Historical Question - Has anyone ever tried to add a right to healthcare as a constitutional amend.?

[Dale Smith]

Hi AndyT while I believe that is the correct process required
to expand jurisdiction of federal govt,
unfortunately it seems the very people who believe that health care is a right
tend not to be Constitutionalists, and don't believe they need to go through
this Constitutional step. Because it is such an engrained belief, advocates
believe this is a natural right, any laws obstructing it are violations of basic human rights,
and thus can be 'struck down' merely by voting by majority rule or overruling by courts.

The Constitutionalists who would support the process of passing
a Constitutional Amendment first tend NOT to believe that health care is
a human right. I believe this explains why the push for health care reform
took this direction: conservatives believe in limited govt where things must be Constitutional for govt to do them; liberals believe in using govt to establish the will of the people, so their beliefs and agenda are pushed through the political and legal system UNTIL they are proven and struck down as unconstitutional "after the fact."

The next best alternative I've run across, is someone suggested on another forum:
why not hold a vote in Congress BEFORE such innovative or contested legislation
is passed whether or not that bill is within the Constitutional powers and limits on federal govt.

That seems a logical way to approach this.

Had Congress first voted on whether ACA was even Constitutional or not,
it could be voted down. Then the advocates of ACA can take that vote NO
as a STEP that then calls for passing a Constitutional Amendment in order
to ADD that power to govt. The opponents can then express their opinion
more clearly that the DUTY itself is outside Constitutional powers of federal govt,
and THAT is the reason for objection (NOT because of the actual content
and purpose promoted as to provide more affordable accessible health care)

Providing for the general welfare is in our Constitution. Providing for the general warfare is not.

Guess what the right wing complains about most, especially if the poor may receive some benefit.

As our hospitals are overrun with illegals squirting out anchor babies and come over for treatment that their own government will not provide for them? Somehow it is MY responsibility to pay more in taxes and higher premiums to subsidize those that abuse the system. You really are a naive little fuckwad.......probably one of those that suck off the public teat as well.

I hear those illegals are responsible for Chem Trails

You are too fucking deaf to "hear". I shit turds that are smarter than you......fact.

 

[danielpalos]

I'm just curious. There's been thousands of ideas for amendments discussed, but has anyone ever in US history tried to go through the proposal/ratify method and actually amend the Constitution to add a right to health care? Thanks so much.

Health care is part of the general welfare. It is only about politics.

The right wing only complains when the poor may benefit.

Where Is The Outrage Over Corporate Welfare?

our current healthcare system doesnt fit the criteria of a "general welfare"

Yes, it does. General means comprehensive, not major or common.

 

[danielpalos]

Hi AndyT while I believe that is the correct process required
to expand jurisdiction of federal govt,
unfortunately it seems the very people who believe that health care is a right
tend not to be Constitutionalists, and don't believe they need to go through
this Constitutional step. Because it is such an engrained belief, advocates
believe this is a natural right, any laws obstructing it are violations of basic human rights,
and thus can be 'struck down' merely by voting by majority rule or overruling by courts.

The Constitutionalists who would support the process of passing
a Constitutional Amendment first tend NOT to believe that health care is
a human right. I believe this explains why the push for health care reform
took this direction: conservatives believe in limited govt where things must be Constitutional for govt to do them; liberals believe in using govt to establish the will of the people, so their beliefs and agenda are pushed through the political and legal system UNTIL they are proven and struck down as unconstitutional "after the fact."

The next best alternative I've run across, is someone suggested on another forum:
why not hold a vote in Congress BEFORE such innovative or contested legislation
is passed whether or not that bill is within the Constitutional powers and limits on federal govt.

That seems a logical way to approach this.

Had Congress first voted on whether ACA was even Constitutional or not,
it could be voted down. Then the advocates of ACA can take that vote NO
as a STEP that then calls for passing a Constitutional Amendment in order
to ADD that power to govt. The opponents can then express their opinion
more clearly that the DUTY itself is outside Constitutional powers of federal govt,
and THAT is the reason for objection (NOT because of the actual content
and purpose promoted as to provide more affordable accessible health care)

Providing for the general welfare is in our Constitution. Providing for the general warfare is not.

Guess what the right wing complains about most, especially if the poor may receive some benefit.

