Disir
Platinum Member
- Sep 30, 2011
- 28,003
- 9,623
- 910
Why would you contest it? Further, can you explain why insurance companies are necessary to begin with?
Bill of Non-Rights: Do you agree or not?
- Thread starter emilynghiem
- Start date
Why would you contest it? Further, can you explain why insurance companies are necessary to begin with?
We were arguing rights, now your change you argument? Wow, why bother when you can't stay on track.
_________________________________
Because there is more than "live and let live" going on here.
People who come to America and don't learn the Official Language are engaging in an act of defiance against the country they have sought refuge in...and simultaneously, have much decreased their chance to become productive citizens...which will make them a financial burden to the hosts who do know, or have learned, the Official Language.
The fact that Spain had a small stake in parts of what is now the Greatest Civilization in history....does them no credit...because the Angle-Saxons ran them off many years before they (the Anglo-Saxons) began to form this magnificent society.
People who Fucked up Mexico, to the point where so many are desperate to get the Hell Out...does not mean they have a right to come back and **** up the United States.
Let them come in legally, and get on a path that makes them worthy to be part of the Greatest Civilization ever....or let them live in Mexico and speak Spanish.
You folks run a good political discussion board....but you need to just moderate and leave the posting to people who know what they are talking about.
_______________________
________
__________
The Official Language is a 20th century concept in this country. While most of our ancestors did indeed learn it or at least developed somewhat of a working knowledge of English many never did. Entire communities existed where the residents spoke their native tongues and no one had a problem with it.
Disir
Platinum Member
- Sep 30, 2011
- 28,003
- 9,623
- 910
United States v. Butler 297 U.S. 1 (1936)
and stem from here:
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1
Document 21
Alexander Hamilton, Report on Manufactures
5 Dec. 1791
A Question has been made concerning the Constitutional right of the Government of the United States to apply this species of encouragement, but there is certainly no good foundation for such a question. The National Legislature has express authority "To lay and Collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the Common defence and general welfare" with no other qualifications than that "all duties, imposts and excises, shall be uniform throughout the United states, that no capitation or other direct tax shall be laid unless in proportion to numbers ascertained by a census or enumeration taken on the principles prescribed in the Constitution, and that "no tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state." These three qualifications excepted, the power to raise money is plenary, and indefinite; and the objects to which it may be appropriated are no less comprehensive, than the payment of the public debts and the providing for the common defence and "general Welfare." The terms "general Welfare" were doubtless intended to signify more than was expressed or imported in those which Preceded; otherwise numerous exigencies incident to the affairs of a Nation would have been left without a provision. The phrase is as comprehensive as any that could have been used; because it was not fit that the constitutional authority of the Union, to appropriate its revenues shou'd have been restricted within narrower limits than the "General Welfare" and because this necessarily embraces a vast variety of particulars, which are susceptible neither of specification nor of definition.
It is therefore of necessity left to the discretion of the National Legislature, to pronounce, upon the objects, which concern the general Welfare, and for which under that description, an appropriation of money is requisite and proper. And there seems to be no room for a doubt that whatever concerns the general Interests of learning of Agriculture of Manufactures and of Commerce are within the sphere of the national Councils as far as regards an application of Money.
The only qualification of the generallity of the Phrase in question, which seems to be admissible, is this--That the object to which an appropriation of money is to be made be General and not local; its operation extending in fact, or by possibility, throughout the Union, and not being confined to a particular spot.
No objection ought to arise to this construction from a supposition that it would imply a power to do whatever else should appear to Congress conducive to the General Welfare. A power to appropriate money with this latitude which is granted too in express terms would not carry a power to do any other thing, not authorised in the constitution, either expressly or by fair implication.
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1: Alexander Hamilton, Report on Manufactures
Also:
South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203 (1987), editted for Federal Budget Policy
Last edited:
HereWeGoAgain
Diamond Member
I feel I'm qualified to speak on single payer since I've gone through cancer and a hip replacement surgery.
The cost to my insurance and our medical savings plan was extraordinary to say the least,yet we payed for it through private insurance and our medical savings plan at great personal expense.
If we'd also had to pay for some dumbass who failed to take into account the possibility that they to may need these life saving surgeries they would have been out of reach for me.
So tell me? Why should I suffer death or debilitating injuries to assure the health of someone who didnt lift a fucken finger to ensure their own health?
