is administered on a local or state level.
You're creating a strawman Bt. Canada is an excellent example of a system run and administered on the provincial level under a federal mandate. Britain has local NHS Trusts. No one is suggesting that we ignore the needs of local communities.
Sirs, I've not read any serious attorney who suggests that a constitutional amendment is required for universal healthcare any more than it was required for Medicare, Medicaid, GI Bill, Interstate Highways, the war on drugs, etc.
-
ou can have a Federal system that is administered on a local or state level.
Medicaid is state administered.
And i don't want a federal program. I want it locally funded and controlled.
-
Sirs, I've not read any serious attorney who suggests that a constitutional amendment is required for universal healthcare any more than it was required for Medicare, Medicaid, GI Bill, Interstate Highways, the war on drugs, etc.
Did you miss the part where I conceded that many a Legislative & Executive body have overstepped their bounds to impliment Federal mandates that should never have been made to be Federal mandates?? It still does NOT refute what should absolutely be made Constitutional IF it's the wish for the Fed to PROVIDE UHC vs simply promote it
-
And i don't want a federal program. I want it locally funded and controlled.
Yeah. So? That's why we have elections, correct? I could see a system of universal healthcare run as a mandate to the states. There are a myriad of options and possibilities. The NHS is only one of many such systems.
Did you miss the part where I conceded that many a Legislative & Executive body have overstepped their bounds to impliment Federal mandates that should never have been made to be Federal mandates?? It still does NOT refute what should absolutely be made Constitutional IF it's the wish for the Fed to PROVIDE UHC vs simply promote it
No. The burden is on you to prove that it does require a constitutional amendment. The courts have not suggested that it does. I've yet to see any of the other acts (to which you conceded) that have been negated by the Supreme Court. Until that happens they are constitutionally permissible.
You show me the Supreme Court case that proves otherwise and you'll have an argument. You are arguing ex nihilo and you've got to do better than that.
-
Yeah. So? That's why we have elections, correct?
Yeah. And it seems to me it is easier to convince a smaller group of citizens with shared interests and get passed into law through a referendum than it is to convince an entire nation with diverse interests the correctness of your position. Probably less expensive too.
-
Yeah. So? That's why we have elections, correct?
Yeah. And it seems to me it is easier to convince a smaller group of citizens with shared interests and get passed into law through a referendum than it is to convince an entire nation with diverse interests the correctness of your position. Probably less expensive too.
Maybe, then again maybe not.
Poll finds 51% of Republicans favor Universal Health Care (http://thehill.com/campaign-2008/poll-shows-many-republicans-favor-universal-healthcare-gays-in-military-2007-06-28.html)
-
Maybe, then again maybe not.
Poll finds 51% of Republicans favor Universal Health Care
Good . Those 51% can influence their state legislatures.
How do you propose to pay for the program on a federal level?
At the state level it can easily be done with sales taxes.
-
Did you miss the part where I conceded that many a Legislative & Executive body have overstepped their bounds to impliment Federal mandates that should never have been made to be Federal mandates?? It still does NOT refute what should absolutely be made Constitutional IF it's the wish for the Fed to PROVIDE UHC vs simply promote it
No. The burden is on you to prove that it does require a constitutional amendment.
PROVIDE for the Common Defense, while simply PROMOTING the General Welfare. BIG BLACK & WHITE Lettering. Can't miss it. I can give you their definitions, if you wish
-
Maybe, then again maybe not.
Poll finds 51% of Republicans favor Universal Health Care
Good . Those 51% can influence their state legislatures.
How do you propose to pay for the program on a federal level?
At the state level it can easily be done with sales taxes.
Last time I checked those 51% get to vote in Federal elections too Bt.
Well, we can reap a lot of savings from Medicare, Medicaid, VA health programs, all that money that used to go to paying for health insurance premiums...
