Junior Senator Franken Kicks Conservative Ass -again

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: extra

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Patranus

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
It may prevent individual bankruptcies but at what cost?

Here's the "cost": "socialist" systems spend half of what we do on healthcare costs and have universal coverage and no bankruptcies.

Oh boy, those Europeans and Asians are suffering mightily. Why can't they experience the joys of medical bankruptcies like we do? Oh that's right, they don't have fucking idiots called "Republicans" screwing up their countries.

Care to point out where in the UNITED STATES Constitution it grants congress the authority to deploy a government option or universal health care?

Socialists don't care about the Constitution's limits on the Federal gov't.

I'm not a socialist, not even close. But I do support "socialized" medicine.

I love it when people bring out the constitution. I often wonder how many who pull that out have actually read it and don't just quote individual amendments they've memorized because they are used in talking points?

Here, allow me to bust out part of the preamble for you all..

"promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Kthxbye. Your right, the federal government shouldn't be funding things like the arts, a war on drugs, farm subsidies (debatable I guess), military bases in so many foreign countries (some are needed though), corporate subsidies, so many of the b.s. "environmental" circle-jerk studies, bailing out the banks, etc. Some of that stuff (and more) is way outside the scope of the constitution. But health care? HEALTH CARE!??!

Health care clearly falls under providing for the general welfare of our citizens. How much more general welfare can you get???!?!

Socialized medicine is something that is constitutional. It is so blatantly obviously constitutional to be staring you in the face if you read the constitution. It's not buried anywhere. Not in an amendment somewhere. It's in the very first paragraph.

care to explain how "promote"(as defined when written) = "provide"?

Silly libs, always trying to use the "general welfare" clause to excuse any and all fed gov't programs that fall outside of their scope.

 

[BigDH01]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

care to explain how "promote"(as defined when written) = "provide"?

Silly libs, always trying to use the "general welfare" clause to excuse any and all fed gov't programs that fall outside of their scope.

Perhaps this would help then? Article I, section 8, clause 1:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

It states "provide." Your argument was used long ago and lost to a Federalist view. This isn't "silly lib," it's history.

I seem to recall having this discussion with you before. Have you simply forgotten?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: BigDH01

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

care to explain how "promote"(as defined when written) = "provide"?

Silly libs, always trying to use the "general welfare" clause to excuse any and all fed gov't programs that fall outside of their scope.

Perhaps this would help then? Article I, section 8, clause 1:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

It states "provide." Your argument was used long ago and lost to a Federalist view. This isn't "silly lib," it's history.

I seem to recall having this discussion with you before. Have you simply forgotten?

Ok, next step: please define "general welfare of the United States" using definitions from the period it was written.
Hint: it doesn't mean what you think it does so make sure you actually try this time.

 

[dawp]

Will you please point to the specific spot in the constitution where it forbids government provided health care.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: dawp
Will you please point to the specific spot in the constitution where it forbids government provided health care.

That's not how it works. The Constitution sets forth what the Fed is allowed to do and the rest(anything not specifically granted) is left to the states.

 

[dawp]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: dawp
Will you please point to the specific spot in the constitution where it forbids government provided health care.

That's not how it works. The Constitution sets forth what the Fed is allowed to do and the rest(anything not specifically granted) is left to the states.

so you can't

 

[BigDH01]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: BigDH01

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

care to explain how "promote"(as defined when written) = "provide"?

Silly libs, always trying to use the "general welfare" clause to excuse any and all fed gov't programs that fall outside of their scope.

Perhaps this would help then? Article I, section 8, clause 1:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

It states "provide." Your argument was used long ago and lost to a Federalist view. This isn't "silly lib," it's history.

I seem to recall having this discussion with you before. Have you simply forgotten?

Ok, next step: please define "general welfare of the United States" using definitions from the period it was written.
Hint: it doesn't mean what you think it does so make sure you actually try this time.

It doesn't matter what I think. It was decided in US v Butler to be a separate enumerated power granted to Congress. I tried explaining this to you last time, but you simply refuse to accept.

By the way, your question is worthless. To people like Hamilton it meant pretty much anything. Read Hamilton's Report on Manufactures and you'll see that you'd label him a Socialist these days. That was the view of the Federalists.

I know it's a futile task to ask you to read and learn, but at least quit regurgitating your fallacious arguments.