Screw that!! The wife and I took care of our own health care and the idea that I would be denied that due to the laziness of others is unacceptable.
EverCurious
Gold Member
On ACA, we're not being forced to pay for health care, instead we are being taxed for insurance. I don't want health insurance, especially not some crap with a $10k deductible that costs me $8k a year... $18k a year before it pays anything?!? I pay $500/y total... Seriously the penalty I owe is far more than I spend on health care every year (and I'm over 40.) I've never had a problem paying my medical costs out of pocket, I'm not poor and I have savings in the bank for emergencies.
Disir
Platinum Member
- Sep 30, 2011
- 28,003
- 9,623
- 910
We were arguing rights, now your change you argument? Wow, why bother when you can't stay on track.
I didn't change it.
Again, nothing to do with your assertion of an inalienable right to healthcare.United States v. Butler 297 U.S. 1 (1936)
and stem from here:
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1
Document 21
Alexander Hamilton, Report on Manufactures
5 Dec. 1791Papers 10:302--4
A Question has been made concerning the Constitutional right of the Government of the United States to apply this species of encouragement, but there is certainly no good foundation for such a question. The National Legislature has express authority "To lay and Collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the Common defence and general welfare" with no other qualifications than that "all duties, imposts and excises, shall be uniform throughout the United states, that no capitation or other direct tax shall be laid unless in proportion to numbers ascertained by a census or enumeration taken on the principles prescribed in the Constitution, and that "no tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state." These three qualifications excepted, the power to raise money is plenary, and indefinite; and the objects to which it may be appropriated are no less comprehensive, than the payment of the public debts and the providing for the common defence and "general Welfare." The terms "general Welfare" were doubtless intended to signify more than was expressed or imported in those which Preceded; otherwise numerous exigencies incident to the affairs of a Nation would have been left without a provision. The phrase is as comprehensive as any that could have been used; because it was not fit that the constitutional authority of the Union, to appropriate its revenues shou'd have been restricted within narrower limits than the "General Welfare" and because this necessarily embraces a vast variety of particulars, which are susceptible neither of specification nor of definition.
It is therefore of necessity left to the discretion of the National Legislature, to pronounce, upon the objects, which concern the general Welfare, and for which under that description, an appropriation of money is requisite and proper. And there seems to be no room for a doubt that whatever concerns the general Interests of learning of Agriculture of Manufactures and of Commerce are within the sphere of the national Councils as far as regards an application of Money.
The only qualification of the generallity of the Phrase in question, which seems to be admissible, is this--That the object to which an appropriation of money is to be made be General and not local; its operation extending in fact, or by possibility, throughout the Union, and not being confined to a particular spot.
No objection ought to arise to this construction from a supposition that it would imply a power to do whatever else should appear to Congress conducive to the General Welfare. A power to appropriate money with this latitude which is granted too in express terms would not carry a power to do any other thing, not authorised in the constitution, either expressly or by fair implication.
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1: Alexander Hamilton, Report on Manufactures
Disir
Platinum Member
- Sep 30, 2011
- 28,003
- 9,623
- 910
Why would you have to?
Oh baloney....they aren't engaging in any defiance. Immigrants throughout history have brought their language with them. Eventually, they learn English - typically by the second generation. Truth is - in order to be successful in most better paying professions in this country, you need good English skills and they eventually do get them by the second generation.
"Greatest Civilization in history" may be an act of inflation. However, it doesn't change the fact that Spanish was the primary language in those areas long before English and it continues to be an important language. What's the big deal? Is America going to fall under a bilingual assault? Doubt it. Hasn't yet.
People who fucked up (to use your language) Europe came here and fucked up America.
So what?
emilynghiem
Constitutionalist / Universalist
- Thread starter
- #92
Disir because for accountability and service directly to the public paying for it,
this needs to be managed by states and people on a local level first.
Once a system is working (such as USAA insurance, Doctors without Borders, or the Nurturing Network)
that effectively manage resources cost-effectively, then it can expand nationally.
You don't start any business from the top down with huge branches in every state
while you are experimenting with services and terms of payments and programs.
so if it doesn't work for businesses or nonprofits
what makes you think govt can work that way???
[As for insurance, that can remain a free choice if people want to use that to defray costs.
Or pay other ways. It's not the only way.
Spiritual healing is another way to reduce costs, but by its nature
it has to remain a free choice. All the effective spiritual healing
experts I know do not charge money, but remain nonprofit charity.
