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

[danielpalos]

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.

That was the response; too illiterate, right winger?

Providing for the general welfare, can include health care. Why do you believe, the general welfare may not include health care?

 

[danielpalos]

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.

It became political because the right wing whines about taxes. Health care is a promotion of the general welfare.

 

[MadChemist]

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.

That was the response; to illiterate, right winger?

Providing for the general welfare, can include health care. Why do you believe, the general welfare may not include health care?

I don't have to believe anything. It says it in black and white.

The General Welfare called out the Constitution does not include anything not specfically enumerated by the Constitution as being the responsibility of the Federal Government.

That is clear and 200 years of history show it.

Just because you want it to be so.....well, sorry.

When you can produce something other than your own connection, I'll be interested.

 

[danielpalos]

You are simply clueless and Causeless, like most right wingers.

Here are the general powers delegated to our federal Congress:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises,

to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;​

but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

 

[kiwiman127]

Well, there is this;
The Preamble of the United States Constitution
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
==============================================
General Welfare
The concern of the government for the health, peace, morality, and safety of its citizens.
Providing for the welfare of the general public is a basic goal of government. The preamble to the U.S. Constitution cites promotion of the general welfare as a primary reason for the creation of the Constitution. Promotion of the general welfare is also a stated purpose in state constitutions and statutes. The concept has sparked controversy only as a result of its inclusion in the body of the U.S. Constitution.
The first clause of Article I, Section 8, reads, "The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States." This clause, called the General Welfare Clause or the Spending Power Clause, does not grant Congress the power to legislate for the general welfare of the country; that is a power reserved to the states through the Tenth Amendment. Rather, it merely allows Congress to spend federal money for the general welfare. The principle underlying this distinction—the limitation of federal power—eventually inspired the only important disagreement over the meaning of the clause.
General Welfare

 

[MadChemist]

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.

I would be O.K. with a conversation in my home state around health care.

I am O.K. with trying it at a level of 5 million people, not 320,000,000 people.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

I would be O.K. with a conversation in my home state around health care.

I am O.K. with trying it at a level of 5 million people, not 320,000,000 people.

At least California had a vote on health care reform; the right wing has nothing but repeal.

 

[emilynghiem]

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.

Dear danielpalos
1. You remind me of Prolife defenders who argue that "right to life" applies to and includes unborn lives in the uterus. They believe in this definition of "right to life" as much as those who believe "right to health care" is included in general welfare. Both are political beliefs when they believe GOVT is required to enforce and impose this as part of the law for all the public to follow.

Do you see where it becomes dangerous to allow OTHER beliefs or groups to impose THEIR beliefs by law if these go against YOUR beliefs???

2. So that's why it's so critical to enforce the REST of the Constitution including
A. Due process of law:
NOT depriving people of liberty
without first going through "due process" to prove WHICH people are convicted of violations that merit such deprivation as a penalty by law.

So even if you have equal right to believe, interpret and/or exercise general welfare as requiring govt to guarantee right to health care, This Still Does NOT
override OTHER Constitutional laws protecting due process , rights and freedoms of others from deprivation or from discrimination by Creed.

B. Equal Protections of the law of the First and Fourteenth Amendment rights of people, including no taxation without representation, protection from govt either establishing or prohibiting free exercise of religion, and protection from discrimination by Creed.

danielpalos for sake of equal protections and enforcement of Constitutional principles,
please respect the equal rights of others NOT to believe in using Govt to impose EITHER
* Right to life arguments and beliefs to impose legislation against the will, consent, free choice and beliefs of others who believe in free choice and not depriving others due to this right to life belief;

* "general welfare" to dictate or impose "right to health care" mandates through govt that violate the due process, free choice, right to representation in voting on terms of taxation, and other Constitutional rights principles or beliefs of others.

Is this more clear?

Even if you were right, no laws can be passed that violate due process by depriving liberty of citizens not convicted of crimes, or that's violating other principles equally included within Constitutional laws.

