CDZ A New and Improved Constitution for the USA

[dblack]

What I am saying is that healthcare should be considered a universal right, and everyone should be required, according to their ability, to contribute towards making it happen. Anyone opposed to that is, in fact, saying that those who cannot on their own afford healthcare, do not deserve it.

Why just healthcare? Shouldn't all of life's necessities be included?

Reductio ad absurdum!

So you agree that treating needs as rights is absurd?

No, I am pointing out that your position is absurd. That you cannot differentiate between every day needs and exceptional needs is your problem, not mine.

Sounds like you don't understand what "Reductio ad absurdum" refers to. Although you were right (inadvertently?) in calling it out as the nature of my argument.

 

[dblack]

Well that's just boneheaded. There are endless alternatives to ACA. Even doing nothing would have been far, far better.

And yet you can't name any of them.

Listen, I don't expect you to have a backlog of my online posting for the last five years, or to have much interest in reading it. But if you did, you'd find me pontificating endlessly on exactly that topic. And you'd realize how ridiculous that statement is. And, no, I'm not going to provide with you with links for you to ignore, or reproduce my comments here. Feel free to use your googler.

"Doing nothing" was bankrupting hardworking Americans by the millions and you believe that "would have been far, far better".

First, do no harm

ACA amplifies and cements in place the most destructive aspects of our current health care fiasco.

Thank you for admitting that you cannot name a single alternative, let alone a viable one. You concession on this point is duly noted.

Black is white. You are the winner! Congrats.

Nothing stopping you from posting those "alternatives" you were bragging about.

I wasn't bragging. Any moron can come up with alternatives to ACA. But apparently it stumps you.

 

[Foxfyre]

During the Tarp debates, the House at first rejected the bailout,.....so the Senate, in my opinion, bypassed the intent of the founders and initiated the bailout by amending a house bill to include TARP.

I would modify the Origination clause to state that any amendment may not modify the houses numbers by more than 5%

from wikipedia "At the Virginia Convention to ratify the Constitution, delegate William Grayson was concerned that a substitute amendment could have the same effect as an origination: "the Senate could strike out every word of the bill except the word whereas, or any other introductory word, and might substitute new words of their own.""

Again it appears the critics of the Constitution had it right.

My proposal would start with a zero base budget every year and with the necessary departments of government submitting the amount necessary to just perform their assigned daily duties whether that is printing money at the treasury department or reviewing tax returns by the IRS or keeping the lights on at embassies under authority of the State Dept. The basic budget includes the salaries, covers the utilities and basic maintenance, buys the ink for the printers, etc. The operating budget would be a tiny fraction of what appropriations bills these days usually are, and there should be little or controversy or compromise necessary in them.

Everything else would have to be submitted for approval as a separate item--new computers for the State Dept., a new carrier or new planes for Defense, an upgraded data base system for the IRS, etc. and these would be voted up or down by the House and Senate as stand alone bills. Nothing unrelated could be added to the bill. Earmarks/pork could not be hidden inside an otherwise necessary bill but would have to be voted up or down as a stand alone bill all by itself and would require a recorded vote--no voice vote--so that every member of Congress was on record as to how they appropriated the people's money for such things.

Further I would make it a hard, fast rule that no member of Congress would be allowed to change his/her vote for the record after the fact as is now sometimes the case. And members would no longer be able to 'revise and extend' their remarks in the Congressional Record so that they could make it appear that they supported something they in fact did not support or vice versa.

I have no problem with the House and Senate and Executive authority providing checks and balances on each other, but let's at least encourage a government that exists to serve the people honorably and responsibly instead of the government we now have that exists to serve its self.

 

[Derideo_Te]

And yet you can't name any of them.

Listen, I don't expect you to have a backlog of my online posting for the last five years, or to have much interest in reading it. But if you did, you'd find me pontificating endlessly on exactly that topic. And you'd realize how ridiculous that statement is. And, no, I'm not going to provide with you with links for you to ignore, or reproduce my comments here. Feel free to use your googler.