I bet I can figure something out ;)
-
Did you miss the part where I conceded that many a Legislative & Executive body have overstepped their bounds to impliment Federal mandates that should never have been made to be Federal mandates?? It still does NOT refute what should absolutely be made Constitutional IF it's the wish for the Fed to PROVIDE UHC vs simply promote it
No. The burden is on you to prove that it does require a constitutional amendment.
PROVIDE for the Common Defense, while simply PROMOTING the General Welfare. BIG BLACK & WHITE Lettering. Can't miss it. I can give you their definitions, if you wish
Yawn.
You get back to me with that Supreme Court Case, ya hear.
When you get done with your false libertarian claptrap and present some real arguments I'll be here.
-
PROVIDE for the Common Defense, while simply PROMOTING the General Welfare. BIG BLACK & WHITE Lettering. Can't miss it. I can give you their definitions, if you wish
Yawn. You get back to me with that Supreme Court Case, ya hear.
I'll stick with the clear and concise wording of the Constitution, if you don't mind.
-
So by that definition, we should not have VA hospitals.
-
So by that definition, we should not have VA hospitals.
The VA benefit is different than an entitlement.
-
It is clearly, by Sirs definition, not providing for common defense.
-
Healthcare is NOT a proviso for providing for the common defense. Providing for the common defense is providing for the common defense. Veterens no longer in war, and those who will no longer be able due to injury are not providing for the common defense
Care to try again?
-
It is clearly, by Sirs definition, not providing for common defense.
No but it is within the purview of the constitutional powers of congress to set salary, compensation and other benefits deferred or otherwise through the process of appropriations.
-
Sirs
Veterens no longer in war, and those who will no longer be able due to injury are not providing for the common defense
Bt
No but it is within the purview of the constitutional powers of congress to set salary, compensation and other benefits deferred or otherwise through the process of appropriations.
Huh. Seems like you and Sirs are reading from a different hymn sheet on the whole strict constructionist theme.
-
Seems like you and Sirs are reading from a different hymn sheet on the whole strict constructionist theme.
Perhaps you can provide us what the "strict constructionist theme" is supposed to entail, especially as it relates to the VA. You trying to say that these veterens and soldiers are heading back to the front, sometime in the near future? I guess you're trying to grasp that the FEd is "providing" healthcare for veterens, so they should for everyone?? Ignoring of course that those in the VA are those who have worked directly with the Constitution's mandate for the Fed to provide for the common defense. That just gets glossed over, don't it?
-
Huh. Seems like you and Sirs are reading from a different hymn sheet on the whole strict constructionist theme.
Sorry not to fit neatly into predefined packages.
-
Seems like you and Sirs are reading from a different hymn sheet on the whole strict constructionist theme.
Perhaps you can provide us what the "strict constructionist theme" is supposed to entail, especially as it relates to the VA. You trying to say that these veterens and soldiers are heading back to the front, sometime in the near future? I guess you're trying to grasp that the FEd is "providing" healthcare for veterens, so they should for everyone?? Ignoring of course that those in the VA are those who have worked directly with the Constitution's mandate for the Fed to provide for the common defense. That just gets glossed over, don't it?
Wow.
All I said was this: "So by that definition, we should not have VA hospitals."
Everything that you said spiraled from that one very short and simple statement. Why are you so wrapped up in my motives? This is your principled stand! You'll note that when Prince and I debate a topic, he doesn't stop and ask me about his own argument. Neither does Bt.
Interesting.
-
One size fits all in Medicaid. It can be expanded.
We should provide health care for our citizens, period.
-
Huh. Seems like you and Sirs are reading from a different hymn sheet on the whole strict constructionist theme.
Sorry not to fit neatly into predefined packages.
No, no. I just found the contrast interesting.
In fairness, you never argued that universal healthcare would require a constitutional amendment. Your points on veteran's benefits are fair.
Do you disagree completely with universal coverage? Or just universal coverage at a federal level? What if it were a very simply mandate that the states must make sure that no one goes without coverage?
