For Those That Harp on the Constitution on the subject of Health Care

[Big Fitz]

Just to mention a few things related. This will probably devolve into a rant.

1. There is one constitutional basis for government health care. It is on the state level. You can have universal socialist care from cradle to grave if you so choose at the state level. Your state budget will suffer the consequences.

2. The Preamble of the constitution is not law, nor law making. It is a mission statement and should have no more value in the making of law other than a guiding principle. This is grossly misunderstood by far too many.

3. We do not have a health care crisis. We have a DEADBEAT crisis. Medical care is abundant and easy to access. What is also abundant? People saying "I'm don't want to pay for that"! Somebody has to. And until we solve this cultural Deadbeat Crisis brought on by false assumptions of entitlement and priviledge brought on by too many "participant' trophies as a kid... we are fighting an uphill battle. Life sucks get used to it. If not... get over it.

4. It is not the federal government's job to be either a business or a charity. If a state wants to, fine. They have the broad and undefined powers in the constitution, and I can move out of whatever hellhole busybody do-gooder asshat sociopaths want to create. The common good is not license to rob the people for your dilettantish predilections.

5. If the whole of the power of the federal government can be summed up in the interest of the 'common good', why did the founding fathers waste all that ink and feather quills enumerating powers? Even Madison points out in the federalist papers that the affect the National Government can have is limited strictly to the enumerated powers, and nothing more. EVERYTHING else is left to the states. So, we need to quit trying to franchise California, New Yawk and Massatwoshits way of doing government to the rest of the country.

yep... I was right. Ended in a bit of a rant. Oh well.

</rant>

 

[Big Fitz]

So what else do you consider illegal considering what we have today that is considered a Government program.

99.9% of what the federal government does. But I am guessing, it could be more.

.

Well there you have it.. That is why neotards don't want to fund anything.. They want their taxes brought down to zero.. That is why our education is underfunded.. That is why all or most civil programs are under funded.. That is why they don't want a public option for medical reform.. And still these morons call themselves a patriot..

You all are sick!! How about being a part of the solution and not the problem.. That is what a true patriot would do..

Straw man. We want the government returned to it's constitutional roots. The fact that you use an redacto in absurdum argument does not help your desire for overblown, constitutional violating government. Remember the check and balance:

National Government: Limited and Defined powers
State Governments: Broad and Undefined powers.

That is a very wise set up that's been violated constantly since 1860 to preserve the union and pretty much has set up the death of states rights. Followed by the damn abuse of the takings clause in the tax code.

But do go on. Hyperbole can be entertaining, fanciful but entertaining.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

If anyone can cite the Article and Section of the Constitution that permits the federal government to compete against the private sector regardless of the issue I would like to see it because I can not find it in my copy of the document.

In that case, anything that is public is unconstitutional in your eyes. Social Security, Medicare, Public Education System, Food Stamps, Welfare, Post Office, Prisons, etc. In fact, that would also make police forces and firefighters unconstitutional since they are going against private companies.

Congratulations on not well thought out ideas!

But here, back in reality:

The “Government-Run” Mantra | FactCheck.org

The claim that the House bill would amount to "government-run health care" suffered a blow last week, when the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the so-called "public plan" in the revised bill wouldn’t offer much in the way of competition to private insurers. But that hasn’t stopped Republicans from repeating the claim

Thank You, Come Again.

The CBO...chock full of Obama appointees, says the government run healthcare option won't offer much in the way of competition to private insurers....ya....come again?

 

[Intense]

.. California is flat broke and you should know that.. A number of states are in the same boat.. Should the people suffer because their state is broke and can't afford to help anyone??l:

How many state functions are legal? How many are constitutionally authorized?

.

Our Government Dollars at work.
State Governments Are bound by Their Own Constitutions. Separation of Powers went Two Ways. Because of that, there are areas where Our Rights are protected under the Federal Constitution, there are Areas where the Federal Government has No Authority over The States. The States are not bound by the Federal Constitution in the Same way the Federal Government is.