"Doing nothing" was bankrupting hardworking Americans by the millions and you believe that "would have been far, far better".

First, do no harm

ACA amplifies and cements in place the most destructive aspects of our current health care fiasco.

Thank you for admitting that you cannot name a single alternative, let alone a viable one. You concession on this point is duly noted.

Black is white. You are the winner! Congrats.

Nothing stopping you from posting those "alternatives" you were bragging about.

I wasn't bragging. Any moron can come up with alternatives to ACA. But apparently it stumps you.

And yet YOU are the one who cannot come up with a single alternative. I already provided 2 of them.

 

[Foxfyre]

Repeating my request please for those who insist on making this a party issue or Tea Party issue or your side did it first or your side did it too issue or more of the I'm smart and accurate and you're stupid and dishonest issue:

The purpose of this thread is not to lay blame and point fingers and self righteously absolve 'our side' from culpability in bad consequences, but is rather to suggest ways to improve the Constitution to prevent such bad legislation and resulting consequences in the future.

 

[dblack]

Repeating my request please for those who insist on making this a party issue or Tea Party issue or your side did it first or your side did it too issue or more of the I'm smart and accurate and you're stupid and dishonest issue:

The purpose of this thread is not to lay blame and point fingers and self righteously absolve 'our side' from culpability in bad consequences, but is rather to suggest ways to improve the Constitution to prevent such bad legislation and resulting consequences in the future.

Thanks for steering things back. I for one, would reiterate the need to include provisions in a new constitution that establish economic freedom as paramount. In the same we we've prohibited the use of government to control people in the name of religion, we must prohibit controlling people in the name of economic ambition. Our freedom to apply the fruits of our labor as we see fit underlies every other freedom - without it they are moot.

 

[Derideo_Te]

we must prohibit controlling people in the name of economic ambition. Our freedom to apply the fruits of our labor as we see fit underlies every other freedom - without it they are moot.

Care to word that in the form of an Amendment declaring this "economic right"?

 

[dblack]

we must prohibit controlling people in the name of economic ambition. Our freedom to apply the fruits of our labor as we see fit underlies every other freedom - without it they are moot.

Care to word that in the form of an Amendment declaring this "economic right"?

Not really. Certainly not for the sake of entertaining you. The wording should be very explicit though, and allow none of the foolishness that currently flies under the banner of the "Commerce Clause". It should also prohibit the use of tax policy to effect mandates on behavior.

 

[Derideo_Te]

we must prohibit controlling people in the name of economic ambition. Our freedom to apply the fruits of our labor as we see fit underlies every other freedom - without it they are moot.

Care to word that in the form of an Amendment declaring this "economic right"?

Not really. Certainly not for the sake of entertaining you. The wording should be very explicit though, and allow none of the foolishness that currently flies under the banner of the "Commerce Clause". It should also prohibit the use of tax policy to effect mandates on behavior.

In other words you cannot construct an Amendment that would be ratified by a majority of this nation.

 

[dblack]

we must prohibit controlling people in the name of economic ambition. Our freedom to apply the fruits of our labor as we see fit underlies every other freedom - without it they are moot.

Care to word that in the form of an Amendment declaring this "economic right"?

Not really. Certainly not for the sake of entertaining you. The wording should be very explicit though, and allow none of the foolishness that currently flies under the banner of the "Commerce Clause". It should also prohibit the use of tax policy to effect mandates on behavior.

In other words you cannot construct an Amendment that would be ratified by a majority of this nation.

This is why I have so little interest in engaging in discussion with you.

 

[Derideo_Te]

we must prohibit controlling people in the name of economic ambition. Our freedom to apply the fruits of our labor as we see fit underlies every other freedom - without it they are moot.

Care to word that in the form of an Amendment declaring this "economic right"?

