So the republican solution to our healthcare system is as little government as possible right?

Only government can ensure that consumers get basic healthcare services.

1. Healthcare is NOT a Right. It never has been and never should be. It is a privilege for those who can afford it or get it through their employers.

2. The US Constitution has no provision or mandate for the Government to be involved in any way with the healthcare industry or medical issues in general.

Provide for the general welfare...
If that claus means government run healthcare for every citizen, then why wasn't it instilled when the Constitution was ratified?
for the same reason they did not enumerate alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror.
You fell on your face on that one.
 
Provide for the general welfare...

General Welfare and Common Defense are defined by the 18 specifically noted items which follow that phrase in Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution. Please learn to read basic English before responding further.
 
Provide for the general welfare...

General Welfare and Common Defense are defined by the 18 specifically noted items which follow that phrase in Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution. Please learn to read basic English before responding further.


I understand quite well that the clause and how the Supreme Court has defined it to be over the years. Congress has chosen to provide healthcare and has the power to tax and spend to deliver it according to the Constitution under the general welfare clause.
 
Yes, the solution is as little government interference as possible. Allow competition just like in the market place. Allow the insurance companies to compete interstate.
Government solves all problems for the right wing. Why not jail employers who don't pay enough.

Ok...so, you're in a thread making the case for the Gov to "solve" the Health Care issue and now you decry the Pubs as users of the Gov to solve their problems?

Aren't you special?
we have a general welfare clause not any form of general warfare clause or common offense clause.

Talking in circles again eh? You never did show me how the Federalist Papers supported your contention about the 10th.
 
Yes, the solution is as little government interference as possible. Allow competition just like in the market place. Allow the insurance companies to compete interstate.
Government solves all problems for the right wing. Why not jail employers who don't pay enough.

Ok...so, you're in a thread making the case for the Gov to "solve" the Health Care issue and now you decry the Pubs as users of the Gov to solve their problems?

Aren't you special?
we have a general welfare clause not any form of general warfare clause or common offense clause.

Talking in circles again eh? You never did show me how the Federalist Papers supported your contention about the 10th.
Our federal Constitution is Express not Implied. The welfare clause is General. Our defense clause is Common.
 
Yes, the solution is as little government interference as possible. Allow competition just like in the market place. Allow the insurance companies to compete interstate.
Government solves all problems for the right wing. Why not jail employers who don't pay enough.

Ok...so, you're in a thread making the case for the Gov to "solve" the Health Care issue and now you decry the Pubs as users of the Gov to solve their problems?

Aren't you special?
we have a general welfare clause not any form of general warfare clause or common offense clause.

Talking in circles again eh? You never did show me how the Federalist Papers supported your contention about the 10th.
Our federal Constitution is Express not Implied. The welfare clause is General. Our defense clause is Common.

YOU said that the Federalist Papers expressly agreed with your interpretation , prove it
 
Government solves all problems for the right wing. Why not jail employers who don't pay enough.

Ok...so, you're in a thread making the case for the Gov to "solve" the Health Care issue and now you decry the Pubs as users of the Gov to solve their problems?

Aren't you special?
we have a general welfare clause not any form of general warfare clause or common offense clause.

Talking in circles again eh? You never did show me how the Federalist Papers supported your contention about the 10th.
Our federal Constitution is Express not Implied. The welfare clause is General. Our defense clause is Common.

YOU said that the Federalist Papers expressly agreed with your interpretation , prove it
Our federal Constitution is Express, not Implied.
 
Ok...so, you're in a thread making the case for the Gov to "solve" the Health Care issue and now you decry the Pubs as users of the Gov to solve their problems?

Aren't you special?
we have a general welfare clause not any form of general warfare clause or common offense clause.

Talking in circles again eh? You never did show me how the Federalist Papers supported your contention about the 10th.
Our federal Constitution is Express not Implied. The welfare clause is General. Our defense clause is Common.

YOU said that the Federalist Papers expressly agreed with your interpretation , prove it
Our federal Constitution is Express, not Implied.

