Uninsured rate keeps climbing under Republicans

[AntonToo]

It says PROMOTE the general welfare, not PROVIDE.

To me that means get government out of the way.

Thank you for the correction, you are correct the COTUS does say promote, not provide.

Of course to provide could be a GREAT way to promote, so there is no effective difference when it comes to all the government programs and their Constitutional allowance.

There is a great difference according to Google:
Promote: support or actively encourage.
Provide: make available for use; supply.
See the difference?

You don't get it - the words DO have different meaning, but one can be MEANS while the other is GOALS.

To clarify the concept lets do an example:

To promote the well being of this great country US Government ensures that the poor have access to basic needs like like food, medical help and shelter.

Oh, no I do get it. "To promote the general welfare the Government must provide certain things." Is that how you see it? I see it quite differently. I see it as the government is to encourage certain things in an effort to promote a desired outcome.

You can "see" whatever you want, but clearly Constitutions permits the Federal government to spend for the general welfare of this country. The courts are crystal clear on that point and I don't understand why in year 2017 rightwingers still need to be explained this a couple of times per year.

 

[oldsoul]

Thank you for the correction, you are correct the COTUS does say promote, not provide.

Of course to provide could be a GREAT way to promote, so there is no effective difference when it comes to all the government programs and their Constitutional allowance.

There is a great difference according to Google:
Promote: support or actively encourage.
Provide: make available for use; supply.
See the difference?

You don't get it - the words DO have different meaning, but one can be MEANS while the other is GOALS.

To clarify the concept lets do an example:

To promote the well being of this great country US Government ensures that the poor have access to basic needs like like food, medical help and shelter.

Oh, no I do get it. "To promote the general welfare the Government must provide certain things." Is that how you see it? I see it quite differently. I see it as the government is to encourage certain things in an effort to promote a desired outcome.

You can "see" whatever you want, but clearly Constitutions permits the Federal government to spend for the general welfare of this country. The courts are crystal clear on that point and I don't understand why in year 2017 rightwingers still need to be explained this a couple of times per year.

I cannot speak for these "rightwingers", but for me, I do not question that the COTUS does permit such spending. Just because one can, does not mean one should, though.

 

[danielpalos]

Yes, it is the general welfare clause. It is not a major or common welfare clause.

Consider a hypothetical, common welfare clause.

Ummm.. Okaaaayyyyy. So, you interpret the general welfare clause to mean?????? Restating the clause is not a description of how you interpret it. Let me give you my interpretation, in part, so you (hopefully)will better understand the question.

"...promote the general welfare....": Enact such laws as deemed necessary to promote the health, happiness and fortunes of the citizens, as a group, and the nation as a whole. This does not mean providing for the health happiness or fortunes of any one person, sub-group of people, or other entities within our borders, it is to promote the "general welfare". It is to PROMOTE, not PROVIDE.
A few definitions from Google:
General: affecting or concerning all or most people, places, or things; widespread.
Welfare: the health, happiness, and fortunes of a person or group.
Promote: further the progress of (something, especially a cause, venture, or aim); support or actively encourage.
Provide: 1)make available for use; supply. 2)equip or supply someone with (something useful or necessary). 3)present or yield (something useful).

So, now, what is YOUR interpretation?

Both terms, promote and provide are used in reference to the general welfare but not the common defense. There is no general power (as business as usual) to promote the common Defense into the common Offense or general Warfare.

Any authorization for the military Use of Force, must include its own funding; nothing can come from the general welfare account.

Is it that you do not understand the question or that you are simply refusing to answer it?
For the last time:
What is your interpretation of the "General Welfare" clause?

It is General, not Major or Common.

General usually means, comprehensive, not specific or common.

That's your interpretation of a WORD, not a group of words or a CLAUSE. Are you trolling or really so uninformed as to not understand the difference?

I am used to arguing with right wingers.

We have a general Welfare clause not a general Badfare clause.

 

[oldsoul]

Ummm.. Okaaaayyyyy. So, you interpret the general welfare clause to mean?????? Restating the clause is not a description of how you interpret it. Let me give you my interpretation, in part, so you (hopefully)will better understand the question.

"...promote the general welfare....": Enact such laws as deemed necessary to promote the health, happiness and fortunes of the citizens, as a group, and the nation as a whole. This does not mean providing for the health happiness or fortunes of any one person, sub-group of people, or other entities within our borders, it is to promote the "general welfare". It is to PROMOTE, not PROVIDE.
A few definitions from Google:
General: affecting or concerning all or most people, places, or things; widespread.
Welfare: the health, happiness, and fortunes of a person or group.
Promote: further the progress of (something, especially a cause, venture, or aim); support or actively encourage.
Provide: 1)make available for use; supply. 2)equip or supply someone with (something useful or necessary). 3)present or yield (something useful).