We still need charity hospitals and nonprofits,
medical schools and nursing internships, etc.
Why not give tax breaks for investing in all means available
and not "penalize" people if they don't buy insurance?]
Last edited:
jillian
Princess
everything in there is idiotic. and a lie.
this country was not founded as a christian country.
hack
HereWeGoAgain
Diamond Member
Are you actually saying the cost of health care wont go up if I have to also pay for the indigent?
My hospital bills for those two procedures was just shy of the million mark.
Of which we paid around 40K with our personally paid health savings account.
So tell me genius...who pays for the indigent?
I refuse to give up my excellent health care for substandard care so a lazy **** can receive the same substandard care when they paid Butkus.
Disir
Platinum Member
- Sep 30, 2011
- 28,003
- 9,623
- 910
Again, nothing to do with your assertion of an inalienable right to healthcare.United States v. Butler 297 U.S. 1 (1936)
and stem from here:
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1
Document 21
Alexander Hamilton, Report on Manufactures
5 Dec. 1791Papers 10:302--4
A Question has been made concerning the Constitutional right of the Government of the United States to apply this species of encouragement, but there is certainly no good foundation for such a question. The National Legislature has express authority "To lay and Collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the Common defence and general welfare" with no other qualifications than that "all duties, imposts and excises, shall be uniform throughout the United states, that no capitation or other direct tax shall be laid unless in proportion to numbers ascertained by a census or enumeration taken on the principles prescribed in the Constitution, and that "no tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state." These three qualifications excepted, the power to raise money is plenary, and indefinite; and the objects to which it may be appropriated are no less comprehensive, than the payment of the public debts and the providing for the common defence and "general Welfare." The terms "general Welfare" were doubtless intended to signify more than was expressed or imported in those which Preceded; otherwise numerous exigencies incident to the affairs of a Nation would have been left without a provision. The phrase is as comprehensive as any that could have been used; because it was not fit that the constitutional authority of the Union, to appropriate its revenues shou'd have been restricted within narrower limits than the "General Welfare" and because this necessarily embraces a vast variety of particulars, which are susceptible neither of specification nor of definition.
It is therefore of necessity left to the discretion of the National Legislature, to pronounce, upon the objects, which concern the general Welfare, and for which under that description, an appropriation of money is requisite and proper. And there seems to be no room for a doubt that whatever concerns the general Interests of learning of Agriculture of Manufactures and of Commerce are within the sphere of the national Councils as far as regards an application of Money.
The only qualification of the generallity of the Phrase in question, which seems to be admissible, is this--That the object to which an appropriation of money is to be made be General and not local; its operation extending in fact, or by possibility, throughout the Union, and not being confined to a particular spot.
No objection ought to arise to this construction from a supposition that it would imply a power to do whatever else should appear to Congress conducive to the General Welfare. A power to appropriate money with this latitude which is granted too in express terms would not carry a power to do any other thing, not authorised in the constitution, either expressly or by fair implication.
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1: Alexander Hamilton, Report on Manufactures
You said: Again you're interpretation of the extent and areas the General Welfare clause encompasses is very new.
I provided the framework demonstrating it isn't new.
You don't like that? Try the 9th.
“The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
Disir
Platinum Member
- Sep 30, 2011
- 28,003
- 9,623
- 910
Why is it going up?
Disir
Platinum Member
- Sep 30, 2011
- 28,003
- 9,623
- 910
The ACA has nothing to do with health care. I don't think people understand that.
HereWeGoAgain
Diamond Member
I would advise you look into the last eight years to find your answer.
Disir
Platinum Member
- Sep 30, 2011
- 28,003
- 9,623
- 910
So, you are as ticked off about the hospital mergers as I am?
HereWeGoAgain
Diamond Member
I'll come right out and say it. The indigent deserve sub,substandard care compared to mine since I pay for my own and they should feel lucky to get what the tax payer offers.
In what world should the tax payer feel thankful for crappy care when they pay the way for the lazy *****?
In what world should the tax payer feel thankful for crappy care when they pay the way for the lazy *****?
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
Republic of Somaliland Asks U.S. to Extradite Ilhan Omar There to Face Justice- Started by Doc7505
- Replies: 1
-
"She was upset that Jones supported President Donald Trump"- Started by DonGlock26
- Replies: 1
-
Democrats in Pennsylvania withdrew a resolution to honor March as national women’s month
- Started by DonGlock26
- Replies: 2
-