This also explains how right to life advocates can be completely correct that abortion is wrong, yet cannot pass laws on that which violate due process!

In both cases, you still can't pass laws that violate other Constitutional standards and checks on govt . Please be fair and equal in both cases, or it's "discrimination by Creed" to treat right to life one way but right to health care another. Both are political beliefs. If you don't agree with govt imposing one, how can you argue to impose the other?

This point is VERY critical
to the future of laws and govt in our country being tested danielpalos
so I hope you see the wisdom
and justice in what it truly means to defend equal protections and justice under law. To defend the laws for others as we invoke these same protections for ourselves when it comes to our beliefs !

 

[MadChemist]

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.

I would be O.K. with a conversation in my home state around health care.

I am O.K. with trying it at a level of 5 million people, not 320,000,000 people.

At least California had a vote on health care reform; the right wing has nothing but repeal.

Yes the did.

And that was an education for many on both sides.

I applaude the effort.

Tennesse actually has a state run healthcare sytem....Tenncare. Good old Tennessee, a left wing bastion if ever there was one.....

The system has undergone several evolutions, not repeal as you call it....in response to costs (yeah...that nasty reality that exists). But it still exists.

You might remember that Vermont was a on path to single payer. It died before it ever got started. Why ? Costs. I guess you could call that a repeal.

Why single payer died in Vermont

You really have demonstrated nothing in the way of knowledge regarding the realities of health care.

Like many "intellectuals" who are good on "ideas" but useless on implementation, you sit around and complain....but have nothing to offer.

And please don't take the term "intellectual" as a complement. It only denotes a class of individuals who have more faith in their paltry reasoning than they do in the reality of the world.

 

[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.

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.

Dear danielpalos
1. You remind me of Prolife defenders who argue that "right to life" applies to and includes unborn lives in the uterus. They believe in this definition of "right to life" as much as those who believe "right to health care" is included in general welfare. Both are political beliefs when they believe GOVT is required to enforce and impose this as part of the law for all the public to follow.

Do you see where it becomes dangerous to allow OTHER beliefs or groups to impose THEIR beliefs by law if these go against YOUR beliefs???

2. So that's why it's so critical to enforce the REST of the Constitution including
A. Due process of law:
NOT depriving people of liberty
without first going through "due process" to prove WHICH people are convicted of violations that merit such deprivation as a penalty by law.

So even if you have equal right to believe, interpret and/or exercise general welfare as requiring govt to guarantee right to health care, This Still Does NOT
override OTHER Constitutional laws protecting due process , rights and freedoms of others from deprivation or from discrimination by Creed.

B. Equal Protections of the law of the First and Fourteenth Amendment rights of people, including no taxation without representation, protection from govt either establishing or prohibiting free exercise of religion, and protection from discrimination by Creed.

danielpalos for sake of equal protections and enforcement of Constitutional principles,
please respect the equal rights of others NOT to believe in using Govt to impose EITHER
* Right to life arguments and beliefs to impose legislation against the will, consent, free choice and beliefs of others who believe in free choice and not depriving others due to this right to life belief;

* "general welfare" to dictate or impose "right to health care" mandates through govt that violate the due process, free choice, right to representation in voting on terms of taxation, and other Constitutional rights principles or beliefs of others.

Is this more clear?

Even if you were right, no laws can be passed that violate due process by depriving liberty of citizens not convicted of crimes, or that's violating other principles equally included within Constitutional laws.

This also explains how right to life advocates can be completely correct that abortion is wrong, yet cannot pass laws on that which violate due process!

In both cases, you still can't pass laws that violate other Constitutional standards and checks on govt . Please be fair and equal in both cases, or it's "discrimination by Creed" to treat right to life one way but right to health care another. Both are political beliefs. If you don't agree with govt imposing one, how can you argue to impose the other?

This point is VERY critical
to the future of laws and govt in our country being tested danielpalos
so I hope you see the wisdom
and justice in what it truly means to defend equal protections and justice under law. To defend the laws for others as we invoke these same protections for ourselves when it comes to our beliefs !