 

[Intense]

A good read on the split over the Powers of The Federal Government goes back to one of the most responsible for the breach in the first place. An interesting perspective here, even more than the Persons He argues against, is the comparison of this argument with the Authors own words in The Federalist Papers. That, in My opinion is the most condemning. In this first Argument Hamilton attempts to trash the Enumerated Powers concept, any time the imagination can devise a cause to be prepared for, sadly with no limit. Mr. Oligarchy did apparently appreciate the inconvenience of Self Government. It's a hard read, yet there are some shocking statements worth the effort.

Hamilton: The Constitutionality of the Bank of the United States, 1791

Federalist Papers Index

 

[Freedomlover]

Of all the posts on this thread only one attempted to answer my question of what article and section of the U.S. Constitution gives the federal government the authority to compete with the private sector in providing health insurance, or any other product or service. Several commented on the one lone attempt to take language out of context to justify a "public option" and that individual's comment was quickly taken down.

There are about 1700 insurance companies that provide healthcare policies in the country. Since the insurance industry is regulated by the states, they should open their borders, so to speak, and allow competent companies to do business in their state. This would bring about more competition and therefore, lower prices for insurance. The hard left in this country does not want this to happen because for them the whole arguement is not about healthcare, it is about control. As for me, healthcare is a very personal thing and I do not want anyone at any level of government to be privy to the state of my health. It simply is none of government's business!

By the way, my Senator could, or would not, answer my question, nor did anyone who posted to this thread. I believe I have made my point.

 

[Contumacious]

Of all the posts on this thread only one attempted to answer my question of what article and section of the U.S. Constitution gives the federal government the authority to compete with the private sector in providing health insurance, or any other product or service.

You are missing the point Vern.

The ORIGINAL United States Constitution adopted on September 17, 1787 was replaced by the Welfare/Warfare State Constitution of 1935.

The Latter States in its Preamble"

This here Constitution adopts the Communist Manifesto in its entirety. Karl Marx is now a Founding Father.

.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Yea how dare anyone "Harp" on that silly ole Constitution thingy. My God,when will people wake up and give the boot to these incompetent Socialists? Yikes!

 

[Intense]

Of all the posts on this thread only one attempted to answer my question of what article and section of the U.S. Constitution gives the federal government the authority to compete with the private sector in providing health insurance, or any other product or service. Several commented on the one lone attempt to take language out of context to justify a "public option" and that individual's comment was quickly taken down.

There are about 1700 insurance companies that provide healthcare policies in the country. Since the insurance industry is regulated by the states, they should open their borders, so to speak, and allow competent companies to do business in their state. This would bring about more competition and therefore, lower prices for insurance. The hard left in this country does not want this to happen because for them the whole arguement is not about healthcare, it is about control. As for me, healthcare is a very personal thing and I do not want anyone at any level of government to be privy to the state of my health. It simply is none of government's business!

By the way, my Senator could, or would not, answer my question, nor did anyone who posted to this thread. I believe I have made my point.

To meet Your goal either the States would have to come to an agreement, of the Federal Government would have to take it on through Legislation that requires it to happen. I think Their interests lie elsewhere.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Yea don't "harp" on that Constitution because it's only the Constitution. This is exactly why our country is a mess. Both Parties only boast about following the Constitution when they think it benefits them. The rest of the time it's all about "Come on don't harp on the Constitution." Vote em all out as soon as possible. We need some new politicians who actually care about our Constitution and Freedom. Today's crop of politicians have simply lost their way.

 

[California Girl]

Just to mention a few things related. This will probably devolve into a rant.

1. There is one constitutional basis for government health care. It is on the state level. You can have universal socialist care from cradle to grave if you so choose at the state level. Your state budget will suffer the consequences.

2. The Preamble of the constitution is not law, nor law making. It is a mission statement and should have no more value in the making of law other than a guiding principle. This is grossly misunderstood by far too many.

