Constitution doesn’t mention health care

[Avatar4321]

How is it in my general welfare to pay for other peoples health problems? Why should I work to have to bend over for someone to take what Ive created just because someone in Washington says so?

No one has a right to someone elses labor. Im not your slave. You're not mine.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Constitution doesn’t mention health care - Las Vegas Sun

The Constitution does not mention many things we take for granted.

so dear stupid fuk---a history lesson:

Amendment IX (the Ninth Amendment) to the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, addresses rights of the people that are not specifically enumerated in the Constitution. -wikipedia

 

[Oddball]

Constitution doesn’t mention health care - Las Vegas Sun

The Constitution does not mention many things we take for granted.

so dear stupid fuk---a history lesson:

Amendment IX (the Ninth Amendment) to the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, addresses rights of the people that are not specifically enumerated in the Constitution. -wikipedia

That's the stupidest and most out of context interpretation of the 9th Amendment I've ever seen.

 

[Big Black Dog]

Who cares if its not in the Constitution?! Are you okay with families going bankrupt, with people (this one's for you BBD and children dying despite paying for health insurance because the insurance company drops their coverage due to a pre-existing condition of because the it eats into the multi-billion dollar insurance companies' profits? Where's the humanity, the compassion in allowing that to happen? Why is it all about money with you conservatives? WWJD?

The United States government does not exist to take care of people from the womb to the tomb. What ever happened to personal responsibility? I think one of the biggest problems that this country has these days is everybody has their hand out wanting a slice of the pie when they did nothing to help bake it. We have fostered this "welfare state of mind" by all the government giveaway programs and politicians who promise the moon in order to get elected. WWJD? What does that have to do with the US Constitution, and besides, you don't believe in religion anyway? Free medical care, health insurance, a house, and all the other stuff such as a free college education are not something that the Constitution states is a "right". Politicians would do well to follow the Constitution instead of trying every way they can come up with to circumvent it. They swore an oath to uphold it or doesn't that oath mean anything?

 

[DamnYankee]

And that would be a distinction without a difference.

There is a very big difference. PUBLIC health -- communicable disease, epidemics, food safety, and a host of other specialized areas, impact the WHOLE. Health care, as is being debated, impacts individuals and their families only -- their heart disease risk factors, their immunization status, their fertility and childbirth concerns. None of their health issues have an impact on society as a whole.

I didn't realize the terms of the health care debate were defined so narrowly. That aside, however, how can you contain a communicable disease without providing some type of health care to those who have it? (I'm presuming you don't want to kill them. )

You do understand the concept of "communicable" don't you?

What is a Communicable Disease?

Treatment of the infected is but one small piece in the process required to protect the health of the ENTIRE public. The protection of the public is Constitutional and is funded -- but not nearly enough. Don't hear much bitchin' about that though.

 

[Centrism'sVoice]

There is a very big difference. PUBLIC health -- communicable disease, epidemics, food safety, and a host of other specialized areas, impact the WHOLE. Health care, as is being debated, impacts individuals and their families only -- their heart disease risk factors, their immunization status, their fertility and childbirth concerns. None of their health issues have an impact on society as a whole.

I didn't realize the terms of the health care debate were defined so narrowly. That aside, however, how can you contain a communicable disease without providing some type of health care to those who have it? (I'm presuming you don't want to kill them. )

You do understand the concept of "communicable" don't you?

What is a Communicable Disease?

Treatment of the infected is but one small piece in the process required to protect the health of the ENTIRE public. The protection of the public is Constitutional and is funded -- but not nearly enough. Don't hear much bitchin' about that though.

In other words, we do have to provide treatment. Thank you; that was my only point.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Constitution doesn’t mention health care - Las Vegas Sun

The Constitution does not mention many things we take for granted.

so dear stupid fuk---a history lesson:

Amendment IX (the Ninth Amendment) to the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, addresses rights of the people that are not specifically enumerated in the Constitution. -wikipedia

That's the stupidest and most out of context interpretation of the 9th Amendment I've ever seen.

really?

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

look at a piece of text from the findlaw site (one of my favs)

while privacy is nowhere mentioned, it is one of the values served and protected by the First Amendment, through its protection of associational rights, and by the Third, the Fourth, and the Fifth Amendments as well

so again you stupid fuk: "The Constitution does not mention many things we take for granted. "

 

[Oddball]

The Constitution does not mention many things we take for granted.

so dear stupid fuk---a history lesson:

Amendment IX (the Ninth Amendment) to the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, addresses rights of the people that are not specifically enumerated in the Constitution. -wikipedia

That's the stupidest and most out of context interpretation of the 9th Amendment I've ever seen.

really?

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

look at a piece of text from the findlaw site (one of my favs)

while privacy is nowhere mentioned, it is one of the values served and protected by the First Amendment, through its protection of associational rights, and by the Third, the Fourth, and the Fifth Amendments as well

That means that the people have the rights as a matter of course, not that it's Big Daddy Big Gubbament's job is to dole out said rights.

so again you stupid fuk: "The Constitution does not mention many things we take for granted. "

Where, stupider fuck, is the enumerated power of congress or the executive to foist any of the things that "we take for granted" upon us??