Here are the general powers delegated to Congress by the People:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises,

to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;​

but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Why do you believe health care does not promote the general welfare?

 

[MadChemist]

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.

Dear danielpalos
1. You remind me of Prolife defenders who argue that "right to life" applies to and includes unborn lives in the uterus. They believe in this definition of "right to life" as much as those who believe "right to health care" is included in general welfare. Both are political beliefs when they believe GOVT is required to enforce and impose this as part of the law for all the public to follow.

Do you see where it becomes dangerous to allow OTHER beliefs or groups to impose THEIR beliefs by law if these go against YOUR beliefs???

2. So that's why it's so critical to enforce the REST of the Constitution including
A. Due process of law:
NOT depriving people of liberty
without first going through "due process" to prove WHICH people are convicted of violations that merit such deprivation as a penalty by law.

So even if you have equal right to believe, interpret and/or exercise general welfare as requiring govt to guarantee right to health care, This Still Does NOT
override OTHER Constitutional laws protecting due process , rights and freedoms of others from deprivation or from discrimination by Creed.

B. Equal Protections of the law of the First and Fourteenth Amendment rights of people, including no taxation without representation, protection from govt either establishing or prohibiting free exercise of religion, and protection from discrimination by Creed.

danielpalos for sake of equal protections and enforcement of Constitutional principles,
please respect the equal rights of others NOT to believe in using Govt to impose EITHER
* Right to life arguments and beliefs to impose legislation against the will, consent, free choice and beliefs of others who believe in free choice and not depriving others due to this right to life belief;

* "general welfare" to dictate or impose "right to health care" mandates through govt that violate the due process, free choice, right to representation in voting on terms of taxation, and other Constitutional rights principles or beliefs of others.

Is this more clear?

Even if you were right, no laws can be passed that violate due process by depriving liberty of citizens not convicted of crimes, or that's violating other principles equally included within Constitutional laws.

This also explains how right to life advocates can be completely correct that abortion is wrong, yet cannot pass laws on that which violate due process!

In both cases, you still can't pass laws that violate other Constitutional standards and checks on govt . Please be fair and equal in both cases, or it's "discrimination by Creed" to treat right to life one way but right to health care another. Both are political beliefs. If you don't agree with govt imposing one, how can you argue to impose the other?

This point is VERY critical
to the future of laws and govt in our country being tested danielpalos
so I hope you see the wisdom
and justice in what it truly means to defend equal protections and justice under law. To defend the laws for others as we invoke these same protections for ourselves when it comes to our beliefs !

Here are the general powers delegated to Congress by the People:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises,

to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;​

but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Why do you believe health care does not promote the general welfare?

As has been explained 100 times, General Welfare only relates to those powers specifically delegated to the Federal Government.

Health Care is not mentioned in the Constitution.

So the General Welfare Clause does not apply to them.

Collection of taxes is also only for those powers delegated to them.

I understand this is hard for you, but try.

 

[dblack]

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.

Dear danielpalos
1. You remind me of Prolife defenders who argue that "right to life" applies to and includes unborn lives in the uterus. They believe in this definition of "right to life" as much as those who believe "right to health care" is included in general welfare. Both are political beliefs when they believe GOVT is required to enforce and impose this as part of the law for all the public to follow.

Do you see where it becomes dangerous to allow OTHER beliefs or groups to impose THEIR beliefs by law if these go against YOUR beliefs???

2. So that's why it's so critical to enforce the REST of the Constitution including
A. Due process of law:
NOT depriving people of liberty
without first going through "due process" to prove WHICH people are convicted of violations that merit such deprivation as a penalty by law.

So even if you have equal right to believe, interpret and/or exercise general welfare as requiring govt to guarantee right to health care, This Still Does NOT
override OTHER Constitutional laws protecting due process , rights and freedoms of others from deprivation or from discrimination by Creed.

