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

[danielpalos]

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

lol drugless wonder

 

[danielpalos]

Health care is part of the general welfare.

No, it isn't

Yes, it is.[/QUOT

You're out of your league on this one. Psst....

Projecting much? You have nothing but an appeal to ignorance. It is what the republican doctrine is good for.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Health care is part of the general welfare.

No, it isn't

Yes, it is.[/QUOT

You're out of your league on this one. Psst....

Projecting much? You have nothing but an appeal to ignorance. It is what the republican doctrine is good for.

You're not here for the hunting, are you?

 

[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.

General means comprehensive, not major or common.

Sorry....but just you saying it does not make it so.

It wasn't that way for over 200 years. But....NOW it is ?

 

[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.......
very convenient.

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

That is no argument for healthcare falling under the General Welfare Clause.

It is more an argument for conveniently using General Welfare to accomplish your ends. Regardless of what the truth might be.

 

[danielpalos]

Health care is part of the general welfare.

No, it isn't

Yes, it is.[/QUOT

You're out of your league on this one. Psst....

Projecting much? You have nothing but an appeal to ignorance. It is what the republican doctrine is good for.

You're not here for the hunting, are you?

lol. i have more than, nothing but repeal.

Health care is part of the general welfare. 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.

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.

Sorry....but just you saying it does not make it so.

It wasn't that way for over 200 years. But....NOW it is ?

Projecting much. Words have meaning. General is not major or common.

Why do believe health care is not part of the general welfare?

Do you also believe the common defense encompass the general warfare.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

That is no argument for healthcare falling under the General Welfare Clause.

It is more an argument for conveniently using General Welfare to accomplish your ends. Regardless of what the truth might be.

Only in a vacuum of special pleading. Why whine about income taxes and make it political, right wingers.

 

[MadChemist]

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.

That is no argument for healthcare falling under the General Welfare Clause.

It is more an argument for conveniently using General Welfare to accomplish your ends. Regardless of what the truth might be.

Only in a vacuum of special pleading. Why whine about income taxes and make it political, right wingers.

When your argument make sense, I'll respond. Or you could choose to connect the dots.

Otherwise, you continue to show that you have no argument and that hiding behind the General Welfare Clause is just a way of getting what you want.....regardless of the truth.

 

[danielpalos]

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

 

[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.

General means comprehensive, not major or common.

Sorry....but just you saying it does not make it so.

It wasn't that way for over 200 years. But....NOW it is ?

Projecting much. Words have meaning. General is not major or common.

Why do believe health care is not part of the general welfare?

Do you also believe the common defense encompass the general warfare.

200 years of history is a pretty strong indication of what was.

Everyone understood the word General for what it meant in that context.

You lose again.

 

[MadChemist]

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

Keep dreaming.

Or maybe you can show where Madison said that.

 

[danielpalos]

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

Keep dreaming.

Or maybe you can show where Madison said that.

Madison, the federalist wrote it in the federal doctrine.

Madison, the republican was a right winger.

 

[MadChemist]

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

Keep dreaming.

Or maybe you can show where Madison said that.

Madison, the federalist wrote it in the federal doctrine.

Madison, the republican was a right winger.

Please show me where he said health care was in the Federal Doctrine.

 

[danielpalos]

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

Keep dreaming.

Or maybe you can show where Madison said that.

Madison, the federalist wrote it in the federal doctrine.

Madison, the republican was a right winger.

Please show me where he said health care was in the Federal Doctrine.

Promoting the general welfare is in our Constitution; promoting the common defense is not.

Only the right wing, never gets it; especially when the poor may benefit.

 

[MadChemist]

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

Keep dreaming.

Or maybe you can show where Madison said that.

Madison, the federalist wrote it in the federal doctrine.

Madison, the republican was a right winger.

Please show me where he said health care was in the Federal Doctrine.

Promoting the general welfare is in our Constitution; promoting the common defense is not.

Only the right wing, never gets it; especially when the poor may benefit.

From Federalist 45:

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.

#############################

General Welfare is "defined" ?

 

[danielpalos]

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

Keep dreaming.

Or maybe you can show where Madison said that.

Madison, the federalist wrote it in the federal doctrine.

Madison, the republican was a right winger.

Please show me where he said health care was in the Federal Doctrine.

Promoting the general welfare is in our Constitution; promoting the common defense is not.

Only the right wing, never gets it; especially when the poor may benefit.

From Federalist 45:

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.

#############################

General Welfare is "defined" ?

General welfare is not general badfare. It is political. No one is claiming health care reform does not provide for the general welfare.

 

[MadChemist]

Keep dreaming.

Or maybe you can show where Madison said that.

Madison, the federalist wrote it in the federal doctrine.

Madison, the republican was a right winger.

Please show me where he said health care was in the Federal Doctrine.

Promoting the general welfare is in our Constitution; promoting the common defense is not.

Only the right wing, never gets it; especially when the poor may benefit.

From Federalist 45:

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.

#############################

General Welfare is "defined" ?

General welfare is not general badfare. It is political. No one is claiming health care reform does not provide for the general welfare.

So, no response to Madison...duly noted.

Few and defined....and don't include healthcare.

Bummer dude.

 

[MadChemist]

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.

You nailed it.

 

[Spare_change]

Keep dreaming.

Or maybe you can show where Madison said that.

Madison, the federalist wrote it in the federal doctrine.

Madison, the republican was a right winger.

Please show me where he said health care was in the Federal Doctrine.

Promoting the general welfare is in our Constitution; promoting the common defense is not.

Only the right wing, never gets it; especially when the poor may benefit.

From Federalist 45:

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.

#############################

General Welfare is "defined" ?

General welfare is not general badfare. It is political. No one is claiming health care reform does not provide for the general welfare.

Actually, I would argue just the opposite ...

Government healthcare does NOT enhance the general welfare. Political control of personal decisions results in arbitrary decision making that may, or may not, be advantageous to your particular situation. Further, as we've seen, government meddling has driven up total healthcare costs while decreasing product availability.