Meaning you lied, got it. Sorry son, you're the one who made the statement.
 
we have a general welfare clause not any form of general warfare clause or common offense clause.

Talking in circles again eh? You never did show me how the Federalist Papers supported your contention about the 10th.
Our federal Constitution is Express not Implied. The welfare clause is General. Our defense clause is Common.

YOU said that the Federalist Papers expressly agreed with your interpretation , prove it
Our federal Constitution is Express, not Implied.

Meaning you lied, got it. Sorry son, you're the one who made the statement.
Express, expressly excludes implied.
 
Talking in circles again eh? You never did show me how the Federalist Papers supported your contention about the 10th.
Our federal Constitution is Express not Implied. The welfare clause is General. Our defense clause is Common.

YOU said that the Federalist Papers expressly agreed with your interpretation , prove it
Our federal Constitution is Express, not Implied.

Meaning you lied, got it. Sorry son, you're the one who made the statement.
Express, expressly excludes implied.

You lied kid.
 
Our federal Constitution is Express not Implied. The welfare clause is General. Our defense clause is Common.

YOU said that the Federalist Papers expressly agreed with your interpretation , prove it
Our federal Constitution is Express, not Implied.

Meaning you lied, got it. Sorry son, you're the one who made the statement.
Express, expressly excludes implied.

You lied kid.
what part of Express do you not understand?
 
In many respects reflected from world history, it is reasonable to suggest that too much government is not a good thing. However, “too much” is a very relative concept. There really is such a thing as “too little of government” and I mean that beyond the measure of anarchy as an alternative. Government, when designed properly, can benefit the lives of its citizens.
ACA is an important point to raise in the this topic. While it is certainly flawed and has failed in some of its promises in terms of affordability, it’s never the less improved healthcare in many ways. It has not changed that ACA has protection for pre-existing conditions for anyone who has health insurance. There is also a much higher cap for how much an insurance policy will cover for a medical event. The cap used to be 500,000 but it became 1,000,000 thanks to ACA. Now you can argue that ACA undermines the definition of insurance, but the point here is that healthcare should not be treated like insurance.

Corporate lobbyists own our politicians. Both the Republican Party and the Democratic Party are slaves to big money. They are guided more by money than by principle. Both parties are bitches to special interests.

The goal of these lobbyists is to strengthen the power of the corporation’s will and to have less regulation by the government. With less government, what is to prevent the healthcare industry from undermining the healthcare their consumers need?

This is already true.

Insurance company: “Hey guess what, if you pay $600 a month, we will eliminate your deductible for basic healthcare needs!”

The point is that Big Pharma has a fiduciary responsibility to maximize profit for their shareholders. This includes undermining the plan the consumer signed up for to save money. Business is business after all.

Only government can ensure that consumers get basic healthcare services.

Which Congressional reps are insurance experts? Which ones know beans about healthcare? They foisted crappy insurance on the working poor to boast about how many folks were "covered". And they HID the "medicare expansion" costs in the pool rather than funding them.

Even the NAME of the program is an evil taunt. Because NOTHING about actual market costs of services or premium control was ever part of the plan. Other than putting more debt on the Treasury.

You want to solve healthcare? Focus on the 10 to 15% UNINSURED. And give some BARE MIN guidelines for individual insurance plans that includes a REASONABLE definition of "pre-existing".. 60% of every person over 40 right now is declared "pre-existing" simply because they are taking cholesterol drugs or blood pressure meds . That's stupid. It's preventative medicine. NOT necessarily an indicator of outcome.

SHOULD BE MINIMAL dictates on insurance from the FEDERAL level. Let the states experiment WITHOUT Federal intervention. Find the concepts that work.
Read up about oz and Canada and the U.K.
90% approval.
They laugh at us.
Keep your socialized medicine to yourselves… Leave the rest of us out of it
Keep the gov out of my medicare as the old white trumpie fart said.
Don't like VA care either?
 
YOU said that the Federalist Papers expressly agreed with your interpretation , prove it
Our federal Constitution is Express, not Implied.

Meaning you lied, got it. Sorry son, you're the one who made the statement.
Express, expressly excludes implied.