As our hospitals are overrun with illegals squirting out anchor babies and come over for treatment that their own government will not provide for them? Somehow it is MY responsibility to pay more in taxes and higher premiums to subsidize those that abuse the system. You really are a naive little fuckwad.......probably one of those that suck off the public teat as well.

I am a federalist on the left. It is practically, federal doctrine to not take the right wing seriously about politics or the law.

Health care is part of the general welfare. It is only about politics.

The right wing only complains when the poor may benefit.

Where Is The Outrage Over Corporate Welfare?

 

[BuckToothMoron]

I'm just curious. There's been thousands of ideas for amendments discussed, but has anyone ever in US history tried to go through the proposal/ratify method and actually amend the Constitution to add a right to health care? Thanks so much.

There is no need to do that, the Libs have read the constitution while wearing their magic stupid hats, and they say affordable healthcare is a right.

 

[rightwinger]

Hi AndyT while I believe that is the correct process required
to expand jurisdiction of federal govt,
unfortunately it seems the very people who believe that health care is a right
tend not to be Constitutionalists, and don't believe they need to go through
this Constitutional step. Because it is such an engrained belief, advocates
believe this is a natural right, any laws obstructing it are violations of basic human rights,
and thus can be 'struck down' merely by voting by majority rule or overruling by courts.

The Constitutionalists who would support the process of passing
a Constitutional Amendment first tend NOT to believe that health care is
a human right. I believe this explains why the push for health care reform
took this direction: conservatives believe in limited govt where things must be Constitutional for govt to do them; liberals believe in using govt to establish the will of the people, so their beliefs and agenda are pushed through the political and legal system UNTIL they are proven and struck down as unconstitutional "after the fact."

The next best alternative I've run across, is someone suggested on another forum:
why not hold a vote in Congress BEFORE such innovative or contested legislation
is passed whether or not that bill is within the Constitutional powers and limits on federal govt.

That seems a logical way to approach this.

Had Congress first voted on whether ACA was even Constitutional or not,
it could be voted down. Then the advocates of ACA can take that vote NO
as a STEP that then calls for passing a Constitutional Amendment in order
to ADD that power to govt. The opponents can then express their opinion
more clearly that the DUTY itself is outside Constitutional powers of federal govt,
and THAT is the reason for objection (NOT because of the actual content
and purpose promoted as to provide more affordable accessible health care)

Providing for the general welfare is in our Constitution. Providing for the general warfare is not.

Guess what the right wing complains about most, especially if the poor may receive some benefit.

As our hospitals are overrun with illegals squirting out anchor babies and come over for treatment that their own government will not provide for them? Somehow it is MY responsibility to pay more in taxes and higher premiums to subsidize those that abuse the system. You really are a naive little fuckwad.......probably one of those that suck off the public teat as well.

I hear those illegals are responsible for Chem Trails

You are too fucking deaf to "hear". I shit turds that are smarter than you......fact.

Dale, you are such a nutcase, you probably hold conversations with your intelligent turds

 

[Dale Smith]

Hi AndyT while I believe that is the correct process required
to expand jurisdiction of federal govt,
unfortunately it seems the very people who believe that health care is a right
tend not to be Constitutionalists, and don't believe they need to go through
this Constitutional step. Because it is such an engrained belief, advocates
believe this is a natural right, any laws obstructing it are violations of basic human rights,
and thus can be 'struck down' merely by voting by majority rule or overruling by courts.

The Constitutionalists who would support the process of passing
a Constitutional Amendment first tend NOT to believe that health care is
a human right. I believe this explains why the push for health care reform
took this direction: conservatives believe in limited govt where things must be Constitutional for govt to do them; liberals believe in using govt to establish the will of the people, so their beliefs and agenda are pushed through the political and legal system UNTIL they are proven and struck down as unconstitutional "after the fact."

The next best alternative I've run across, is someone suggested on another forum:
why not hold a vote in Congress BEFORE such innovative or contested legislation
is passed whether or not that bill is within the Constitutional powers and limits on federal govt.

That seems a logical way to approach this.

Had Congress first voted on whether ACA was even Constitutional or not,
it could be voted down. Then the advocates of ACA can take that vote NO
as a STEP that then calls for passing a Constitutional Amendment in order
to ADD that power to govt. The opponents can then express their opinion
more clearly that the DUTY itself is outside Constitutional powers of federal govt,
and THAT is the reason for objection (NOT because of the actual content
and purpose promoted as to provide more affordable accessible health care)

Providing for the general welfare is in our Constitution. Providing for the general warfare is not.

