Al Gore Facts

[sirs]

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?

[BT]

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.

[_JS]

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.

[sirs]

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?

[BT]

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.

[_JS]

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.

[Lanya]

One size fits all in Medicaid.   It can be expanded. 
We should provide health care for our citizens, period. 

[_JS]

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?

[BT]

One size fits all in Medicaid.   It can be expanded. 
We should provide health care for our citizens, period. 

Why?

[BT]

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.

[sirs]

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

[_JS]

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.

[BT]

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.

[_JS]

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.

[BT]

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?