Is that how you perceive this?
Nope, providing for the general welfare IS one of the enumerations.
All 50 states don't have to agree, only states and their immediate neighbors, Europe (for example) was able to interconnect itself with highways without a unitary government and the nation states on that continent are FAR more diverse and have deeper division than our states do. The only thing you get with the federal government running things is wasted resources and inefficiencies.
Why do we need "national vaccines"?????? apparently you're unaware that consumers are the drivers of the quality, effectiveness and cost of what they consume NOT government, "national standards" only serve to inhibit innovation and cost reduction while facilitating graft and reduced competition.
Is that a white flag I see before me? why yes I believe it is.
Without the states there is no Republic, the trend has been to transform the Republic into a unitary nation state which is NOT The United States and what you're arguing for is a continuation (and acceleration) of that trend. I don't need people on the opposite side of the country to have a say in that conduct of my day to day affairs and I doubt those people want me having a say in theirs. The States are perfectly capable and uniquely situated to take care of the vast majority of the governmental needs of their citizens without involvement from the remote, self-serving, corruption soaked and inept organism that lives in Washington D.C..
We need national vaccines so we don't all have polio you moronAll 50 states don't have to agree, only states and their immediate neighbors, Europe (for example) was able to interconnect itself with highways without a unitary government and the nation states on that continent are FAR more diverse and have deeper division than our states do. The only thing you get with the federal government running things is wasted resources and inefficiencies.
Why do we need "national vaccines"?????? apparently you're unaware that consumers are the drivers of the quality, effectiveness and cost of what they consume NOT government, "national standards" only serve to inhibit innovation and cost reduction while facilitating graft and reduced competition.
Is that a white flag I see before me? why yes I believe it is.
"When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser." - Socrates
Without the states there is no Republic, the trend has been to transform the Republic into a unitary nation state which is NOT The United States and what you're arguing for is a continuation (and acceleration) of that trend. I don't need people on the opposite side of the country to have a say in that conduct of my day to day affairs and I doubt those people want me having a say in theirs. The States are perfectly capable and uniquely situated to take care of the vast majority of the governmental needs of their citizens without involvement from the remote, self-serving, corruption soaked and inept organism that lives in Washington D.C..
LOL, so your contention is that the polio vaccine wouldn't have been invented without national "standards" ? That's an odd theory given that the polio vaccine was invented before any national "standards" for vaccines. It's almost as if you believe that vaccines were invented to satisfy national "standards" instead of preventing diseases among consumers.We need national vaccines so we don't all have polio you moronAll 50 states don't have to agree, only states and their immediate neighbors, Europe (for example) was able to interconnect itself with highways without a unitary government and the nation states on that continent are FAR more diverse and have deeper division than our states do. The only thing you get with the federal government running things is wasted resources and inefficiencies.
Why do we need "national vaccines"?????? apparently you're unaware that consumers are the drivers of the quality, effectiveness and cost of what they consume NOT government, "national standards" only serve to inhibit innovation and cost reduction while facilitating graft and reduced competition.
Is that a white flag I see before me? why yes I believe it is.
"When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser." - Socrates
Without the states there is no Republic, the trend has been to transform the Republic into a unitary nation state which is NOT The United States and what you're arguing for is a continuation (and acceleration) of that trend. I don't need people on the opposite side of the country to have a say in that conduct of my day to day affairs and I doubt those people want me having a say in theirs. The States are perfectly capable and uniquely situated to take care of the vast majority of the governmental needs of their citizens without involvement from the remote, self-serving, corruption soaked and inept organism that lives in Washington D.C..
Failed none. Your lack of reading comprehension is your problem, not mine.
No my contention is the federal govt was essential to mandate the vaccine throughout the United States. If not dumb states and especially dumb ***** like you would have argued it isn't needed and "govt has no rights" and you assholes would make everyone else suffer with polio still being around because of your selfish "rights" to **** everyone else over.LOL, so your contention is that the polio vaccine wouldn't have been invented without national "standards" ? That's an odd theory given that the polio vaccine was invented before any national "standards" for vaccines. It's almost as if you believe that vaccines were invented to satisfy national "standards" instead of preventing diseases among consumers.We need national vaccines so we don't all have polio you moronAll 50 states don't have to agree, only states and their immediate neighbors, Europe (for example) was able to interconnect itself with highways without a unitary government and the nation states on that continent are FAR more diverse and have deeper division than our states do. The only thing you get with the federal government running things is wasted resources and inefficiencies.
Why do we need "national vaccines"?????? apparently you're unaware that consumers are the drivers of the quality, effectiveness and cost of what they consume NOT government, "national standards" only serve to inhibit innovation and cost reduction while facilitating graft and reduced competition.
Is that a white flag I see before me? why yes I believe it is.
"When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser." - Socrates
Without the states there is no Republic, the trend has been to transform the Republic into a unitary nation state which is NOT The United States and what you're arguing for is a continuation (and acceleration) of that trend. I don't need people on the opposite side of the country to have a say in that conduct of my day to day affairs and I doubt those people want me having a say in theirs. The States are perfectly capable and uniquely situated to take care of the vast majority of the governmental needs of their citizens without involvement from the remote, self-serving, corruption soaked and inept organism that lives in Washington D.C..
No my contention is the federal govt was essential to mandate the vaccine throughout the United States..LOL, so your contention is that the polio vaccine wouldn't have been invented without national "standards" ? That's an odd theory given that the polio vaccine was invented before any national "standards" for vaccines. It's almost as if you believe that vaccines were invented to satisfy national "standards" instead of preventing diseases among consumers.We need national vaccines so we don't all have polio you moronAll 50 states don't have to agree, only states and their immediate neighbors, Europe (for example) was able to interconnect itself with highways without a unitary government and the nation states on that continent are FAR more diverse and have deeper division than our states do. The only thing you get with the federal government running things is wasted resources and inefficiencies.