B. Equal Protections of the law of the First and Fourteenth Amendment rights of people, including no taxation without representation, protection from govt either establishing or prohibiting free exercise of religion, and protection from discrimination by Creed.

danielpalos for sake of equal protections and enforcement of Constitutional principles,
please respect the equal rights of others NOT to believe in using Govt to impose EITHER
* Right to life arguments and beliefs to impose legislation against the will, consent, free choice and beliefs of others who believe in free choice and not depriving others due to this right to life belief;

* "general welfare" to dictate or impose "right to health care" mandates through govt that violate the due process, free choice, right to representation in voting on terms of taxation, and other Constitutional rights principles or beliefs of others.

Is this more clear?

Even if you were right, no laws can be passed that violate due process by depriving liberty of citizens not convicted of crimes, or that's violating other principles equally included within Constitutional laws.

This also explains how right to life advocates can be completely correct that abortion is wrong, yet cannot pass laws on that which violate due process!

In both cases, you still can't pass laws that violate other Constitutional standards and checks on govt . Please be fair and equal in both cases, or it's "discrimination by Creed" to treat right to life one way but right to health care another. Both are political beliefs. If you don't agree with govt imposing one, how can you argue to impose the other?

This point is VERY critical
to the future of laws and govt in our country being tested danielpalos
so I hope you see the wisdom
and justice in what it truly means to defend equal protections and justice under law. To defend the laws for others as we invoke these same protections for ourselves when it comes to our beliefs !

Here are the general powers delegated to Congress by the People:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises,

to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;​

but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Why do you believe health care does not promote the general welfare?

As has been explained 100 times, General Welfare only relates to those powers specifically delegated to the Federal Government.

Health Care is not mentioned in the Constitution.

So the General Welfare Clause does not apply to them.

Collection of taxes is also only for those powers delegated to them.

I understand this is hard for you, but try.

I hate to admit it, but It's apparently hard for the Court to understand as well.

 

[MadChemist]

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.

Dear danielpalos
1. You remind me of Prolife defenders who argue that "right to life" applies to and includes unborn lives in the uterus. They believe in this definition of "right to life" as much as those who believe "right to health care" is included in general welfare. Both are political beliefs when they believe GOVT is required to enforce and impose this as part of the law for all the public to follow.

Do you see where it becomes dangerous to allow OTHER beliefs or groups to impose THEIR beliefs by law if these go against YOUR beliefs???

2. So that's why it's so critical to enforce the REST of the Constitution including
A. Due process of law:
NOT depriving people of liberty
without first going through "due process" to prove WHICH people are convicted of violations that merit such deprivation as a penalty by law.

So even if you have equal right to believe, interpret and/or exercise general welfare as requiring govt to guarantee right to health care, This Still Does NOT
override OTHER Constitutional laws protecting due process , rights and freedoms of others from deprivation or from discrimination by Creed.

B. Equal Protections of the law of the First and Fourteenth Amendment rights of people, including no taxation without representation, protection from govt either establishing or prohibiting free exercise of religion, and protection from discrimination by Creed.

danielpalos for sake of equal protections and enforcement of Constitutional principles,
please respect the equal rights of others NOT to believe in using Govt to impose EITHER
* Right to life arguments and beliefs to impose legislation against the will, consent, free choice and beliefs of others who believe in free choice and not depriving others due to this right to life belief;

* "general welfare" to dictate or impose "right to health care" mandates through govt that violate the due process, free choice, right to representation in voting on terms of taxation, and other Constitutional rights principles or beliefs of others.

Is this more clear?

Even if you were right, no laws can be passed that violate due process by depriving liberty of citizens not convicted of crimes, or that's violating other principles equally included within Constitutional laws.

This also explains how right to life advocates can be completely correct that abortion is wrong, yet cannot pass laws on that which violate due process!

In both cases, you still can't pass laws that violate other Constitutional standards and checks on govt . Please be fair and equal in both cases, or it's "discrimination by Creed" to treat right to life one way but right to health care another. Both are political beliefs. If you don't agree with govt imposing one, how can you argue to impose the other?