Guess what the right wing complains about most, especially if the poor may receive some benefit.

As our hospitals are overrun with illegals squirting out anchor babies and come over for treatment that their own government will not provide for them? Somehow it is MY responsibility to pay more in taxes and higher premiums to subsidize those that abuse the system. You really are a naive little fuckwad.......probably one of those that suck off the public teat as well.

I am a federalist on the left. It is practically, federal doctrine to not take the right wing seriously about politics or the law.

Health care is part of the general welfare. It is only about politics.

The right wing only complains when the poor may benefit.

Where Is The Outrage Over Corporate Welfare?

We don't have "laws", we have acts, statutes, codes, ordinances and what they call "public policy" because corporations cannot pass laws under the Uniform Commercial Code which is all about commerce and cohesion contracts and unless you understand Black's Law dictionary? You have no hope of defending yourself in an admiralty court.

 

[TNHarley]

I'm just curious. There's been thousands of ideas for amendments discussed, but has anyone ever in US history tried to go through the proposal/ratify method and actually amend the Constitution to add a right to health care? Thanks so much.

Health care is part of the general welfare. It is only about politics.

The right wing only complains when the poor may benefit.

Where Is The Outrage Over Corporate Welfare?

our current healthcare system doesnt fit the criteria of a "general welfare"

Yes, it does. General means comprehensive, not major or common.

Basically, yes.
So how do you understand that and still think our current system of healthcare fits that? Have you tried actually thinking about it?

 

[danielpalos]

Hi AndyT while I believe that is the correct process required
to expand jurisdiction of federal govt,
unfortunately it seems the very people who believe that health care is a right
tend not to be Constitutionalists, and don't believe they need to go through
this Constitutional step. Because it is such an engrained belief, advocates
believe this is a natural right, any laws obstructing it are violations of basic human rights,
and thus can be 'struck down' merely by voting by majority rule or overruling by courts.

The Constitutionalists who would support the process of passing
a Constitutional Amendment first tend NOT to believe that health care is
a human right. I believe this explains why the push for health care reform
took this direction: conservatives believe in limited govt where things must be Constitutional for govt to do them; liberals believe in using govt to establish the will of the people, so their beliefs and agenda are pushed through the political and legal system UNTIL they are proven and struck down as unconstitutional "after the fact."

The next best alternative I've run across, is someone suggested on another forum:
why not hold a vote in Congress BEFORE such innovative or contested legislation
is passed whether or not that bill is within the Constitutional powers and limits on federal govt.

That seems a logical way to approach this.

Had Congress first voted on whether ACA was even Constitutional or not,
it could be voted down. Then the advocates of ACA can take that vote NO
as a STEP that then calls for passing a Constitutional Amendment in order
to ADD that power to govt. The opponents can then express their opinion
more clearly that the DUTY itself is outside Constitutional powers of federal govt,
and THAT is the reason for objection (NOT because of the actual content
and purpose promoted as to provide more affordable accessible health care)

Providing for the general welfare is in our Constitution. Providing for the general warfare is not.

Guess what the right wing complains about most, especially if the poor may receive some benefit.

As our hospitals are overrun with illegals squirting out anchor babies and come over for treatment that their own government will not provide for them? Somehow it is MY responsibility to pay more in taxes and higher premiums to subsidize those that abuse the system. You really are a naive little fuckwad.......probably one of those that suck off the public teat as well.

I am a federalist on the left. It is practically, federal doctrine to not take the right wing seriously about politics or the law.

Health care is part of the general welfare. It is only about politics.

The right wing only complains when the poor may benefit.

Where Is The Outrage Over Corporate Welfare?

We don't have "laws", we have acts, statutes, codes, ordinances and what they call "public policy" because corporations cannot pass laws under the Uniform Commercial Code which is all about commerce and cohesion contracts and unless you understand Black's Law dictionary? You have no hope of defending yourself in an admiralty court.

How about in landlocked States?

 

[BuckToothMoron]

Hi AndyT while I believe that is the correct process required
to expand jurisdiction of federal govt,
unfortunately it seems the very people who believe that health care is a right
tend not to be Constitutionalists, and don't believe they need to go through
this Constitutional step. Because it is such an engrained belief, advocates
believe this is a natural right, any laws obstructing it are violations of basic human rights,
and thus can be 'struck down' merely by voting by majority rule or overruling by courts.