-
One size fits all in Medicaid. It can be expanded.
We should provide health care for our citizens, period.
Why?
-
Do you disagree completely with universal coverage? Or just universal coverage at a federal level? What if it were a very simply mandate that the states must make sure that no one goes without coverage?
I would prefer that the program be initiated at the local/state level absent mandates from the federal level with all it's strings attached.
One thing i have learned is when a committee goes into session to design a horse the outcome is often a camel.
-
All I said was this: "So by that definition, we should not have VA hospitals." Everything that you said spiraled from that one very short and simple statement. Why are you so wrapped up in my motives? This is your principled stand!
I have no clue what tangent you're running off on now Js. Best we stop here, if you're that confused as to what constitutes my principled stand
-
I'm confused as to this Sirs:
Perhaps you can provide us what the "strict constructionist theme" is supposed to entail, especially as it relates to the VA. You trying to say that these veterens and soldiers are heading back to the front, sometime in the near future? I guess you're trying to grasp that the FEd is "providing" healthcare for veterens, so they should for everyone?? Ignoring of course that those in the VA are those who have worked directly with the Constitution's mandate for the Fed to provide for the common defense. That just gets glossed over, don't it?
You seem to be asking me questions to make your argument. I'm not sure I understand the point of this post.
I would prefer that the program be initiated at the local/state level absent mandates from the federal level with all it's strings attached.
One thing i have learned is when a committee goes into session to design a horse the outcome is often a camel.
I don't disagree with that last sentiment. I think it can work at a national or state level. In reality it has to be local anyway, on an administrative level.
-
In reality it has to be local anyway, on an administrative level.
And reality delves heavily into the funding issue.
And though many try to disguise the issue with christian ethics and compassion arguments, it really evolves around who pays and more importantly who doesn't.
That is the elephant in the room.
-
And though many try to disguise the issue with christian ethics and compassion arguments, it really evolves around who pays and more importantly who doesn't.
There's no disguise in the ethical arguments.
We can make it a system where everyone pays through income tax or use an NIC (National insurance contribution) which would be a payroll tax. In the end most people would pay far less than they do for their healthcare premiums.
-
We can make it a system where everyone pays through income tax or use an NIC (National insurance contribution) which would be a payroll tax. In the end most people would pay far less than they do for their healthcare premiums.
What about those who don't work?
-
So by that definition, we should not have VA hospitals.
The VA benefit is different than an entitlement.
Funny, you used Walter Reed earlier as one of the horrors of state run medicine. But a VA hospital is somehow different?
-
Funny, you used Walter Reed earlier as one of the horrors of state run medicine. But a VA hospital is somehow different?
Actually it is. If there ever is universal health care i hope it is modeled after the VA.
-
Al Gore is not hung like a horse... horses are hung like Al Gore.
Gah.
It was bad enough when Terra posted stuff like this.
Why do liberals base so much of their decisions on appearance rather than substance?
-
Perhaps you are unclear on what is meant by social darwinism. It generally means that those who are the least successful in a society should be permitted to die off, since they will only make the society worse if they manage to reproduce and stay in the gene pool.
Evolution has worked quite well for billions of years. Don't see why it should be changed now.
-
No. The burden is on you to prove that it does require a constitutional amendment.
Read the 10th Amendment lately?
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
-
No. The burden is on you to prove that it does require a constitutional amendment.
Read the 10th Amendment lately? "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Yet even more clear & concise wording of the Constitution. Thanks, Ami
-
on family taking care of their own.
some can`t and many don`t
and don`t forget many shouldn`t
family has too much of a good PR
as a museum guard I`ve seen quite abit of the greyside of families
(I doubt their showing their darksides out in public)
I hear supermarkets are worst
-
No. The burden is on you to prove that it does require a constitutional amendment.
Read the 10th Amendment lately?
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
So you can provide me with a case where other federal programs have been proven unconstitutional?
I will concede that I believe that you believe in your argument Ami.