 

[marvdmartian]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
It may prevent individual bankruptcies but at what cost?

Here's the "cost": "socialist" systems spend half of what we do on healthcare costs and have universal coverage and no bankruptcies.

Oh boy, those Europeans and Asians are suffering mightily. Why can't they experience the joys of medical bankruptcies like we do? Oh that's right, they don't have fucking idiots called "Republicans" screwing up their countries.

They also have long waiting periods for the simplest procedures and exams, and doctors with no incentive to work harder, as they get paid the same no matter how many patients they cure.

Try getting an MRI in Canada or the UK sometime. Enjoy the wait. :roll:

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: BigDH01

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: BigDH01

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

care to explain how "promote"(as defined when written) = "provide"?

Silly libs, always trying to use the "general welfare" clause to excuse any and all fed gov't programs that fall outside of their scope.

Perhaps this would help then? Article I, section 8, clause 1:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

It states "provide." Your argument was used long ago and lost to a Federalist view. This isn't "silly lib," it's history.

I seem to recall having this discussion with you before. Have you simply forgotten?

Ok, next step: please define "general welfare of the United States" using definitions from the period it was written.
Hint: it doesn't mean what you think it does so make sure you actually try this time.

It doesn't matter what I think. It was decided in US v Butler to be a separate enumerated power granted to Congress. I tried explaining this to you last time, but you simply refuse to accept.

By the way, your question is worthless. To people like Hamilton it meant pretty much anything. Read Hamilton's Report on Manufactures and you'll see that you'd label him a Socialist these days. That was the view of the Federalists.

I know it's a futile task to ask you to read and learn, but at least quit regurgitating your fallacious arguments.

lol, try as you might to divert and deflect - the question still stands. The point is - you can't claim that portion allows the Feds to create UHC and/or mandate individuals buy insurance.

 

[BigDH01]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: BigDH01

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: BigDH01

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

care to explain how "promote"(as defined when written) = "provide"?

Silly libs, always trying to use the "general welfare" clause to excuse any and all fed gov't programs that fall outside of their scope.

Perhaps this would help then? Article I, section 8, clause 1:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

It states "provide." Your argument was used long ago and lost to a Federalist view. This isn't "silly lib," it's history.

I seem to recall having this discussion with you before. Have you simply forgotten?

Ok, next step: please define "general welfare of the United States" using definitions from the period it was written.
Hint: it doesn't mean what you think it does so make sure you actually try this time.

It doesn't matter what I think. It was decided in US v Butler to be a separate enumerated power granted to Congress. I tried explaining this to you last time, but you simply refuse to accept.

By the way, your question is worthless. To people like Hamilton it meant pretty much anything. Read Hamilton's Report on Manufactures and you'll see that you'd label him a Socialist these days. That was the view of the Federalists.

I know it's a futile task to ask you to read and learn, but at least quit regurgitating your fallacious arguments.

lol, try as you might to divert and deflect - the question still stands. The point is - you can't claim that portion allows the Feds to create UHC and/or mandate individuals buy insurance.

I am not deflecting. I answered your question quite concisely. It meant many different things to different groups when it was written.

I even gave you something to read if you'd like this clearly demonstrated (Hamilton's signature is found on the Constitution). You could also read the Federalist Papers.

Why can I not make this claim? As I just stated, US v Butler granted the provision to provide for the general welfare as a separate enumerated power to Congress. One could easily argue that providing better healthcare falls under this power.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: BigDH01

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: BigDH01

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: BigDH01

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

care to explain how "promote"(as defined when written) = "provide"?

Silly libs, always trying to use the "general welfare" clause to excuse any and all fed gov't programs that fall outside of their scope.

Perhaps this would help then? Article I, section 8, clause 1:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

It states "provide." Your argument was used long ago and lost to a Federalist view. This isn't "silly lib," it's history.

I seem to recall having this discussion with you before. Have you simply forgotten?

Ok, next step: please define "general welfare of the United States" using definitions from the period it was written.
Hint: it doesn't mean what you think it does so make sure you actually try this time.

It doesn't matter what I think. It was decided in US v Butler to be a separate enumerated power granted to Congress. I tried explaining this to you last time, but you simply refuse to accept.

By the way, your question is worthless. To people like Hamilton it meant pretty much anything. Read Hamilton's Report on Manufactures and you'll see that you'd label him a Socialist these days. That was the view of the Federalists.