So, now, what is YOUR interpretation?

Both terms, promote and provide are used in reference to the general welfare but not the common defense. There is no general power (as business as usual) to promote the common Defense into the common Offense or general Warfare.

Any authorization for the military Use of Force, must include its own funding; nothing can come from the general welfare account.

Is it that you do not understand the question or that you are simply refusing to answer it?
For the last time:
What is your interpretation of the "General Welfare" clause?

It is General, not Major or Common.

General usually means, comprehensive, not specific or common.

That's your interpretation of a WORD, not a group of words or a CLAUSE. Are you trolling or really so uninformed as to not understand the difference?

I am used to arguing with right wingers.

We have a general Welfare clause not a general Badfare clause.

So, you are unwilling to discuss your interpretation of a clause, just mince words and deflect. Duly noted.

 

[danielpalos]

Both terms, promote and provide are used in reference to the general welfare but not the common defense. There is no general power (as business as usual) to promote the common Defense into the common Offense or general Warfare.

Any authorization for the military Use of Force, must include its own funding; nothing can come from the general welfare account.

Is it that you do not understand the question or that you are simply refusing to answer it?
For the last time:
What is your interpretation of the "General Welfare" clause?

It is General, not Major or Common.

General usually means, comprehensive, not specific or common.

That's your interpretation of a WORD, not a group of words or a CLAUSE. Are you trolling or really so uninformed as to not understand the difference?

I am used to arguing with right wingers.

We have a general Welfare clause not a general Badfare clause.

So, you are unwilling to discuss your interpretation of a clause, just mince words and deflect. Duly noted.

We don't have a general warfare clause or a common offense clause.

 

[Darkwind]

How do you interpret the "...provide for the common defense and general Welfare of the United States."?

The online Legal dictionary defines it as: "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 ..." You can read it for yourself here:General Welfare

It says PROMOTE the general welfare, not PROVIDE.

To me that means get government out of the way.

Thank you for the correction, you are correct the COTUS does say promote, not provide.

Of course to provide could be a GREAT way to promote, so there is no effective difference when it comes to all the government programs and their Constitutional allowance.

There is a great difference according to Google:
Promote: support or actively encourage.
Provide: make available for use; supply.
See the difference?

You don't get it - the words DO have different meaning, but one can be MEANS while the other is GOALS.

To clarify the concept lets do an example:

To promote the well being (aka welfare) of this great country US Government spends on programs that ensure everyone has access to basic needs like like food, medicine, shelter and education.

That is incorrect. To promote the general welfare, the government is tasked with providing an environment that is conducive to allowing each citizen to pursue life, liberty, and happiness in their own way. It is the general 'well being of the nation', not individuals, that is the focus.

For instance, one of the functions of the federal government is to resolve disputes between the states. If one state is treating another in an unfair or illegal manner, it is the job of the federal government to rectify the conflict. This restores the general welfare of the nation to harmony.

It most specifically does not pertain to providing anything to any specific individual, group, or organization.

 

[MadChemist]

Other than "provide for the common defense" can you name any other things the government is to provide it's citizens that are named in the COTUS? I refer to the COTUS because it is the basis for all FEDERAL law, of which the ACA is one.

Yes, it is the general welfare clause. It is not a major or common welfare clause.

How do you interpret the "...provide for the common defense and general Welfare of the United States."?

The online Legal dictionary defines it as: "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 ..." You can read it for yourself here:General Welfare

Yes, it is the general welfare clause. It is not a major or common welfare clause.

Consider a hypothetical, common welfare clause.

What's sad is that you know this isn't the case, and yet you continue to promote it.

I really hate calling someone a liar, but you are getting close.

so what; there are simply, not enough morals to go around on the right wing; and they just make stuff up and claim it is the "gospel Truth".

The general welfare clause is general not major or common.

We do not have a common welfare clause.

Not sure about the right wing....

But James Madison provided you that clarrification and you refuse to accept it, choosing instead to follow your own version of what you want (and using this to justify it).

Enough of your garbage. You can't justify it through anything else than your blathering when James Madison says you are wrong and it has been repeatedly shown.

 

[MadChemist]

It says PROMOTE the general welfare, not PROVIDE.

To me that means get government out of the way.

Thank you for the correction, you are correct the COTUS does say promote, not provide.

Of course to provide could be a GREAT way to promote, so there is no effective difference when it comes to all the government programs and their Constitutional allowance.

There is a great difference according to Google:
Promote: support or actively encourage.
Provide: make available for use; supply.
See the difference?

You don't get it - the words DO have different meaning, but one can be MEANS while the other is GOALS.

To clarify the concept lets do an example:

To promote the well being (aka welfare) of this great country US Government spends on programs that ensure everyone has access to basic needs like like food, medicine, shelter and education.