The Constitutionalists who would support the process of passing
a Constitutional Amendment first tend NOT to believe that health care is
a human right. I believe this explains why the push for health care reform
took this direction: conservatives believe in limited govt where things must be Constitutional for govt to do them; liberals believe in using govt to establish the will of the people, so their beliefs and agenda are pushed through the political and legal system UNTIL they are proven and struck down as unconstitutional "after the fact."

The next best alternative I've run across, is someone suggested on another forum:
why not hold a vote in Congress BEFORE such innovative or contested legislation
is passed whether or not that bill is within the Constitutional powers and limits on federal govt.

That seems a logical way to approach this.

Had Congress first voted on whether ACA was even Constitutional or not,
it could be voted down. Then the advocates of ACA can take that vote NO
as a STEP that then calls for passing a Constitutional Amendment in order
to ADD that power to govt. The opponents can then express their opinion
more clearly that the DUTY itself is outside Constitutional powers of federal govt,
and THAT is the reason for objection (NOT because of the actual content
and purpose promoted as to provide more affordable accessible health care)

That is a really bad idea!
It’s not the job of congress to decide what is or isn’t constitutional. That is clearly the judicial branch’s job. Nor is it the job of SCOTUS to write or amend laws. Had SCOTUS not declared the individual mandate of the ACA to be a tax, WHEN IT WAS CLEARLY WRITTEN AS A PENALTY, then ACA would have been struck down. SCOTUS should have judged the law the way it was written, and not amend it by changing was is intended to be a penalty to a tax. Allowing one branch to do the others’ job removes the checks and balances system.

Besides, which congress person do you think would vote for a bill they thought was unconstitutional? In other words, those who voted ACA ( even tho they didn’t read it or understand it) clearly presumed it to be constitutional.

Yea, it’s a horrible idea.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Health care is part of the general welfare.

No, it isn't

 

[MadChemist]

Dr. Ron Paul, the champion of the constitution, on why healthcare is not a right...

LOL...Ron Freak'n Paul???

The man who when asked about someone who didn't have healthcare replied....Let him die, he made his choice

Yes, Ron Paul.

A great man who understands how things work.

Some with healthcare skips a colonoscopy because he does not like the procedure. Never gets one even after 50. At 55 he is diagnosed with colon cancer. Now, his insurance is going to pay big money for his treatment and care. They do, but it's to far along. Insurance spends more time fighting other cancers and finally providing Hospice while he dies.

He made his choice. And he died.

Exactly why Ron Paul was laughed off the stage

A doctor who says....Let em die

Some doctor

Soooooo.....no real argument.

And no....that isn't why Paul was laughed off the stage.

My example was of someone who not only made a choice and died, but cost the system a lot of money while he did it.

How is it that your reply applys to my post at all ?

 

[MadChemist]

Hi AndyT while I believe that is the correct process required
to expand jurisdiction of federal govt,
unfortunately it seems the very people who believe that health care is a right
tend not to be Constitutionalists, and don't believe they need to go through
this Constitutional step. Because it is such an engrained belief, advocates
believe this is a natural right, any laws obstructing it are violations of basic human rights,
and thus can be 'struck down' merely by voting by majority rule or overruling by courts.

The Constitutionalists who would support the process of passing
a Constitutional Amendment first tend NOT to believe that health care is
a human right. I believe this explains why the push for health care reform
took this direction: conservatives believe in limited govt where things must be Constitutional for govt to do them; liberals believe in using govt to establish the will of the people, so their beliefs and agenda are pushed through the political and legal system UNTIL they are proven and struck down as unconstitutional "after the fact."

The next best alternative I've run across, is someone suggested on another forum:
why not hold a vote in Congress BEFORE such innovative or contested legislation
is passed whether or not that bill is within the Constitutional powers and limits on federal govt.

That seems a logical way to approach this.

Had Congress first voted on whether ACA was even Constitutional or not,
it could be voted down. Then the advocates of ACA can take that vote NO
as a STEP that then calls for passing a Constitutional Amendment in order
to ADD that power to govt. The opponents can then express their opinion
more clearly that the DUTY itself is outside Constitutional powers of federal govt,
and THAT is the reason for objection (NOT because of the actual content
and purpose promoted as to provide more affordable accessible health care)

Providing for the general welfare is in our Constitution. Providing for the general warfare is not.