Not really. Certainly not for the sake of entertaining you. The wording should be very explicit though, and allow none of the foolishness that currently flies under the banner of the "Commerce Clause". It should also prohibit the use of tax policy to effect mandates on behavior.

In other words you cannot construct an Amendment that would be ratified by a majority of this nation.

This is why I have so little interest in engaging in discussion with you.

Because being held accountable for your own specious claims makes you uncomfortable? When you can't back them up that is understandable. Perhaps you could try another thread where the topic isn't as definitive as the constitution and the rights of We the People.

 

[Foxfyre]

Repeating my request please for those who insist on making this a party issue or Tea Party issue or your side did it first or your side did it too issue or more of the I'm smart and accurate and you're stupid and dishonest issue:

The purpose of this thread is not to lay blame and point fingers and self righteously absolve 'our side' from culpability in bad consequences, but is rather to suggest ways to improve the Constitution to prevent such bad legislation and resulting consequences in the future.

Thanks for steering things back. I for one, would reiterate the need to include provisions in a new constitution that establish economic freedom as paramount. In the same we we've prohibited the use of government to control people in the name of religion, we must prohibit controlling people in the name of economic ambition. Our freedom to apply the fruits of our labor as we see fit underlies every other freedom - without it they are moot.

You're welcome. Unfortunately some seem to be unable to grasp the concept of focusing on a concept as much as they are unable to forego the ad hominem long enough to argue a concept.

Actually I think my list of proposals near the beginning of this thread would accomplish what I think you are suggesting here.

An amendment that would prevent the government from using the tax code to advantage or disadvantage any citizen would go a long way to providing that economic freedom. A very modest amount of earnings could be exempt to eliminate required paperwork for a kid's lemonade stand or the neighborhood kid you hire to mow the lawn. But on the theory that a smaller, efficient, effective limited government BY the people FOR the people would need far less money to operate, otherwise nobody with an income should be exempt from paying taxes no matter how poor or disadvantaged they are. That way there is no incentive to earn less and there is no disadvantage to earning more and the tax code cannot be used to buy votes from any demographic. AND, every one of us who votes would have some skin in the game and would experience the consequences of whatever tax policy was initiated which would be a powerful incentive for our legislators to do it right instead of to their own advantage.

Also, if we limit government spending to only the necessary limited functions of government assigned to government, and make it highly visible and obvious if our legislators overstep that authority, they will be prohibited from using our money to advantage themselves. And that will bring spending under control and the budget into balance and provide resources to pay down and eliminate the debt for all practical purposes.

 

[Foxfyre]

Hopefully all thinking people will have laws to prevent witch burning and child prostitution, but this is not the prerogative of the federal government if we wish for liberty to be the goal. I believe a free people will choose to not allow willful pollution of everybody else's air, water, and soil at will, but unless such crosses state lines, that is the business of the people to enforce and should not be the prerogative of the federal government.

So you'd base your proposed Constitution on the hope that people will always do what's reasonable, and that they won't wreak havoc over other persons' livelihoods if it serves their bottom line? When history should inform you that neither is the case, and your study of the Founders' writings should have informed you that relying on that isn't the best of ideas.

My proposed Constitution will assign the federal government necessary ability to secure our rights and allow the various states to operate as one nation. And then it will leave the people strictly alone to live their lives as they choose and form whatever societies they wish to have.

My idea of liberty is to live as I choose to live and not as (the generic) you think I should live. If I screw it up and do myself harm, liberty allows me to do that. I trust the people to make as good choices in such matters as I trust any government to do that for them.

 

[Foxfyre]

What I am saying is that healthcare should be considered a universal right, and everyone should be required, according to their ability, to contribute towards making it happen. Anyone opposed to that is, in fact, saying that those who cannot on their own afford healthcare, do not deserve it.

Why just healthcare? Shouldn't all of life's necessities be included?

