Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I am not offended in honest debate. What you are doing, is projecting what you have experienced as the "norm," in whatever way, and placing that onto my posts.
I have already stated that I am fine with disagreement predicated on a difference of principle. It is when a person puts party power, personal greed, apathy, ignorance, fear before the principle they claim to believe in, that I take umbrage with.
Most people of sound mind and body would not allow themselves to be mentally and physically abused. They would not put up with someone cheating on them, lying to them, and ignoring them. And yet, so many employers of this Republic put up with that very thing, when it comes to their employees. It is foolish to expect positive results from an alliance predicated on those things. And yet, election after election, people keep allowing themselves to be abused expecting a different outcome. It is the battered wife syndrome.
If the employees are allowed to keep running amok, because so many employers don't care, blinded by partisan politics, or too ignorant to know better, how will the foundation of this Republic remain intact?
"The Republicans did it.. the Democrats did it... I voted for candidate X, but he or she wasn't my first choice. They weren't even my third or fourth choice, but I held my nose. Anybody but candidate X. If talking head X or Y would promote that cause, I would get involved. I would vote for candidate X, but they don't have enough support. When they do, I will see about supporting them. The media picked the candidates. We didn't have a say." How many times have you seen or heard people say those kinds of things?
All of the aforementioned are examples of people playing the political harlot, and expecting that there won't be any dire consequences for not taking a firm stand. Political cowards. They always have the latest talking point. Their quiver is always full of excuses. And yet, they claim to want the very best for this Republic. It is always someone elses fault. They are always the victim.
I don't agree with the people espousing such cowardly excuses. At the same time, they have as much right in this Republic as I do.
We all see, hear and process the world around us from within the framework of our own experiences, BGG. What other perspective is possible? If reading your posts from within my own perspective is somehow projection and dishonest, I'm not sure any honest communication between human beings is possible.
As a matter of fact, I agree with much of what you last posted above. I also think the talking points, the media blame game, the excuses and blind unquestioning partisanship and apathy are problems. If in fact you don't see different opinions on the definition of "freedom" or "liberty" as a problem, then I have no real argument with you. I personally respect the fact that we disagree. It's healthy.
I may disagree with, and even dislike certain varying opinions on freedom and liberty from others. But as long as the other opinions are predicated on honest principle instead of the other cowardly drivel, I can respect the opinion while being firmly and fervently opposed to it.
What is really interesting in all this because someone happened to post the preamble or part of it I suppose as constitutional support for mandated healthcare. The person credited with authoring some of the preamble by most constitutional scholars is a man by the name of Gouverneur Morris who was if you read much on the subject a very devout man of faith and believed strongly in morals as the foundation of good Govt. Interestingly enough though, many considered him a Federalist along the lines of Hamiltion however, he was a strong supporter of Washington. Here are some quotes you all might enjoy,
Each state enjoys sovereign power.
This next one I find very interesting in that at least IMO speaks to the power of legislation but I'm sure some of my more liberal friends might enjoy this passage very much.
The rich will strive to establish their dominion and enslave the rest. They always did...they always will. They will have the same effect here as elsewhere, if we do not, by the power of government, keep them in their proper spheres.
Americans need never fear their government because of the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation.
During the Philadelphia Convention, he was a friend and ally of George Washington and others who favored a strong central government. Morris was elected to serve on a committee of five (chaired by William Samuel Johnson) who drafted the final language of the proposed constitution. Catherine Drinker Bowen, in Miracle at Philadelphia, called Morris the committee's "amanuensis," meaning that it was his pen that was responsible for most of the draft, as well as its final polished form.[4]
"An aristocrat to the core," Morris believed that "there never was, nor ever will be a civilized Society without an Aristocracy".[5] He also thought that common people were incapable of self-government because he feared that the poor would sell their votes to the rich. Consequently, he thought that voting should be restricted to property owners. Morris also opposed admitting new western states on an equal basis with the existing eastern states, fearing that the interior wilderness could not furnish "enlightened" statesmen to the country
The preamble is an introduction statement to the entire document. To take the introduction statement without the entire document is to take it out of context in a very big way, and reading about one of it's author's one can see from history that perhaps healthcare may not have been the first thing on their minds when it was written. Perhaps as it is written and as Jefferson suggested "general welfare" is the power to tax for that welfare and not an all encompassing statement , because if it were then he is correct in his stament that just that would render the rest of the document mute.