Guess what the right wing complains about most, especially if the poor may receive some benefit.

You seem to not understand the purpose of the General Welfare Clause.

It is not a call or a decree for the General Welfare of the people.

It is a statement that allows the federal government to do what they need to do in order to accomplish their specifically enumerated powers.

 

[MadChemist]

Hi AndyT while I believe that is the correct process required
to expand jurisdiction of federal govt,
unfortunately it seems the very people who believe that health care is a right
tend not to be Constitutionalists, and don't believe they need to go through
this Constitutional step. Because it is such an engrained belief, advocates
believe this is a natural right, any laws obstructing it are violations of basic human rights,
and thus can be 'struck down' merely by voting by majority rule or overruling by courts.

The Constitutionalists who would support the process of passing
a Constitutional Amendment first tend NOT to believe that health care is
a human right. I believe this explains why the push for health care reform
took this direction: conservatives believe in limited govt where things must be Constitutional for govt to do them; liberals believe in using govt to establish the will of the people, so their beliefs and agenda are pushed through the political and legal system UNTIL they are proven and struck down as unconstitutional "after the fact."

The next best alternative I've run across, is someone suggested on another forum:
why not hold a vote in Congress BEFORE such innovative or contested legislation
is passed whether or not that bill is within the Constitutional powers and limits on federal govt.

That seems a logical way to approach this.

Had Congress first voted on whether ACA was even Constitutional or not,
it could be voted down. Then the advocates of ACA can take that vote NO
as a STEP that then calls for passing a Constitutional Amendment in order
to ADD that power to govt. The opponents can then express their opinion
more clearly that the DUTY itself is outside Constitutional powers of federal govt,
and THAT is the reason for objection (NOT because of the actual content
and purpose promoted as to provide more affordable accessible health care)

Providing for the general welfare is in our Constitution. Providing for the general warfare is not.

Guess what the right wing complains about most, especially if the poor may receive some benefit.

As our hospitals are overrun with illegals squirting out anchor babies and come over for treatment that their own government will not provide for them? Somehow it is MY responsibility to pay more in taxes and higher premiums to subsidize those that abuse the system. You really are a naive little fuckwad.......probably one of those that suck off the public teat as well.

I am a federalist on the left. It is practically, federal doctrine to not take the right wing seriously about politics or the law.

Health care is part of the general welfare. It is only about politics.

The right wing only complains when the poor may benefit.

Where Is The Outrage Over Corporate Welfare?

Sorry, but as much as you want it to be so...it isn't. That claim didn't exist for 200 years for a reason.

Now, in the past 10 years, it became so.......

That seems very very convenient.

 

[danielpalos]

I'm just curious. There's been thousands of ideas for amendments discussed, but has anyone ever in US history tried to go through the proposal/ratify method and actually amend the Constitution to add a right to health care? Thanks so much.

Health care is part of the general welfare. It is only about politics.

The right wing only complains when the poor may benefit.

Where Is The Outrage Over Corporate Welfare?

our current healthcare system doesnt fit the criteria of a "general welfare"

Yes, it does. General means comprehensive, not major or common.

Basically, yes.
So how do you understand that and still think our current system of healthcare fits that? Have you tried actually thinking about it?

The democrats actually got health care reform passed. The right wing still has nothing but repeal.

 

[Natural Citizen]

General Welfare Clause is properly explained here - Principle 5. Limited Government

Principles 3 and 4 are referenced in Principle 5 and may be referenced here for clarity - The Twelve Basic American Principles

Have a nice day, all.

 

[danielpalos]

Health care is part of the general welfare.

No, it isn't

Yes, it is.

 

[danielpalos]

Hi AndyT while I believe that is the correct process required
to expand jurisdiction of federal govt,
unfortunately it seems the very people who believe that health care is a right
tend not to be Constitutionalists, and don't believe they need to go through
this Constitutional step. Because it is such an engrained belief, advocates
believe this is a natural right, any laws obstructing it are violations of basic human rights,
and thus can be 'struck down' merely by voting by majority rule or overruling by courts.

The Constitutionalists who would support the process of passing
a Constitutional Amendment first tend NOT to believe that health care is
a human right. I believe this explains why the push for health care reform
took this direction: conservatives believe in limited govt where things must be Constitutional for govt to do them; liberals believe in using govt to establish the will of the people, so their beliefs and agenda are pushed through the political and legal system UNTIL they are proven and struck down as unconstitutional "after the fact."