I know it's a futile task to ask you to read and learn, but at least quit regurgitating your fallacious arguments.

lol, try as you might to divert and deflect - the question still stands. The point is - you can't claim that portion allows the Feds to create UHC and/or mandate individuals buy insurance.

I am not deflecting. I answered your question quite concisely. It meant many different things to different groups when it was written.

I even gave you something to read if you'd like this clearly demonstrated (Hamilton's signature is found on the Constitution). You could also read the Federalist Papers.

Why can I not make this claim? As I just stated, US v Butler granted the provision to provide for the general welfare as a separate enumerated power to Congress. One could easily argue that providing better healthcare falls under this power.

lol, that's rich. You suggesting "I" read the Federalist papers? Puhfrigginleeze. You must be clueless if you think I've not read and studied them.

as to the question - no you did not answer. You threw out a vague deflection.

As to the Court decision - it still doesn't provide an opening for the fed gov't to run UHC or mandate an individual purchase insurance. What you people fail to realize is that "general welfare" is NOT whatever your cause of the day is. It has limits and still must be within the specific guidelines set forth in the Constitution.

 

[0marTheZealot]

Funny how all the strict Constitutionalists took a vacation when Bush was in power and trampled all over our rights for 8 years, but come out of the woodwork to oppose the one plan that will actually make America prosper in the 21st century.

 

[BigDH01]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

lol, that's rich. You suggesting "I" read the Federalist papers? Puhfrigginleeze. You must be clueless if you think I've not read and studied them.

I know you haven't read and studied them from simply looking at your statements.

if, in a word, the Union be essential to the happiness of the people of America, is it not preposterous, to urge as an objection to a government, without which the objects of the Union cannot be attained, that such a government may derogate from the importance of the governments of the individual States? Was, then, the American Revolution effected, was the American Confederacy formed, was the precious blood of thousands spilt, and the hard-earned substance of millions lavished, not that the people of America should enjoy peace, liberty, and safety, but that the government of the individual States, that particular municipal establishments, might enjoy a certain extent of power, and be arrayed with certain dignities and attributes of sovereignty? We have heard of the impious doctrine in the Old World, that the people were made for kings, not kings for the people. Is the same doctrine to be revived in the New, in another shape that the solid happiness of the people is to be sacrificed to the views of political institutions of a different form? It is too early for politicians to presume on our forgetting that the public good, the real welfare of the great body of the people, is the supreme object to be pursued; and that no form of government whatever has any other value than as it may be fitted for the attainment of this object. Were the plan of the convention adverse to the public happiness, my voice would be, Reject the plan. Were the Union itself inconsistent with the public happiness, it would be, Abolish the Union. In like manner, as far as the sovereignty of the States cannot be reconciled to the happiness of the people, the voice of every good citizen must be, Let the former be sacrificed to the latter.

If the people desire universal health care administered by the federal government, let them have it. This is number 45, written by Madison.

as to the question - no you did not answer. You threw out a vague deflection.

No deflection. You asked what the General Welfare clause meant when it was written. I told you it meant different things to Republicans and Federalists. This is accurate. The Constitution wasn't written by a homogenuous body of individuals.

As to the Court decision - it still doesn't provide an opening for the fed gov't to run UHC or mandate an individual purchase insurance. What you people fail to realize is that "general welfare" is NOT whatever your cause of the day is. It has limits and still must be within the specific guidelines set forth in the Constitution.

Well, I see you didn't bother to look up the case either.

The clause confers a power separate and distinct from those later enumerated [,] is not restricted in meaning by the grant of them, and Congress consequently has a substantive power to tax and to appropriate, limited only by the requirement that it shall be exercised to provide for the general welfare of the United States. ? It results that the power of Congress to authorize expenditure of public moneys for public purposes is not limited by the direct grants of legislative power found in the Constitution.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: marvdmartian
They also have long waiting periods for the simplest procedures and exams, and doctors with no incentive to work harder, as they get paid the same no matter how many patients they cure.

Try getting an MRI in Canada or the UK sometime. Enjoy the wait. :roll:

If you know of any, could you please provide us with some links to middle class Canadians and British people who would prefer to have the U.S. system over their current system? Is there even a single person like that in existence in either of those two countries?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: BigDH01

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

lol, that's rich. You suggesting "I" read the Federalist papers? Puhfrigginleeze. You must be clueless if you think I've not read and studied them.