I'm aware that Article 1 sec. 8 has the words "general welfare" in it and as i have illustrated in many many posts on this topic you have teo schools of thought on this, one is the Madison view and the other is the Hamilton view. The Hamilton view which current legal thinking seems to adhere too since 1936 is more Federalist and believes that basically the term gives congress the power to do pretty much anything it wants under the term "general welfare". However prior to 1936 the Madison view prevailed and it's one I happen to believe it sht correct one and happen to agree with Jefferson on the matter in that if the general welfare meant to imply unlimited powers upon congress it would render every other part of the constitution mute and give congress the power to legislate anything it pleases under this clause. Let's say that congress should up and decide that it is in the general welfares interest that everyone should drive a blue car. or perhaps it's in then general welfares interest that everyone should only have one child, the clause is a there as a tax provision and is not meant as an unlimited definition of power.
"Access to affordable health care will help insure domestic tranquility, it will provide a common defense against illness and the exorbitant cost of health care, and it will indeed promote the general welfare. Nothing is more crucial to the general welfare of American citizens than their health and that requires access to affordable health care."
"Health care legislation will accomplish three essential objectives:
It will ensure that Americans have health insurance even when they lose their jobs or are between jobs.
It will ensure that Americans who suffer catastrophic illnesses will not have to lose their homes or go bankrupt in order to pay for treatment and hospitalization.
It will cover children who are out of college, but have not yet found jobs.
AndIf the legislation includes a public option, it will lower costs by offering the choice of less-costly insurance."
Progressive Nation » Blog Archive » Does The Constitution Include Health Care ForÂ*All?
See also:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/healt...-all-your-questions-on-uhc-5.html#post1422612
Some Statistics:
Healthcare « ChartingTheEconomy.Com
I have exactly one thing to say to each and every arrogant assertion you've made here: Prove it.
How about before that, you tell us on each of those points, what you'll accept as truth. Just posting "prove it" is intellectually lazy at worst and is not helping an honest debate at best.
Each of those points could be "proven" and rejected if you dont accept what the criteria is for truth.
I'm aware that Article 1 sec. 8 has the words "general welfare" in it and as i have illustrated in many many posts on this topic you have teo schools of thought on this, one is the Madison view and the other is the Hamilton view. The Hamilton view which current legal thinking seems to adhere too since 1936 is more Federalist and believes that basically the term gives congress the power to do pretty much anything it wants under the term "general welfare". However prior to 1936 the Madison view prevailed and it's one I happen to believe it sht correct one and happen to agree with Jefferson on the matter in that if the general welfare meant to imply unlimited powers upon congress it would render every other part of the constitution mute and give congress the power to legislate anything it pleases under this clause. Let's say that congress should up and decide that it is in the general welfares interest that everyone should drive a blue car. or perhaps it's in then general welfares interest that everyone should only have one child, the clause is a there as a tax provision and is not meant as an unlimited definition of power.
It would be congress' right to do so, and the Supreme Court's right to strike it down as "unconstitutional" if they so deemed.
That's why there's an election cycle every few years. If we don't like what they do we vote them out. If we DO like what they propose to do, we vote them in.
"Access to affordable health care will help insure domestic tranquility, it will provide a common defense against illness and the exorbitant cost of health care, and it will indeed promote the general welfare. Nothing is more crucial to the general welfare of American citizens than their health and that requires access to affordable health care."
"Health care legislation will accomplish three essential objectives:
It will ensure that Americans have health insurance even when they lose their jobs or are between jobs.
It will ensure that Americans who suffer catastrophic illnesses will not have to lose their homes or go bankrupt in order to pay for treatment and hospitalization.
It will cover children who are out of college, but have not yet found jobs.
AndIf the legislation includes a public option, it will lower costs by offering the choice of less-costly insurance."
Progressive Nation » Blog Archive » Does The Constitution Include Health Care ForÂ*All?