The next best alternative I've run across, is someone suggested on another forum:
why not hold a vote in Congress BEFORE such innovative or contested legislation
is passed whether or not that bill is within the Constitutional powers and limits on federal govt.

That seems a logical way to approach this.

Had Congress first voted on whether ACA was even Constitutional or not,
it could be voted down. Then the advocates of ACA can take that vote NO
as a STEP that then calls for passing a Constitutional Amendment in order
to ADD that power to govt. The opponents can then express their opinion
more clearly that the DUTY itself is outside Constitutional powers of federal govt,
and THAT is the reason for objection (NOT because of the actual content
and purpose promoted as to provide more affordable accessible health care)

Providing for the general welfare is in our Constitution. Providing for the general warfare is not.

Guess what the right wing complains about most, especially if the poor may receive some benefit.

You seem to not understand the purpose of the General Welfare Clause.

It is not a call or a decree for the General Welfare of the people.

It is a statement that allows the federal government to do what they need to do in order to accomplish their specifically enumerated powers.

General means comprehensive, not major or common.

 

[danielpalos]

Hi AndyT while I believe that is the correct process required
to expand jurisdiction of federal govt,
unfortunately it seems the very people who believe that health care is a right
tend not to be Constitutionalists, and don't believe they need to go through
this Constitutional step. Because it is such an engrained belief, advocates
believe this is a natural right, any laws obstructing it are violations of basic human rights,
and thus can be 'struck down' merely by voting by majority rule or overruling by courts.

The Constitutionalists who would support the process of passing
a Constitutional Amendment first tend NOT to believe that health care is
a human right. I believe this explains why the push for health care reform
took this direction: conservatives believe in limited govt where things must be Constitutional for govt to do them; liberals believe in using govt to establish the will of the people, so their beliefs and agenda are pushed through the political and legal system UNTIL they are proven and struck down as unconstitutional "after the fact."

The next best alternative I've run across, is someone suggested on another forum:
why not hold a vote in Congress BEFORE such innovative or contested legislation
is passed whether or not that bill is within the Constitutional powers and limits on federal govt.

That seems a logical way to approach this.

Had Congress first voted on whether ACA was even Constitutional or not,
it could be voted down. Then the advocates of ACA can take that vote NO
as a STEP that then calls for passing a Constitutional Amendment in order
to ADD that power to govt. The opponents can then express their opinion
more clearly that the DUTY itself is outside Constitutional powers of federal govt,
and THAT is the reason for objection (NOT because of the actual content
and purpose promoted as to provide more affordable accessible health care)

Providing for the general welfare is in our Constitution. Providing for the general warfare is not.

Guess what the right wing complains about most, especially if the poor may receive some benefit.

As our hospitals are overrun with illegals squirting out anchor babies and come over for treatment that their own government will not provide for them? Somehow it is MY responsibility to pay more in taxes and higher premiums to subsidize those that abuse the system. You really are a naive little fuckwad.......probably one of those that suck off the public teat as well.

I am a federalist on the left. It is practically, federal doctrine to not take the right wing seriously about politics or the law.

Health care is part of the general welfare. It is only about politics.

The right wing only complains when the poor may benefit.

Where Is The Outrage Over Corporate Welfare?

Sorry, but as much as you want it to be so...it isn't. That claim didn't exist for 200 years for a reason.

Now, in the past 10 years, it became so.......
very convenient.

I don't think so; progress is not always that easy and convenient.

 

[TNHarley]

I'm just curious. There's been thousands of ideas for amendments discussed, but has anyone ever in US history tried to go through the proposal/ratify method and actually amend the Constitution to add a right to health care? Thanks so much.

Health care is part of the general welfare. It is only about politics.

The right wing only complains when the poor may benefit.

Where Is The Outrage Over Corporate Welfare?

our current healthcare system doesnt fit the criteria of a "general welfare"

Yes, it does. General means comprehensive, not major or common.

Basically, yes.
So how do you understand that and still think our current system of healthcare fits that? Have you tried actually thinking about it?

The democrats actually got health care reform passed. The right wing still has nothing but repeal.

lol burnout

 

[Natural Citizen]

Health care is part of the general welfare.

No, it isn't

Yes, it is.

You're out of your league on this one. I've provided you the means to read and grasp what the General Welfare Clause means. Go do it and get back to us. Psst....