So many on the left seem to share OE's view that healthcare should be considered an unalienable right to have and each of us should be able to demand that others provide it for us if we do not provide it for ourselves. But why just healthcare when shelter, food, and clothing is even more vital to our health and well being? I just don't understand that rationale.

I don't understand either how it is not a form of involuntary servitude when I am required by law to provide others with food, clothing, shelter, and healthcare just because I did what was necessary to make me able to earn a living and support myself and they didn't.

And for those of us who can agree that each person who is able to do so should work and pay for his/her shelter, clothing, food, etc., what makes healthcare different?

 

[Derideo_Te]

And for those of us who can agree that each person who is able to do so should work and pay for his/her shelter, clothing, food, etc., what makes healthcare different?

Can you go to your local grocery store and buy a package of healthcare along with the OJ and the cereal?

Can you wander into the Gap and try on healthcare from a rack?

Can you go to a dealership and put down a deposit and drive away in a new 2015 healthcare?

Can you obtain a mortgage for healthcare?

So if the answer to those questions is no then obviously healthcare is different, right?

What makes it different is that it isn't an everyday item that you need like a pair of shoes. For the greater part of your life healtcare is little more than something you only ever think about if and when you or a loved one gets sick.

And when they do get sick healthcare costs a lot of money that you probably don't have lying around.

So what is the capitalist way to deal with things that cost a great deal of money but that you might never need? What if your house catches fire or you car is totaled?

You buy INSURANCE, right?

You don't buy insurance for groceries or clothes or shoes. You do buy insurance for cars, homes and your health.

The cost of healthcare is high therefore the cost of healthcare insurance is high too.

Not everyone earns a living wage with benefits so they can't afford healthcare insurance.

You have two choices here. You can either ensure that everyone who works an 8 hour day is paid a living wage so that they can afford to buy their own insurance or you can subsidize their insurance.

What happens when you don't do either of the above because you don't want to pay hardworking Americans a living wage or subsidize corporations who are not paying living wages with your tax dollars?

That is when you end up with millions of people who go the ER and you pay even more money subsidizing that healthcare costs.

Now perhaps you don't want to do that either. In which case your Libertarian society has to deal with millions of people falling into bankruptcy and that drives up the rate of interest on your credit cards, car loans and mortgages instead.

So one way or another it all comes down to how do you want to deal with the REALITY that your fellow hardworking Americans need healthcare?

Personally I would much rather that they were paid a living wage with benefits because that is not only an incentive for them to work but it benefits the economy and the entire nation. But that does require that the Federal government step in and set the minimum wage at a realistic level.

Your preference might be different to mine but I hope this little primer helped to explain the difference between your food and clothing needs as opposed to your insurance needs.

 

[Wry Catcher]

What I am saying is that healthcare should be considered a universal right, and everyone should be required, according to their ability, to contribute towards making it happen. Anyone opposed to that is, in fact, saying that those who cannot on their own afford healthcare, do not deserve it.

Why just healthcare? Shouldn't all of life's necessities be included?

So many on the left seem to share OE's view that healthcare should be considered an unalienable right to have and each of us should be able to demand that others provide it for us if we do not provide it for ourselves. But why just healthcare when shelter, food, and clothing is even more vital to our health and well being? I just don't understand that rationale.

I don't understand either how it is not a form of involuntary servitude when I am required by law to provide others with food, clothing, shelter, and healthcare just because I did what was necessary to make me able to earn a living and support myself and they didn't.

And for those of us who can agree that each person who is able to do so should work and pay for his/her shelter, clothing, food, etc., what makes healthcare different?

The larger the pool, the greater cost savings. Single payer for Preventative Care, cradle to grave, makes sense health wise, economically and practically. A sea change was necessary and a full court press by the special interests almost defeated the effort again. Because of their hate and fear propaganda, we are still stuck with a private sector insurance industry whose vision and mission is to make a profit.