See also:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/healt...-all-your-questions-on-uhc-5.html#post1422612
Some Statistics:
Healthcare « ChartingTheEconomy.Com
Just how is tranquility gained by attempting to provide a service this country cannot afford? This is like a child that continually screams and cries in an attempt to have their parent purchase an item that cannot be afforded.
The Central Federal Government was established to provide services to WE THE PEOPLE/STATES that separately could not be attained by individual state. The "PRIMARY".....with a capital P....service that is to be provided by the Central Government is national security, such is constitutionally mandated to be the first bird that dips its beak into the tax payer coffers....that is to include a standing military and a Judicial branch that executes Federal Law that is legislated through common agreement between We the People/States, any law that is not a product of representative legislation deriving from common agreement between the legislators that are "hired" by WE The People/State to represent State Interests...is the sole property of the States/Peoples (Art. 10)....the Federal Government supercedes state law only where such legislation is drafted by common agreement...aka Federal Laws....or is in inclusive to another COMMON STATE AGREEMENT.......THE US CONSTITUTION, as such was drafted and ratified by common agreement of the STATES/WE THE PEOPLE..therefore any WORDS THAT ARE NOT SPECIFIC to that common agreement or COMMON LAW are STATE RESPONSIBILITIES. The "ONLY" other service is the regulation and construction of interstate trade, commerce, and infrastructure......ALL other services can and should be individual or STATE responsibilities.
This Idea of having the Federal Government to be a NANNY STATE was not realized or incorporated until the KING ROOSEVELT years when he specifically stacked SCOTUS with LIBERALS that began interpreting and legislating law from the bench of SCOTUS.....many such LAWS that came into effect were UNCONSTITUTIONAL but the PEOPLE/STATES turned their heads with a wink and grin because of the overall condition of the country during the great depression......that was the direct result of the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT sticking its nose into the private sector where it constitutionally held not authority to do as much. If the Government would have simply allowed the private sector to run its course it would have self corrected in as little as 18 months as was the case with the 1st recession of the early 20s...but thanks to the Federal Government what begin as a recession due to a market correction turned into a decade long DEPRESSION.....that ended only when the private industry began production again at full tilt to furnish products for self defense of the 2nd world war.
Now, some are suggesting that is the right of the Federal Government to mandate a PRIVATE SERVICE that must be preformed by the work of another and declare such a "RIGHT" of birth. No such right exists.....when the services of any group of peoples are state mandated.......this is not a right but scripted slavery, as no state holds the right to demand the services of anyone at REDUCED rates, as the supposed FREE healthcare plan calls for.
Even medicare remains solvent because the private industry over charges the private insurance companies (thanks to the federal government) to a range of overcharging up to 130-140%.....they must do this in order to make up for the mandatory medicare and welfare treatment which pays only 70-80% of the customary fee. Now the government wants the entire nation to be treated at a 70-80% rate? One gets what they pay for. Just how is one to add 49 million more patients to the system.....at mandatory reduced rates......without adding more physicians but LOSING the best and the brightest because of Government interference?
When the real numbers are crunched there is in actuality less than 10% of the nations population that does not have access to health care.......with the majority of that 10% being young adults that do not need healthcare and often choose not to PURCHASE it because they prefer to buy other products and services with their salary. A picture is painted by the media that would have you believe the numbers are inverted.
Thus we are asked to sacrifice a system that treats up 90% of the population with exceptional medical care....in order to provide a service to the other 10% that often chooses not to be covered in the first place......or are here Illegally to begin with. This entire thing is not about the best interest or tranquility of WE THE PEOPLE...but CONTROL and POWER. Are we willing to sacrifice the Elderly and their health...which is openly admitted to be the first services to be cut in order to grant the entire nation access onto the new program.....to simply give young, by majority healthy young adults...supposedly FREE SERVICES, at the expense of the entire nation?
Does anyone really expect the Federal Government to correct a problem they are responsible for causing in the first place? Or is this simply like the POWER of TAXES and the control of purse strings that are held by the politicians that dish out WE THE PEOPLES money to special pork barrel projects to put more monies into their own private bank accounts. What makes anyone believe that a Federally managed Medical System would be any different? You did take note that the politicians specifically legislated into this supposed ALL inclusive bill.....a loop hole that would allow them to keep the best PRIVATE medical coverage for themselves....no?