You lied kid.
what part of Express do you not understand?

You're the one who said it kid
 
In many respects reflected from world history, it is reasonable to suggest that too much government is not a good thing. However, “too much” is a very relative concept. There really is such a thing as “too little of government” and I mean that beyond the measure of anarchy as an alternative. Government, when designed properly, can benefit the lives of its citizens.
ACA is an important point to raise in the this topic. While it is certainly flawed and has failed in some of its promises in terms of affordability, it’s never the less improved healthcare in many ways. It has not changed that ACA has protection for pre-existing conditions for anyone who has health insurance. There is also a much higher cap for how much an insurance policy will cover for a medical event. The cap used to be 500,000 but it became 1,000,000 thanks to ACA. Now you can argue that ACA undermines the definition of insurance, but the point here is that healthcare should not be treated like insurance.

Corporate lobbyists own our politicians. Both the Republican Party and the Democratic Party are slaves to big money. They are guided more by money than by principle. Both parties are bitches to special interests.

The goal of these lobbyists is to strengthen the power of the corporation’s will and to have less regulation by the government. With less government, what is to prevent the healthcare industry from undermining the healthcare their consumers need?

This is already true.

Insurance company: “Hey guess what, if you pay $600 a month, we will eliminate your deductible for basic healthcare needs!”

The point is that Big Pharma has a fiduciary responsibility to maximize profit for their shareholders. This includes undermining the plan the consumer signed up for to save money. Business is business after all.

Only government can ensure that consumers get basic healthcare services.

Which Congressional reps are insurance experts? Which ones know beans about healthcare? They foisted crappy insurance on the working poor to boast about how many folks were "covered". And they HID the "medicare expansion" costs in the pool rather than funding them.

Even the NAME of the program is an evil taunt. Because NOTHING about actual market costs of services or premium control was ever part of the plan. Other than putting more debt on the Treasury.

You want to solve healthcare? Focus on the 10 to 15% UNINSURED. And give some BARE MIN guidelines for individual insurance plans that includes a REASONABLE definition of "pre-existing".. 60% of every person over 40 right now is declared "pre-existing" simply because they are taking cholesterol drugs or blood pressure meds . That's stupid. It's preventative medicine. NOT necessarily an indicator of outcome.

SHOULD BE MINIMAL dictates on insurance from the FEDERAL level. Let the states experiment WITHOUT Federal intervention. Find the concepts that work.

Here's a concept for you.

Every_Repub_who_voted_to_repeal_the_ACA_-_with_Xs_over_the_ones_who_are_now_gone.png


Hows that Trump alternative thing working out for you?
Show the dems who were in battleground states who voted for it.
 
Our federal Constitution is Express, not Implied.

Meaning you lied, got it. Sorry son, you're the one who made the statement.
Express, expressly excludes implied.

You lied kid.
what part of Express do you not understand?

You're the one who said it kid
The power to provide for the general welfare is expressly declared general, not implied limited by any other Thing than our Constitution.
 
I understand quite well that the clause and how the Supreme Court has defined it to be over the years. Congress has chosen to provide healthcare and has the power to tax and spend to deliver it according to the Constitution under the general welfare clause.

I understand how it was written originally. If Congress, SCOTUS and others misread it, that’s their problem. They can chase that misreading straight to Hell.
 
I understand quite well that the clause and how the Supreme Court has defined it to be over the years. Congress has chosen to provide healthcare and has the power to tax and spend to deliver it according to the Constitution under the general welfare clause.

I understand how it was written originally. If Congress, SCOTUS and others misread it, that’s their problem. They can chase that misreading straight to Hell.



Providing healthcare to people will cause Congress, SCOTUS and others to go to hell?

Did your jesus tell you this when he passed over the meek while threading the rich thru the eye of a needle?
 