That is incorrect. To promote the general welfare, the government is tasked with providing an environment that is conducive to allowing each citizen to pursue life, liberty, and happiness in their own way. It is the general 'well being of the nation', not individuals, that is the focus.

For instance, one of the functions of the federal government is to resolve disputes between the states. If one state is treating another in an unfair or illegal manner, it is the job of the federal government to rectify the conflict. This restores the general welfare of the nation to harmony.

It most specifically does not pertain to providing anything to any specific individual, group, or organization.

Correct....

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.

.......

The more adequate, indeed, the federal powers may be rendered to the national defense, the less frequent will be those scenes of danger which might favor their ascendancy over the governments of the particular States. If the new Constitution be examined with accuracy and candor, it will be found that the change which it proposes consists much less in the addition of NEW POWERS to the Union, than in the invigoration of its ORIGINAL POWERS. The regulation of commerce, it is true, is a new power; but that seems to be an addition which few oppose, and from which no apprehensions are entertained. The powers relating to war and peace, armies and fleets, treaties and finance, with the other more considerable powers, are all vested in the existing Congress by the articles of Confederation. The proposed change does not enlarge these powers; it only substitutes a more effectual mode of administering them.

 

[danielpalos]

It says PROMOTE the general welfare, not PROVIDE.

To me that means get government out of the way.

Thank you for the correction, you are correct the COTUS does say promote, not provide.

Of course to provide could be a GREAT way to promote, so there is no effective difference when it comes to all the government programs and their Constitutional allowance.

There is a great difference according to Google:
Promote: support or actively encourage.
Provide: make available for use; supply.
See the difference?

You don't get it - the words DO have different meaning, but one can be MEANS while the other is GOALS.

To clarify the concept lets do an example:

To promote the well being (aka welfare) of this great country US Government spends on programs that ensure everyone has access to basic needs like like food, medicine, shelter and education.

That is incorrect. To promote the general welfare, the government is tasked with providing an environment that is conducive to allowing each citizen to pursue life, liberty, and happiness in their own way. It is the general 'well being of the nation', not individuals, that is the focus.

For instance, one of the functions of the federal government is to resolve disputes between the states. If one state is treating another in an unfair or illegal manner, it is the job of the federal government to rectify the conflict. This restores the general welfare of the nation to harmony.

It most specifically does not pertain to providing anything to any specific individual, group, or organization.

Why do you believe that?

Providing for the general welfare must provide for Individuals in the federal districts.

 

[danielpalos]

Yes, it is the general welfare clause. It is not a major or common welfare clause.

How do you interpret the "...provide for the common defense and general Welfare of the United States."?

The online Legal dictionary defines it as: "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 ..." You can read it for yourself here:General Welfare

Yes, it is the general welfare clause. It is not a major or common welfare clause.

Consider a hypothetical, common welfare clause.

What's sad is that you know this isn't the case, and yet you continue to promote it.

I really hate calling someone a liar, but you are getting close.

so what; there are simply, not enough morals to go around on the right wing; and they just make stuff up and claim it is the "gospel Truth".

The general welfare clause is general not major or common.

We do not have a common welfare clause.

Not sure about the right wing....

But James Madison provided you that clarrification and you refuse to accept it, choosing instead to follow your own version of what you want (and using this to justify it).

Enough of your garbage. You can't justify it through anything else than your blathering when James Madison says you are wrong and it has been repeatedly shown.

To raise money for the general welfare.

 

[deanrd]

I just don't understand why Republicans hate Americans so much.

They don't want them to just die, but to suffer first.

 

[MadChemist]

I just don't understand why Republicans hate Americans so much.

They don't want them to just die, but to suffer first.

I think you'd be better off taking that kind of statement to the Rubber Room.

There is no basis for it.

Just like there is no basis for saying democrats hate America.

 

[airplanemechanic]

I doubt you have a degree in anything.

Honey I have two college degrees. Shall we put our educational backgrounds out so everyone can judge who they would like to believe?

Me: Bachelors Degree in Insurance and Risk Management from the University of Louisiana, Lafayette
Me: Associates degree in applied science, Aviation Maintenance from Louisiana Tech.
Me: Major Appliance Repair, Lamar State College, Port Arthur, Texas
Me: FCC licensed HAM radio operator, general class, 3.5mhz to 440mhz, 1500 watts of transmitter power allowed
Me: FAA licensed airplane mechanic and pilot
Me: DOT licensed commercial driver, full Class-A unrestricted 80,000lbs

 

[airplanemechanic]

Did you look at the graph in the OP? Over 15 million more people got insurance because of Obamacare

Of course 15 million people got on Obamacare, they didn't have a fucking choice, it was either that or pay an astronomical tax penalty. I was one of them and I personally regret the scummy fucking democrats using me as part of their statistic that so many people got on Obamacare that it must be wonderful. I did it under threat of tax penalties, that if I refused to pay, would result in me being put in jail.