3. We do not have a health care crisis. We have a DEADBEAT crisis. Medical care is abundant and easy to access. What is also abundant? People saying "I'm don't want to pay for that"! Somebody has to. And until we solve this cultural Deadbeat Crisis brought on by false assumptions of entitlement and priviledge brought on by too many "participant' trophies as a kid... we are fighting an uphill battle. Life sucks get used to it. If not... get over it.

4. It is not the federal government's job to be either a business or a charity. If a state wants to, fine. They have the broad and undefined powers in the constitution, and I can move out of whatever hellhole busybody do-gooder asshat sociopaths want to create. The common good is not license to rob the people for your dilettantish predilections.

5. If the whole of the power of the federal government can be summed up in the interest of the 'common good', why did the founding fathers waste all that ink and feather quills enumerating powers? Even Madison points out in the federalist papers that the affect the National Government can have is limited strictly to the enumerated powers, and nothing more. EVERYTHING else is left to the states. So, we need to quit trying to franchise California, New Yawk and Massatwoshits way of doing government to the rest of the country.

yep... I was right. Ended in a bit of a rant. Oh well.

</rant>

I liked your rant. I hope you continue ranting at will.

 

[Big Fitz]

Just to mention a few things related. This will probably devolve into a rant.

1. There is one constitutional basis for government health care. It is on the state level. You can have universal socialist care from cradle to grave if you so choose at the state level. Your state budget will suffer the consequences.

2. The Preamble of the constitution is not law, nor law making. It is a mission statement and should have no more value in the making of law other than a guiding principle. This is grossly misunderstood by far too many.

3. We do not have a health care crisis. We have a DEADBEAT crisis. Medical care is abundant and easy to access. What is also abundant? People saying "I'm don't want to pay for that"! Somebody has to. And until we solve this cultural Deadbeat Crisis brought on by false assumptions of entitlement and priviledge brought on by too many "participant' trophies as a kid... we are fighting an uphill battle. Life sucks get used to it. If not... get over it.

4. It is not the federal government's job to be either a business or a charity. If a state wants to, fine. They have the broad and undefined powers in the constitution, and I can move out of whatever hellhole busybody do-gooder asshat sociopaths want to create. The common good is not license to rob the people for your dilettantish predilections.

5. If the whole of the power of the federal government can be summed up in the interest of the 'common good', why did the founding fathers waste all that ink and feather quills enumerating powers? Even Madison points out in the federalist papers that the affect the National Government can have is limited strictly to the enumerated powers, and nothing more. EVERYTHING else is left to the states. So, we need to quit trying to franchise California, New Yawk and Massatwoshits way of doing government to the rest of the country.

yep... I was right. Ended in a bit of a rant. Oh well.

</rant>

I liked your rant. I hope you continue ranting at will.

Oh good. I haven't been able to stop myself yet. LOL

 

[saveliberty]

Just to mention a few things related. This will probably devolve into a rant.

1. There is one constitutional basis for government health care. It is on the state level. You can have universal socialist care from cradle to grave if you so choose at the state level. Your state budget will suffer the consequences.

2. The Preamble of the constitution is not law, nor law making. It is a mission statement and should have no more value in the making of law other than a guiding principle. This is grossly misunderstood by far too many.

3. We do not have a health care crisis. We have a DEADBEAT crisis. Medical care is abundant and easy to access. What is also abundant? People saying "I'm don't want to pay for that"! Somebody has to. And until we solve this cultural Deadbeat Crisis brought on by false assumptions of entitlement and priviledge brought on by too many "participant' trophies as a kid... we are fighting an uphill battle. Life sucks get used to it. If not... get over it.

4. It is not the federal government's job to be either a business or a charity. If a state wants to, fine. They have the broad and undefined powers in the constitution, and I can move out of whatever hellhole busybody do-gooder asshat sociopaths want to create. The common good is not license to rob the people for your dilettantish predilections.

5. If the whole of the power of the federal government can be summed up in the interest of the 'common good', why did the founding fathers waste all that ink and feather quills enumerating powers? Even Madison points out in the federalist papers that the affect the National Government can have is limited strictly to the enumerated powers, and nothing more. EVERYTHING else is left to the states. So, we need to quit trying to franchise California, New Yawk and Massatwoshits way of doing government to the rest of the country.
yep... I was right. Ended in a bit of a rant. Oh well.