I know you haven't read and studied them from simply looking at your statements.

if, in a word, the Union be essential to the happiness of the people of America, is it not preposterous, to urge as an objection to a government, without which the objects of the Union cannot be attained, that such a government may derogate from the importance of the governments of the individual States? Was, then, the American Revolution effected, was the American Confederacy formed, was the precious blood of thousands spilt, and the hard-earned substance of millions lavished, not that the people of America should enjoy peace, liberty, and safety, but that the government of the individual States, that particular municipal establishments, might enjoy a certain extent of power, and be arrayed with certain dignities and attributes of sovereignty? We have heard of the impious doctrine in the Old World, that the people were made for kings, not kings for the people. Is the same doctrine to be revived in the New, in another shape that the solid happiness of the people is to be sacrificed to the views of political institutions of a different form? It is too early for politicians to presume on our forgetting that the public good, the real welfare of the great body of the people, is the supreme object to be pursued; and that no form of government whatever has any other value than as it may be fitted for the attainment of this object. Were the plan of the convention adverse to the public happiness, my voice would be, Reject the plan. Were the Union itself inconsistent with the public happiness, it would be, Abolish the Union. In like manner, as far as the sovereignty of the States cannot be reconciled to the happiness of the people, the voice of every good citizen must be, Let the former be sacrificed to the latter.

If the people desire universal health care administered by the federal government, let them have it. This is number 45, written by Madison.

as to the question - no you did not answer. You threw out a vague deflection.

No deflection. You asked what the General Welfare clause meant when it was written. I told you it meant different things to Republicans and Federalists. This is accurate. The Constitution wasn't written by a homogenuous body of individuals.

As to the Court decision - it still doesn't provide an opening for the fed gov't to run UHC or mandate an individual purchase insurance. What you people fail to realize is that "general welfare" is NOT whatever your cause of the day is. It has limits and still must be within the specific guidelines set forth in the Constitution.

Well, I see you didn't bother to look up the case either.

The clause confers a power separate and distinct from those later enumerated [,] is not restricted in meaning by the grant of them, and Congress consequently has a substantive power to tax and to appropriate, limited only by the requirement that it shall be exercised to provide for the general welfare of the United States. ? It results that the power of Congress to authorize expenditure of public moneys for public purposes is not limited by the direct grants of legislative power found in the Constitution.

You can think what you wish, but it's quite clear you don't have a clue about me or the Federalist papers.
lol, you think that #45 is talking about the wants of individuals and that the Feds should provide for their every want? :laugh:
No, there are definate definitions in that phrase - look them up. Your continued deflection will be noted.

The case was about taxes. The part you copied from wiki is about spending and such for "general welfare" type items. In the context we are discussing right now, there is no provision in "general welfare" that allows the Fed gov't to run UHC nor is there anything that would allow mandating individuals to purchase insurance.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: QuantumPion
Where's my universal food! And universal housing! And universal electricity! Why should I had to pay for any of these, they are even more necessary than health care!

Sorry, the idiocy level of yur question exceeds my very high patience.

Here's a hint: difference markets need different approaches.

Oil paintings do well in an unregulated market. Medical drugs do well with regulation.

Police, government run. Taxis, private - with government regulation in extreme cases like New York City.

You ask about housing - interesting market,it has its own complicated components. Want to build your hour on top of El Capitan? Sorry, the public interests says 'no'. Want the nice mansion in town? Fine, buy it in the private market. Poor? That's why there's section 8 housing the government helps with.

You ask about electricity, and it too has its own complicated approach from private companies under varying degrees of regulation to some government operations.

There are also some government programs that help the poor have a baseline of affordable electricity that work well at meeting that need, even if more would help.

Some of it works better than others, when the companies buy corruption from the government - like Bush's top donor Enron - things can not work well.

You lack an common sense with yiour inability to tell the difference between different markets and the right approach for each.

Reasons why the current systmeof healthcare is terribl have been discussed for a long time, and you are pretty hopeless if you don't get it by now.

Our healthcare system is not meeting many citizens' needs well at all, and the government's role is to act in the public interest to help fix that.

Who's against the government doing this? Those who profit greatly from the bad system, and the peopel they can dupe - that's you.