 

[Foxfyre]

What I am saying is that healthcare should be considered a universal right, and everyone should be required, according to their ability, to contribute towards making it happen. Anyone opposed to that is, in fact, saying that those who cannot on their own afford healthcare, do not deserve it.

Why just healthcare? Shouldn't all of life's necessities be included?

So many on the left seem to share OE's view that healthcare should be considered an unalienable right to have and each of us should be able to demand that others provide it for us if we do not provide it for ourselves. But why just healthcare when shelter, food, and clothing is even more vital to our health and well being? I just don't understand that rationale.

I don't understand either how it is not a form of involuntary servitude when I am required by law to provide others with food, clothing, shelter, and healthcare just because I did what was necessary to make me able to earn a living and support myself and they didn't.

And for those of us who can agree that each person who is able to do so should work and pay for his/her shelter, clothing, food, etc., what makes healthcare different?

The larger the pool, the greater cost savings. Single payer for Preventative Care, cradle to grave, makes sense health wise, economically and practically. A sea change was necessary and a full court press by the special interests almost defeated the effort again. Because of their hate and fear propaganda, we are still stuck with a private sector insurance industry whose vision and mission is to make a profit.

So why wouldn't the larger pool provide the same savings with food, clothing, shelter, and other necessities of life? Let's focus on that please.

Where you and I differ is that you seem to see the profit motive as a bad thing. I see it as a wonderful and good and necessary thing for humankind to excel. It is in the providing of a product or service superior to one's competitor, and at a price that people will buy it instead of that of our competitor, that has pushed humankind to greater and greater achievement and quality of life. Take that ability away by allowing one segment of society to dictate how the other shall live and/or allow government, who has no competition and therefore no incentive to provide a better product, too much power, and we all suffer unintended negative consequences. And nowhere has that been more obvious recently than with the ACA.

 

[Derideo_Te]

What I am saying is that healthcare should be considered a universal right, and everyone should be required, according to their ability, to contribute towards making it happen. Anyone opposed to that is, in fact, saying that those who cannot on their own afford healthcare, do not deserve it.

Why just healthcare? Shouldn't all of life's necessities be included?

So many on the left seem to share OE's view that healthcare should be considered an unalienable right to have and each of us should be able to demand that others provide it for us if we do not provide it for ourselves. But why just healthcare when shelter, food, and clothing is even more vital to our health and well being? I just don't understand that rationale.

I don't understand either how it is not a form of involuntary servitude when I am required by law to provide others with food, clothing, shelter, and healthcare just because I did what was necessary to make me able to earn a living and support myself and they didn't.

And for those of us who can agree that each person who is able to do so should work and pay for his/her shelter, clothing, food, etc., what makes healthcare different?

The larger the pool, the greater cost savings. Single payer for Preventative Care, cradle to grave, makes sense health wise, economically and practically. A sea change was necessary and a full court press by the special interests almost defeated the effort again. Because of their hate and fear propaganda, we are still stuck with a private sector insurance industry whose vision and mission is to make a profit.

So why wouldn't the larger pool provide the same savings with food, clothing, shelter, and other necessities of life? Let's focus on that please.

Where you and I differ is that you seem to see the profit motive as a bad thing. I see it as a wonderful and good and necessary thing for humankind to excel. It is in the providing of a product or service superior to one's competitor, and at a price that people will buy it instead of that of our competitor, that has pushed humankind to greater and greater achievement and quality of life. Take that ability away by allowing one segment of society to dictate how the other shall live and/or allow government, who has no competition and therefore no incentive to provide a better product, too much power, and we all suffer unintended negative consequences. And nowhere has that been more obvious recently than with the ACA.

Where you and I differ is that you seem to see the profit motive as a bad thing. I see it as a wonderful and good and necessary thing for humankind to excel. It is in the providing of a product or service superior to one's competitor, and at a price that people will buy it

Kidneys-R-Us.

Drive Through Physicals.