</rant>

Franchise example? No. Example of why it doesn't work? Oh yeah.

 

[Big Fitz]

Franchise example? No. Example of why it doesn't work? Oh yeah.

I'm sorry, I'm having coffee/syntax language failure. Could you elaborate what you mean? Are you agreeing or disagreeing with my assessment of the nannystate nazis in the federal government?

 

[Big Fitz]

Franchise example? No. Example of why it doesn't work? Oh yeah.

I'm sorry, I'm having coffee/syntax language failure. Could you elaborate what you mean? Are you agreeing or disagreeing with my assessment of the nannystate nazis in the federal government?

 

[saveliberty]

Franchise example? No. Example of why it doesn't work? Oh yeah.

I'm sorry, I'm having coffee/syntax language failure. Could you elaborate what you mean? Are you agreeing or disagreeing with my assessment of the nannystate nazis in the federal government?

I'm with you whether you make Whitefish Bay or not.

 

[Big Fitz]

Franchise example? No. Example of why it doesn't work? Oh yeah.

I'm sorry, I'm having coffee/syntax language failure. Could you elaborate what you mean? Are you agreeing or disagreeing with my assessment of the nannystate nazis in the federal government?

I'm with you whether you make Whitefish Bay or not.

You can be on the Arthur M. Anderson.... with me but safely 15 miles behind. I remember watching her lock through the Soo one day and going... wow... that ship was the last to be with and talk to the Fitz that night. kinda like meeting Jackie Kennedy or something you know?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Just to mention a few things related. This will probably devolve into a rant.

1. There is one constitutional basis for government health care. It is on the state level. You can have universal socialist care from cradle to grave if you so choose at the state level. Your state budget will suffer the consequences.

2. The Preamble of the constitution is not law, nor law making. It is a mission statement and should have no more value in the making of law other than a guiding principle. This is grossly misunderstood by far too many.

3. We do not have a health care crisis. We have a DEADBEAT crisis. Medical care is abundant and easy to access. What is also abundant? People saying "I'm don't want to pay for that"! Somebody has to. And until we solve this cultural Deadbeat Crisis brought on by false assumptions of entitlement and priviledge brought on by too many "participant' trophies as a kid... we are fighting an uphill battle. Life sucks get used to it. If not... get over it.

4. It is not the federal government's job to be either a business or a charity. If a state wants to, fine. They have the broad and undefined powers in the constitution, and I can move out of whatever hellhole busybody do-gooder asshat sociopaths want to create. The common good is not license to rob the people for your dilettantish predilections.

5. If the whole of the power of the federal government can be summed up in the interest of the 'common good', why did the founding fathers waste all that ink and feather quills enumerating powers? Even Madison points out in the federalist papers that the affect the National Government can have is limited strictly to the enumerated powers, and nothing more. EVERYTHING else is left to the states. So, we need to quit trying to franchise California, New Yawk and Massatwoshits way of doing government to the rest of the country.

yep... I was right. Ended in a bit of a rant. Oh well.

</rant>

I liked your rant. I hope you continue ranting at will.

Oh good. I haven't been able to stop myself yet. LOL

Self-restraint is not highly prized around here, so don't let it hinder you any.

 

[Big Fitz]

I liked your rant. I hope you continue ranting at will.

Oh good. I haven't been able to stop myself yet. LOL

Self-restraint is not highly prized around here, so don't let it hinder you any.

Why that's good to know. BTW, Your avatar made me larf. Love that Lolcat.

 

[ihopehefails]

I liked your rant. I hope you continue ranting at will.

Oh good. I haven't been able to stop myself yet. LOL

Self-restraint is not highly prized around here, so don't let it hinder you any.

Yes, most of the legal power over our own lives belongs to the state we reside in and even then that is restricted by individual state constitutions. Its a concept that has long been forgotten but should be revived if we are to win back our freedom in this country.