So in other words, fuck you scummy democrats.

Yea nothing like pointing a gun at someone and when they do what you tell them to saying "See, look how many people listen to me join my club?" I bet you'll get damn near 100% participation. But trying to claim that means they LIKED the idea is asinine.

 

[MadChemist]

I doubt you have a degree in anything.

Honey I have two college degrees. Shall we put our educational backgrounds out so everyone can judge who they would like to believe?

Me: Bachelors Degree in Insurance and Risk Management from the University of Louisiana, Lafayette
Me: Associates degree in applied science, Aviation Maintenance from Louisiana Tech.
Me: Major Appliance Repair, Lamar State College, Port Arthur, Texas
Me: FCC licensed HAM radio operator, general class, 3.5mhz to 440mhz, 1500 watts of transmitter power allowed
Me: FAA licensed airplane mechanic and pilot
Me: DOT licensed commercial driver, full Class-A unrestricted 80,000lbs

I don't know why you would bother to address a post like that.

Clearly it was a personal attack. Seems pretty common on this board.

 

[AntonToo]

Did you look at the graph in the OP? Over 15 million more people got insurance because of Obamacare

Of course 15 million people got on Obamacare, they didn't have a fucking choice, it was either that or pay an astronomical tax penalty.

FALSE, FALSE AND FALSE AGAIN.

Among those 15 million most were glad to get insurance, because they were:

1. Under 26 and got insured through their parents insurance.
2. Qualified for coverage under expanded Medicaid program.
3. Could not previously get insurance due to pre-existing conditions
4. Could not previously afford insurance without ACA subsidies.

Those that DIDN'T want to get insurance faced a TINY penalty for first few years. Penalty which was subject to many exceptions, penalty which IRS could not enforce beyond withdrawing it from Federal side tax refund.

Today the penalty is more substantial but still relatively small considering the guarantee you have in this country to receive emergency care regardless of ability to pay:

For tax year 2017, the penalty is 2.5% of your total household adjusted gross income, or $695 per adult and $347.50 per child, up to a maximum of $2,085

Here’s the Penalty for Not Having Health Insurance - NerdWallet

Bottom line, if you don't want to have insurance the (POOR!) choice not to have it is 100% there, just don't expect implicit healthcare risk coverage you get in this country to be a free ride.

 

[AntonToo]

I doubt you have a degree in anything.

Honey I have two college degrees. Shall we put our educational backgrounds out so everyone can judge who they would like to believe?

Me: Bachelors Degree in Insurance and Risk Management from the University of Louisiana, Lafayette
Me: Associates degree in applied science, Aviation Maintenance from Louisiana Tech.
Me: Major Appliance Repair, Lamar State College, Port Arthur, Texas
Me: FCC licensed HAM radio operator, general class, 3.5mhz to 440mhz, 1500 watts of transmitter power allowed
Me: FAA licensed airplane mechanic and pilot
Me: DOT licensed commercial driver, full Class-A unrestricted 80,000lbs

I don't know why you would bother to address a post like that.

Clearly it was a personal attack. Seems pretty common on this board.

He just wanted to memememmeme. Pretty small and hilarious.

 

[AntonToo]

Liberals interpreted "general welfare" in the constitution to mean generally, everyone should be on welfare.

How about your read the thread before throwing in your silly cents.

 

[MadChemist]

I doubt you have a degree in anything.

Honey I have two college degrees. Shall we put our educational backgrounds out so everyone can judge who they would like to believe?

Me: Bachelors Degree in Insurance and Risk Management from the University of Louisiana, Lafayette
Me: Associates degree in applied science, Aviation Maintenance from Louisiana Tech.
Me: Major Appliance Repair, Lamar State College, Port Arthur, Texas
Me: FCC licensed HAM radio operator, general class, 3.5mhz to 440mhz, 1500 watts of transmitter power allowed
Me: FAA licensed airplane mechanic and pilot
Me: DOT licensed commercial driver, full Class-A unrestricted 80,000lbs

I don't know why you would bother to address a post like that.

Clearly it was a personal attack. Seems pretty common on this board.

He just wanted to memememmeme. Pretty small and hilarious.

I am trying to take a new tact on message boards.

debbiedowner 's comment is a personal attack. I am encouraging people not to respond.

Just out of curiosity, who would say are the better "debaters" (people who use facts and make arguments) on this board ?

IMO DD isn't one of them, but maybe I have not seen her in action.

 

[MadChemist]

I just don't understand why Republicans hate Americans so much.

They don't want them to just die, but to suffer first.

O.K.

And this guy (deanrd) does not generally support much of anything he claims.