This point is VERY critical
to the future of laws and govt in our country being tested danielpalos
so I hope you see the wisdom
and justice in what it truly means to defend equal protections and justice under law. To defend the laws for others as we invoke these same protections for ourselves when it comes to our beliefs !

Here are the general powers delegated to Congress by the People:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises,

to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;​

but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Why do you believe health care does not promote the general welfare?

As has been explained 100 times, General Welfare only relates to those powers specifically delegated to the Federal Government.

Health Care is not mentioned in the Constitution.

So the General Welfare Clause does not apply to them.

Collection of taxes is also only for those powers delegated to them.

I understand this is hard for you, but try.

I hate to admit it, but It's apparently hard for the Court to understand as well.

Not sure it is hard for them to understand.....or easy to ignore.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

I would be O.K. with a conversation in my home state around health care.

I am O.K. with trying it at a level of 5 million people, not 320,000,000 people.

At least California had a vote on health care reform; the right wing has nothing but repeal.

Yes the did.

And that was an education for many on both sides.

I applaude the effort.

Tennesse actually has a state run healthcare sytem....Tenncare. Good old Tennessee, a left wing bastion if ever there was one.....

The system has undergone several evolutions, not repeal as you call it....in response to costs (yeah...that nasty reality that exists). But it still exists.

You might remember that Vermont was a on path to single payer. It died before it ever got started. Why ? Costs. I guess you could call that a repeal.

Why single payer died in Vermont

You really have demonstrated nothing in the way of knowledge regarding the realities of health care.

Like many "intellectuals" who are good on "ideas" but useless on implementation, you sit around and complain....but have nothing to offer.

And please don't take the term "intellectual" as a complement. It only denotes a class of individuals who have more faith in their paltry reasoning than they do in the reality of the world.

the right wing had literally, nothing but repeal as their political platform; it makes all of the political difference in the World.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

Dear danielpalos
1. You remind me of Prolife defenders who argue that "right to life" applies to and includes unborn lives in the uterus. They believe in this definition of "right to life" as much as those who believe "right to health care" is included in general welfare. Both are political beliefs when they believe GOVT is required to enforce and impose this as part of the law for all the public to follow.

Do you see where it becomes dangerous to allow OTHER beliefs or groups to impose THEIR beliefs by law if these go against YOUR beliefs???

2. So that's why it's so critical to enforce the REST of the Constitution including
A. Due process of law:
NOT depriving people of liberty
without first going through "due process" to prove WHICH people are convicted of violations that merit such deprivation as a penalty by law.

So even if you have equal right to believe, interpret and/or exercise general welfare as requiring govt to guarantee right to health care, This Still Does NOT
override OTHER Constitutional laws protecting due process , rights and freedoms of others from deprivation or from discrimination by Creed.

B. Equal Protections of the law of the First and Fourteenth Amendment rights of people, including no taxation without representation, protection from govt either establishing or prohibiting free exercise of religion, and protection from discrimination by Creed.

danielpalos for sake of equal protections and enforcement of Constitutional principles,
please respect the equal rights of others NOT to believe in using Govt to impose EITHER
* Right to life arguments and beliefs to impose legislation against the will, consent, free choice and beliefs of others who believe in free choice and not depriving others due to this right to life belief;

* "general welfare" to dictate or impose "right to health care" mandates through govt that violate the due process, free choice, right to representation in voting on terms of taxation, and other Constitutional rights principles or beliefs of others.

Is this more clear?

Even if you were right, no laws can be passed that violate due process by depriving liberty of citizens not convicted of crimes, or that's violating other principles equally included within Constitutional laws.

This also explains how right to life advocates can be completely correct that abortion is wrong, yet cannot pass laws on that which violate due process!

In both cases, you still can't pass laws that violate other Constitutional standards and checks on govt . Please be fair and equal in both cases, or it's "discrimination by Creed" to treat right to life one way but right to health care another. Both are political beliefs. If you don't agree with govt imposing one, how can you argue to impose the other?