That they're "taken for granted", in and of itself, is irrelevant.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

oh, now we are being foisted on by the big bad guvment? sorry dude, but the government acts in our name. It's a democratic republic we live in. Don't like it? Try and get others to agree with you for some changes.

and lottsa luck you stupid little fuk face.

 

[Oddball]

It acts in our name to protect us from aggression and fraud, not to be the aggressor and fraud.

And fuck you, asshole.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

you need a reality check

 

[Oddball]

You need an IQ greater than your shoe size.

 

[Big Black Dog]

Dude - You can't do a battle of wits with a guy that has no ammo!!! Same way with stupid. You can't fix stupid.

 

[DamnYankee]

]

I'd say that, if someone has a very communicable condition and can't afford treatment, giving them enough care to stop an epidemic is a defense expenditure.

That would be a public health issue, not a "health care" issue.

And that would be a distinction without a difference.

There is a very big difference. PUBLIC health -- communicable disease, epidemics, food safety, and a host of other specialized areas, impact the WHOLE. Health care, as is being debated, impacts individuals and their families only -- their heart disease risk factors, their immunization status, their fertility and childbirth concerns. None of their health issues have an impact on society as a whole.

I didn't realize the terms of the health care debate were defined so narrowly. That aside, however, how can you contain a communicable disease without providing some type of health care to those who have it? (I'm presuming you don't want to kill them. )

You do understand the concept of "communicable" don't you?

What is a Communicable Disease?

Treatment of the infected is but one small piece in the process required to protect the health of the ENTIRE public. The protection of the public is Constitutional and is funded -- but not nearly enough. Don't hear much bitchin' about that though.

In other words, we do have to provide treatment. Thank you; that was my only point.

Not exactly!
Did not say we didn't. What I did say was that we are under no obligation to treat EVERYONE because not all treatment falls under the auspices of PUBLIC health.

 

[Cecilie1200]

And that would be a distinction without a difference.

There is a very big difference. PUBLIC health -- communicable disease, epidemics, food safety, and a host of other specialized areas, impact the WHOLE. Health care, as is being debated, impacts individuals and their families only -- their heart disease risk factors, their immunization status, their fertility and childbirth concerns. None of their health issues have an impact on society as a whole.

I didn't realize the terms of the health care debate were defined so narrowly. That aside, however, how can you contain a communicable disease without providing some type of health care to those who have it? (I'm presuming you don't want to kill them. )

There's still a huge difference between having the CDCP come in and handle an epidemic of something, and the government providing everyday medical care for everyone in the country.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Which cost the taxpayer's money, which means that we are in fact already paying for other people's healthcare.

(And no, that fact doesn't necessarily make healthcare a right. Nor did I ever state that it was or wasn't.)

We also give poor people food stamps, in essence buying them food. Does that mean we should start providing groceries for everyone via taxpayer money?

I think you already know that I never said anything remotely like this, either in a grocery context or a health care one.

Actually, you did. You brought up a one-time, specific crisis scenario in a conversation concerning the idea of the government providing routine, everyday healthcare for every person in the country. So yes, that is VERY comparable to saying that because we provide assistance with food to people too poor to buy it all themselves, that means we should just go whole hog and buy groceries for everyone. It's also comparable to abortion defenders who want to pretend that the debate is only about women who are raped or about to die: hiding the whole, monstrous plan behind the skirts of the "hard cases".

We already take care of crisis epidemics that threaten the public health. They have no place in a debate about whether or not to socialize medicine for everyone.

 

[jillian]

Constitution doesn’t mention health care - Las Vegas Sun

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

Perhaps you want to set forth the caselaw you rely on to state that Congress cannot rely on the general welfare clause in regard to health care?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Constitution doesn’t mention health care - Las Vegas Sun

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

Perhaps you want to set forth the caselaw you rely on to state that Congress cannot rely on the general welfare clause in regard to health care?

It's called common sense, which is dying in America. And you, Jillian, would be one of the bystanders who can't even identify the victim.

 

[Oddball]

Back to that purposeful perversion of the general welfare clause, as the premise for anything and everything.

For those of you for whom English is your first language, I give you Federalist № 41 to debunk this truly asinine assertion.

 

[Old Rocks]

Constitution doesn’t mention health care - Las Vegas Sun

I have asked my liberal friends, “If I buy my health care directly from my doctor, why would you require me to pay taxes to buy health care for other people?” They usually answer, “Because everyone has a right to health care, and we are all in this together.”

My question then is, “So was I born with an obligation to work to pay for someone else’s health care?” At this point, they will say something like, “You’re already paying for other people’s health care,” or, “That’s the wrong way to look at it,” or, “That sounds selfish,” or just “Yes.”

If health care is a right, then the government must provide for it, as it does national defense and public safety and a judicial system. If it is not, then government has no more business being involved in it than it has in grocery stores or hotels or automobiles. So is health care a right?

More at link..

Constitution does not mention the CDC, NASA, or many other institutions that we have created for our benefit.
...................................................................
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, 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.
..........................................................

Seems to me that The Constitution has Health Care System covered in just those four word in red.