Why do we need "national vaccines"?????? apparently you're unaware that consumers are the drivers of the quality, effectiveness and cost of what they consume NOT government, "national standards" only serve to inhibit innovation and cost reduction while facilitating graft and reduced competition.
Is that a white flag I see before me? why yes I believe it is.
"When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser." - Socrates
Without the states there is no Republic, the trend has been to transform the Republic into a unitary nation state which is NOT The United States and what you're arguing for is a continuation (and acceleration) of that trend. I don't need people on the opposite side of the country to have a say in that conduct of my day to day affairs and I doubt those people want me having a say in theirs. The States are perfectly capable and uniquely situated to take care of the vast majority of the governmental needs of their citizens without involvement from the remote, self-serving, corruption soaked and inept organism that lives in Washington D.C..
You keep dodging my point with bullshit. Reality is we need a strong federal govt and without it the United States wouldn't exist. I'm starting to think you are one of those "south should have won" confederate douchebags, or a putin puppet trying to divide the country. Either way you are a dumb **** or an anti american piece of shit.No my contention is the federal govt was essential to mandate the vaccine throughout the United States..LOL, so your contention is that the polio vaccine wouldn't have been invented without national "standards" ? That's an odd theory given that the polio vaccine was invented before any national "standards" for vaccines. It's almost as if you believe that vaccines were invented to satisfy national "standards" instead of preventing diseases among consumers.We need national vaccines so we don't all have polio you moronAll 50 states don't have to agree, only states and their immediate neighbors, Europe (for example) was able to interconnect itself with highways without a unitary government and the nation states on that continent are FAR more diverse and have deeper division than our states do. The only thing you get with the federal government running things is wasted resources and inefficiencies.
Why do we need "national vaccines"?????? apparently you're unaware that consumers are the drivers of the quality, effectiveness and cost of what they consume NOT government, "national standards" only serve to inhibit innovation and cost reduction while facilitating graft and reduced competition.
Is that a white flag I see before me? why yes I believe it is.
"When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser." - Socrates
Without the states there is no Republic, the trend has been to transform the Republic into a unitary nation state which is NOT The United States and what you're arguing for is a continuation (and acceleration) of that trend. I don't need people on the opposite side of the country to have a say in that conduct of my day to day affairs and I doubt those people want me having a say in theirs. The States are perfectly capable and uniquely situated to take care of the vast majority of the governmental needs of their citizens without involvement from the remote, self-serving, corruption soaked and inept organism that lives in Washington D.C..
Why would it be "essential" to "mandate" it? Do you believe that consumers don't want to prevent themselves and their dependents from getting polio?
Also you're apparently unaware that it is the States that have mandatory vaccination policies (with a handful allowing for religious exemptions) the federal government doesn't have such policies (the NVA only makes recommendations) nor has it ever had such policies, the only mandatory vaccinations that are required by the federal government are for military personnel and green card applicants.
Oh, is that what you call pointing out how specious each of your "arguments" are?You keep dodging my point with bullshit.No my contention is the federal govt was essential to mandate the vaccine throughout the United States..LOL, so your contention is that the polio vaccine wouldn't have been invented without national "standards" ? That's an odd theory given that the polio vaccine was invented before any national "standards" for vaccines. It's almost as if you believe that vaccines were invented to satisfy national "standards" instead of preventing diseases among consumers.We need national vaccines so we don't all have polio you moronAll 50 states don't have to agree, only states and their immediate neighbors, Europe (for example) was able to interconnect itself with highways without a unitary government and the nation states on that continent are FAR more diverse and have deeper division than our states do. The only thing you get with the federal government running things is wasted resources and inefficiencies.
Why do we need "national vaccines"?????? apparently you're unaware that consumers are the drivers of the quality, effectiveness and cost of what they consume NOT government, "national standards" only serve to inhibit innovation and cost reduction while facilitating graft and reduced competition.
Is that a white flag I see before me? why yes I believe it is.
"When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser." - Socrates
Without the states there is no Republic, the trend has been to transform the Republic into a unitary nation state which is NOT The United States and what you're arguing for is a continuation (and acceleration) of that trend. I don't need people on the opposite side of the country to have a say in that conduct of my day to day affairs and I doubt those people want me having a say in theirs. The States are perfectly capable and uniquely situated to take care of the vast majority of the governmental needs of their citizens without involvement from the remote, self-serving, corruption soaked and inept organism that lives in Washington D.C..
Why would it be "essential" to "mandate" it? Do you believe that consumers don't want to prevent themselves and their dependents from getting polio?
Also you're apparently unaware that it is the States that have mandatory vaccination policies (with a handful allowing for religious exemptions) the federal government doesn't have such policies (the NVA only makes recommendations) nor has it ever had such policies, the only mandatory vaccinations that are required by the federal government are for military personnel and green card applicants.
Uh-huh, except you keep falling short with respect to explaining why we "need" a strong federal government for the United States to exist, especially since the Republic was born with a weak, constitutionally bound federal government and has existed and thrived for far longer in that state than it has with a *strong* (expensive, powerful, corrupt and interventionist) central government. The history of nation states is littered with the corpses of decentralized governments where the citizenry abdicated local control to a central power in pursuit of *good intentions* (See the Roman Republic come Roman Empire).
Well at least you're starting to think which is an enormous improvement now if you could just summon up another neuron to join that other lil' fella perhaps you could manage to do it with some reason and evidence for a change.
LOL, more ad hominem, perhaps you could switch to a different fallacy, just for a change of pace.... you're becoming exceedingly boring and predictable.
Goes back nearly 100 years. The tax expenditure for employers to provide HC goes back until at least the 1950s
No CBO score either.