This point is VERY critical
to the future of laws and govt in our country being tested danielpalos
so I hope you see the wisdom
and justice in what it truly means to defend equal protections and justice under law. To defend the laws for others as we invoke these same protections for ourselves when it comes to our beliefs !

Here are the general powers delegated to Congress by the People:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises,

to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;​

but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Why do you believe health care does not promote the general welfare?

As has been explained 100 times, General Welfare only relates to those powers specifically delegated to the Federal Government.

Health Care is not mentioned in the Constitution.

So the General Welfare Clause does not apply to them.

Collection of taxes is also only for those powers delegated to them.

I understand this is hard for you, but try.

dear, that Only applies to Republicans because, it is Their doctrine.

that is why it seems, the right wing really is, clueless and Causeless.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

Dear danielpalos
1. You remind me of Prolife defenders who argue that "right to life" applies to and includes unborn lives in the uterus. They believe in this definition of "right to life" as much as those who believe "right to health care" is included in general welfare. Both are political beliefs when they believe GOVT is required to enforce and impose this as part of the law for all the public to follow.

Do you see where it becomes dangerous to allow OTHER beliefs or groups to impose THEIR beliefs by law if these go against YOUR beliefs???

2. So that's why it's so critical to enforce the REST of the Constitution including
A. Due process of law:
NOT depriving people of liberty
without first going through "due process" to prove WHICH people are convicted of violations that merit such deprivation as a penalty by law.

So even if you have equal right to believe, interpret and/or exercise general welfare as requiring govt to guarantee right to health care, This Still Does NOT
override OTHER Constitutional laws protecting due process , rights and freedoms of others from deprivation or from discrimination by Creed.

B. Equal Protections of the law of the First and Fourteenth Amendment rights of people, including no taxation without representation, protection from govt either establishing or prohibiting free exercise of religion, and protection from discrimination by Creed.

danielpalos for sake of equal protections and enforcement of Constitutional principles,
please respect the equal rights of others NOT to believe in using Govt to impose EITHER
* Right to life arguments and beliefs to impose legislation against the will, consent, free choice and beliefs of others who believe in free choice and not depriving others due to this right to life belief;

* "general welfare" to dictate or impose "right to health care" mandates through govt that violate the due process, free choice, right to representation in voting on terms of taxation, and other Constitutional rights principles or beliefs of others.

Is this more clear?

Even if you were right, no laws can be passed that violate due process by depriving liberty of citizens not convicted of crimes, or that's violating other principles equally included within Constitutional laws.

This also explains how right to life advocates can be completely correct that abortion is wrong, yet cannot pass laws on that which violate due process!

In both cases, you still can't pass laws that violate other Constitutional standards and checks on govt . Please be fair and equal in both cases, or it's "discrimination by Creed" to treat right to life one way but right to health care another. Both are political beliefs. If you don't agree with govt imposing one, how can you argue to impose the other?

This point is VERY critical
to the future of laws and govt in our country being tested danielpalos
so I hope you see the wisdom
and justice in what it truly means to defend equal protections and justice under law. To defend the laws for others as we invoke these same protections for ourselves when it comes to our beliefs !

Here are the general powers delegated to Congress by the People:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises,

to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;​

but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Why do you believe health care does not promote the general welfare?

As has been explained 100 times, General Welfare only relates to those powers specifically delegated to the Federal Government.

Health Care is not mentioned in the Constitution.

So the General Welfare Clause does not apply to them.

Collection of taxes is also only for those powers delegated to them.

I understand this is hard for you, but try.

I hate to admit it, but It's apparently hard for the Court to understand as well.

The Judicature knows, some lefty will show up to "harass them to do their Job", eventually.

 

[emilynghiem]

Hi in

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.

That was the response; too illiterate, right winger?

Providing for the general welfare, can include health care. Why do you believe, the general welfare may not include health care?