On the other hand, I don't see UHC being a problem with the 10th amendment, anymore than Medicare or Medicaid.
-
On the other hand, I don't see UHC being a problem with the 10th amendment, anymore than Medicare or Medicaid.
Just because they're ignoring the 10th, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.
-
On the other hand, I don't see UHC being a problem with the 10th amendment, anymore than Medicare or Medicaid.
Just because they're ignoring the 10th, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.
So there is no Supreme Court case to cite?
-
On the other hand, I don't see UHC being a problem with the 10th amendment, anymore than Medicare or Medicaid.
Just because they're ignoring the 10th, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.
Which is the point many of us have been making all along, that of many an Executive and Legislative body simply ignoring when not re-interpreting the Constitution. Much of what Congress does now adays is extraconstitutional. Just because they get away with it, doesn't make it right, which includes Medicare.
-
On the other hand, I don't see UHC being a problem with the 10th amendment, anymore than Medicare or Medicaid.
Just because they're ignoring the 10th, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.
Which is the point many of us have been making all along, that of many an Executive and Legislative body simply ignoring when not re-interpreting the Constitution. Much of what Congress does now adays is extraconstitutional. Just because they get away with it, doesn't make it right, which includes Medicare.
So there is no Supreme Court decision to cite? There is no legal framework upon which to build a case?
-
So there is no Supreme Court case to cite?
Never said there was. I believe the question was whether or not a universal healthcare system run by the federal government was mandated, allowed, or forbidden by the US Constitution.
The 10th Amendment quite clearly states that powers not explicitly delegated to the Federal Government by the Constitution are reserved to the various States or to the people. Universal health care is not found as a power delegated to the Federal Government in any part of the US Constitution that I've read. Neither is public education.
It's the reason why damn near everything the Federal Goverment has done in the way of "Great Society" programs are claimed to be done in the name "facilitating interstate commerce." I can provide you with some SCOTUS decisions striking down other legislation that was enacted under the interstate commerce clause if you'd like. Since there is not a national healthcare program there is not likely to be any SCOTUS decisions on the topic.
-
That was not the question.
The question was whether Universal Healthcare requires a constitutional amendment. Sirs claims it does. I said that it does not.
Quite clearly I am correct. For if I were incorrect, then Medicare would have required a constitutional amendment, but it did not.
-
That was not the question.
The question was whether Universal Healthcare requires a constitutional amendment. Sirs claims it does. I said that it does not.
Quite clearly I am correct. For if I were incorrect, then Medicare would have required a constitutional amendment, but it did not.
Without a constitutional amendment, universal health care violates the 10th Amendment. And from a reading of the Constitution, quite clearly I am correct.
-
You're dealing with ideology.
I'm dealing with practicality. In reality, where the rubber meets the road, I'm correct.
In an ivory tower amongst CATO institute academics in a debate with Brookings institute academics...you may or may not win the debate.
-
Healthcare is NOT a proviso for providing for the common defense. Providing for the common defense is providing for the common defense. Veterens no longer in war, and those who will no longer be able due to injury are not providing for the common defense
Care to try again?
Pends on how you consider it.
It is a promise made in the contract between a soldier and the government , so it was a part of the defense as long as it was persuedeing the soldier not to seek other work.
When president Lincon promised to bind the wounds of those who carred the eight of the battle and his widow and his orphan it seemed like a good idea at the time.
President Nixon thought that universal healh care was a good idea , what was the opposition to this notion back then ?
-
Healthcare is NOT a proviso for providing for the common defense. Providing for the common defense is providing for the common defense. Veterens no longer in war, and those who will no longer be able due to injury are not providing for the common defense
It is a promise made in the contract between a soldier and the government , so it was a part of the defense as long as it was persuedeing the soldier not to seek other work.
You're reaching there, Plane, though I'm inclined to consider it
President Nixon thought that universal healh care was a good idea , what was the opposition to this notion back then ?
It would have had mine (opposition)