Knee Replacements While You Wait.

Stop-N-Treat Cancer Centers.

Cut Rate Drugs at Unbeatable Prices.

We will beat any price for your Open Heart Surgery.

Blue Light Special on Type O Blood in Aisle 13.

Close Out Sale on all Diabetic Drugs, One Day Only.

 

[Wry Catcher]

What I am saying is that healthcare should be considered a universal right, and everyone should be required, according to their ability, to contribute towards making it happen. Anyone opposed to that is, in fact, saying that those who cannot on their own afford healthcare, do not deserve it.

Why just healthcare? Shouldn't all of life's necessities be included?

So many on the left seem to share OE's view that healthcare should be considered an unalienable right to have and each of us should be able to demand that others provide it for us if we do not provide it for ourselves. But why just healthcare when shelter, food, and clothing is even more vital to our health and well being? I just don't understand that rationale.

I don't understand either how it is not a form of involuntary servitude when I am required by law to provide others with food, clothing, shelter, and healthcare just because I did what was necessary to make me able to earn a living and support myself and they didn't.

And for those of us who can agree that each person who is able to do so should work and pay for his/her shelter, clothing, food, etc., what makes healthcare different?

The larger the pool, the greater cost savings. Single payer for Preventative Care, cradle to grave, makes sense health wise, economically and practically. A sea change was necessary and a full court press by the special interests almost defeated the effort again. Because of their hate and fear propaganda, we are still stuck with a private sector insurance industry whose vision and mission is to make a profit.

So why wouldn't the larger pool provide the same savings with food, clothing, shelter, and other necessities of life? Let's focus on that please.

Yes, let's focus. Food, clothing and shelter are diversified items, promulgated by thousands of independent sources, foreign and domestic. A single payer system providing cradle to grave preventative care, funded by income and payroll taxes, would reduce the burden on large and small business and government.

The Insurance market could then advertise and sell products not covered, such as accident and cosmetic, etc.

Where you and I differ is that you seem to see the profit motive as a bad thing. I see it as a wonderful and good and necessary thing for humankind to excel. It is in the providing of a product or service superior to one's competitor, and at a price that people will buy it instead of that of our competitor, that has pushed humankind to greater and greater achievement and quality of life. Take that ability away by allowing one segment of society to dictate how the other shall live and/or allow government, who has no competition and therefore no incentive to provide a better product, too much power, and we all suffer unintended negative consequences. And nowhere has that been more obvious recently than with the ACA.

Did Jesus charge for healing the sick?

 

[dblack]

What I am saying is that healthcare should be considered a universal right, and everyone should be required, according to their ability, to contribute towards making it happen. Anyone opposed to that is, in fact, saying that those who cannot on their own afford healthcare, do not deserve it.

Why just healthcare? Shouldn't all of life's necessities be included?

So many on the left seem to share OE's view that healthcare should be considered an unalienable right to have and each of us should be able to demand that others provide it for us if we do not provide it for ourselves. But why just healthcare when shelter, food, and clothing is even more vital to our health and well being? I just don't understand that rationale.

I don't understand either how it is not a form of involuntary servitude when I am required by law to provide others with food, clothing, shelter, and healthcare just because I did what was necessary to make me able to earn a living and support myself and they didn't.

And for those of us who can agree that each person who is able to do so should work and pay for his/her shelter, clothing, food, etc., what makes healthcare different?

The larger the pool, the greater cost savings. Single payer for Preventative Care, cradle to grave, makes sense health wise, economically and practically. A sea change was necessary and a full court press by the special interests almost defeated the effort again. Because of their hate and fear propaganda, we are still stuck with a private sector insurance industry whose vision and mission is to make a profit.

So why wouldn't the larger pool provide the same savings with food, clothing, shelter, and other necessities of life? Let's focus on that please.

It's not different at all. And any of these other necessities will present the same difficulties when they are targeted for government control.