Dear danielpalos:
I think I already replied to you on this. Previously I remember making these points on this thread or a related one:
1. Comparing right to life being INTERPRETED as inherently including unborn person's which advocates will argue should NOT require additional legislation, similar to how you don't believe general welfare requires additional laws passed or amendments to clarify this "inherently including" the "right to health care." If one requires added legislation voted on by states, by Congress or by people, that's similar to voting to clarify or expand on general welfare.
2. I replied to BULLDOG that even with Constitutonal rights and laws that we agree are govt jurisdiction, there are other Constitutional rights and principles that must be respected when crafting and enforcing laws . I mentioned due process and not depriving liberty of people not convicted of any crime or violation that merits losing freedom normally exercised under law. Also respecting religious freedom not to be imposed upon by govt or discriminated against on the basis of Creed or beliefs, as long as people are law abiding and not abusing religion to commit crimes already against the law such as child abuse.

danielpalos
A third point I will make here :
3. If people are already used to exercising freedom of choice in health care systems, it makes more sense to offer a public option and allow people to choose what degree they want to fund and rely on govt run health care.
A . Where we might agree is for govt to fund the SITES where each district state and county has access proportionate to their populations demand. But from there, people in each state or collective organization may choose to fund and participate in different options for the actual health care services. Some may have a better business model while others use a nonprofit or church run hospital. The VA and prison and mental health systems could be a mix of public and private. So perhaps on a federal or state level, there could be one policy to cover maintaining physical facilities so there is equal affordable access.
B. But the programs run internally could vary per district where some ppl want govt run and others want private business or charities .

4. As for comparing right to health care with right to bear arms:
A. again ppl have to agree how legislation is written because of contrasting political beliefs that should all be included equally without discrimination. The problem is when laws that favor one bias end up imposing costs or loss of rights and protections of ppl who didn't agree to those laws and consequences, intended or not. Drug laws and voting laws run into similar problems with unintended consequences if these are crafted carefully to avoid complications.
B. It has been argued that demanding health care as a right incurs costs of labor services and resources on someone providing these things. So the system(s) must be set up where ppl agree to provide health care under those terms or it imposed taxation without representation. There are countless areas where personal freechoice is affected such as with reproductive Rights and hospice or euthanasia beliefs. So because health care involves personal beliefs that's why it's a huge issue for federal govt to be involved. That's why I recommend only paying for the sites and letting taxpayers have equal free choice what medical programs or health care systems to pay for.

 

[BULLDOG]

Hi in

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.

That was the response; too illiterate, right winger?

Providing for the general welfare, can include health care. Why do you believe, the general welfare may not include health care?

Dear danielpalos:
I think I already replied to you on this. Previously I remember making these points on this thread or a related one:
1. Comparing right to life being INTERPRETED as inherently including unborn person's which advocates will argue should NOT require additional legislation, similar to how you don't believe general welfare requires additional laws passed or amendments to clarify this "inherently including" the "right to health care." If one requires added legislation voted on by states, by Congress or by people, that's similar to voting to clarify or expand on general welfare.
2. I replied to BULLDOG that even with Constitutonal rights and laws that we agree are govt jurisdiction, there are other Constitutional rights and principles that must be respected when crafting and enforcing laws . I mentioned due process and not depriving liberty of people not convicted of any crime or violation that merits losing freedom normally exercised under law. Also respecting religious freedom not to be imposed upon by govt or discriminated against on the basis of Creed or beliefs, as long as people are law abiding and not abusing religion to commit crimes already against the law such as child abuse.

danielpalos
A third point I will make here :
3. If people are already used to exercising freedom of choice in health care systems, it makes more sense to offer a public option and allow people to choose what degree they want to fund and rely on govt run health care.
A . Where we might agree is for govt to fund the SITES where each district state and county has access proportionate to their populations demand. But from there, people in each state or collective organization may choose to fund and participate in different options for the actual health care services. Some may have a better business model while others use a nonprofit or church run hospital. The VA and prison and mental health systems could be a mix of public and private. So perhaps on a federal or state level, there could be one policy to cover maintaining physical facilities so there is equal affordable access.
B. But the programs run internally could vary per district where some ppl want govt run and others want private business or charities .