In many respects reflected from world history, it is reasonable to suggest that too much government is not a good thing. However, “too much” is a very relative concept. There really is such a thing as “too little of government” and I mean that beyond the measure of anarchy as an alternative. Government, when designed properly, can benefit the lives of its citizens.
ACA is an important point to raise in the this topic. While it is certainly flawed and has failed in some of its promises in terms of affordability, it’s never the less improved healthcare in many ways. It has not changed that ACA has protection for pre-existing conditions for anyone who has health insurance. There is also a much higher cap for how much an insurance policy will cover for a medical event. The cap used to be 500,000 but it became 1,000,000 thanks to ACA. Now you can argue that ACA undermines the definition of insurance, but the point here is that healthcare should not be treated like insurance.

Corporate lobbyists own our politicians. Both the Republican Party and the Democratic Party are slaves to big money. They are guided more by money than by principle. Both parties are bitches to special interests.

The goal of these lobbyists is to strengthen the power of the corporation’s will and to have less regulation by the government. With less government, what is to prevent the healthcare industry from undermining the healthcare their consumers need?

This is already true.

Insurance company: “Hey guess what, if you pay $600 a month, we will eliminate your deductible for basic healthcare needs!”

The point is that Big Pharma has a fiduciary responsibility to maximize profit for their shareholders. This includes undermining the plan the consumer signed up for to save money. Business is business after all.

Only government can ensure that consumers get basic healthcare services.

There is no constitutional mandate for federal involvement.


Other than the General Welfare Clause in the Constitution.
 
In many respects reflected from world history, it is reasonable to suggest that too much government is not a good thing. However, “too much” is a very relative concept. There really is such a thing as “too little of government” and I mean that beyond the measure of anarchy as an alternative. Government, when designed properly, can benefit the lives of its citizens.
ACA is an important point to raise in the this topic. While it is certainly flawed and has failed in some of its promises in terms of affordability, it’s never the less improved healthcare in many ways. It has not changed that ACA has protection for pre-existing conditions for anyone who has health insurance. There is also a much higher cap for how much an insurance policy will cover for a medical event. The cap used to be 500,000 but it became 1,000,000 thanks to ACA. Now you can argue that ACA undermines the definition of insurance, but the point here is that healthcare should not be treated like insurance.

Corporate lobbyists own our politicians. Both the Republican Party and the Democratic Party are slaves to big money. They are guided more by money than by principle. Both parties are bitches to special interests.

The goal of these lobbyists is to strengthen the power of the corporation’s will and to have less regulation by the government. With less government, what is to prevent the healthcare industry from undermining the healthcare their consumers need?

This is already true.

Insurance company: “Hey guess what, if you pay $600 a month, we will eliminate your deductible for basic healthcare needs!”

The point is that Big Pharma has a fiduciary responsibility to maximize profit for their shareholders. This includes undermining the plan the consumer signed up for to save money. Business is business after all.

Only government can ensure that consumers get basic healthcare services.

Which Congressional reps are insurance experts? Which ones know beans about healthcare? They foisted crappy insurance on the working poor to boast about how many folks were "covered". And they HID the "medicare expansion" costs in the pool rather than funding them.

Even the NAME of the program is an evil taunt. Because NOTHING about actual market costs of services or premium control was ever part of the plan. Other than putting more debt on the Treasury.

You want to solve healthcare? Focus on the 10 to 15% UNINSURED. And give some BARE MIN guidelines for individual insurance plans that includes a REASONABLE definition of "pre-existing".. 60% of every person over 40 right now is declared "pre-existing" simply because they are taking cholesterol drugs or blood pressure meds . That's stupid. It's preventative medicine. NOT necessarily an indicator of outcome.

SHOULD BE MINIMAL dictates on insurance from the FEDERAL level. Let the states experiment WITHOUT Federal intervention. Find the concepts that work.
The ACA was funded.
 
Providing healthcare to people will cause Congress, SCOTUS and others to go to hell?

Did your jesus tell you this when he passed over the meek while threading the rich thru the eye of a needle?

I have no use for Jesus or any other organized religious icon. I don’t believe in organized religion.

Yes, I do believe that the immoral concept of stealing money from people to pay other people’s healthcare bills damages the Soul of everyone involved. The whole concept is patently immoral.
 

Forum List

Back
Top