4. As for comparing right to health care with right to bear arms:
A. again ppl have to agree how legislation is written because of contrasting political beliefs that should all be included equally without discrimination. The problem is when laws that favor one bias end up imposing costs or loss of rights and protections of ppl who didn't agree to those laws and consequences, intended or not. Drug laws and voting laws run into similar problems with unintended consequences if these are crafted carefully to avoid complications.
B. It has been argued that demanding health care as a right incurs costs of labor services and resources on someone providing these things. So the system(s) must be set up where ppl agree to provide health care under those terms or it imposed taxation without representation. There are countless areas where personal freechoice is affected such as with reproductive Rights and hospice or euthanasia beliefs. So because health care involves personal beliefs that's why it's a huge issue for federal govt to be involved. That's why I recommend only paying for the sites and letting taxpayers have equal free choice what medical programs or health care systems to pay for.

You mentioned lots of things, but failed to answer the question, and failed to prove your point.

 

[regent]

Has America ever been without government health care since the Constitution?

 

[danielpalos]

Hi in

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.

That was the response; too illiterate, right winger?

Providing for the general welfare, can include health care. Why do you believe, the general welfare may not include health care?

Dear danielpalos:
I think I already replied to you on this. Previously I remember making these points on this thread or a related one:
1. Comparing right to life being INTERPRETED as inherently including unborn person's which advocates will argue should NOT require additional legislation, similar to how you don't believe general welfare requires additional laws passed or amendments to clarify this "inherently including" the "right to health care." If one requires added legislation voted on by states, by Congress or by people, that's similar to voting to clarify or expand on general welfare.
2. I replied to BULLDOG that even with Constitutonal rights and laws that we agree are govt jurisdiction, there are other Constitutional rights and principles that must be respected when crafting and enforcing laws . I mentioned due process and not depriving liberty of people not convicted of any crime or violation that merits losing freedom normally exercised under law. Also respecting religious freedom not to be imposed upon by govt or discriminated against on the basis of Creed or beliefs, as long as people are law abiding and not abusing religion to commit crimes already against the law such as child abuse.

danielpalos
A third point I will make here :
3. If people are already used to exercising freedom of choice in health care systems, it makes more sense to offer a public option and allow people to choose what degree they want to fund and rely on govt run health care.
A . Where we might agree is for govt to fund the SITES where each district state and county has access proportionate to their populations demand. But from there, people in each state or collective organization may choose to fund and participate in different options for the actual health care services. Some may have a better business model while others use a nonprofit or church run hospital. The VA and prison and mental health systems could be a mix of public and private. So perhaps on a federal or state level, there could be one policy to cover maintaining physical facilities so there is equal affordable access.
B. But the programs run internally could vary per district where some ppl want govt run and others want private business or charities .

4. As for comparing right to health care with right to bear arms:
A. again ppl have to agree how legislation is written because of contrasting political beliefs that should all be included equally without discrimination. The problem is when laws that favor one bias end up imposing costs or loss of rights and protections of ppl who didn't agree to those laws and consequences, intended or not. Drug laws and voting laws run into similar problems with unintended consequences if these are crafted carefully to avoid complications.
B. It has been argued that demanding health care as a right incurs costs of labor services and resources on someone providing these things. So the system(s) must be set up where ppl agree to provide health care under those terms or it imposed taxation without representation. There are countless areas where personal freechoice is affected such as with reproductive Rights and hospice or euthanasia beliefs. So because health care involves personal beliefs that's why it's a huge issue for federal govt to be involved. That's why I recommend only paying for the sites and letting taxpayers have equal free choice what medical programs or health care systems to pay for.

Providing for the general welfare must include health care, since general is comprehensive.