Uninsured rate keeps climbing under Republicans

[danielpalos]

YES! I do mean that.

People who are healthy don't want to pay for insurance, UNTIL THEY ARE NOT HEALTHY.

The only way to be able to guarantee everyone access to coverage in free market based system is to mandate that they get covered healthy or not.

This is where you go wrong every single time. Government is not tasked with guaranteeing everyone anything. Good little dictators will always sacrifice liberty for their own selfish desires.

You are crazy. Government is tasked WITH MANY THINGS it is to provide it's citizens.

I'm not an ideologue - if there is a way to setup a pure free market to handle a problem I'm all for it, but some things it's just not that good at as bottom line doesn't always line up with acceptable outcomes for us the people.

Don't be ridiculous.

At the Federal level, the government is tasked with keeping this country safe from aggressive countries in the world, provide and maintain our borders as part of that responsibility, and keep the squabbling between the states to a minimum. There are certain responsibilities for keeping and maintaining our national parks and waterways for the continued operation of the economy. However, at the federal level, there is zero responsibility for the federal government to provide things, (particularly guarantees) to individuals.

Silly, Federal government is tasked BY THE PEOPLE, through a political process. There is no divine prescription for what Feds do or do not do.

What the fuck?

The Constitution of the United States: A Transcription

The United States Constitution prescribes exactly what limits and responsibilities the Government has. Perhaps you should read it.

This is where people like you go wrong. You think that social issues should all be decided at the Federal level when in fact no social issues should be decided at the federal level. Social issues are wholly contained as States Rights.

Should our Chief Magistrate of the Union ask for fifty different health care plans from the several States?

 

[danielpalos]

Having initially dropped BIGLY under Obamacare uninsured rates have now been climbing back up ever since Trump won election and began messing with our healthcare:

The Uninsured Rate Is Going Up Again | HuffPost

U.S. Uninsured Rate Rises to 12.3% in Third Quarter

Or as Trumpsters would say:

Oh my Allah, you mean that if people are not forced to buy the product of well connected looters under penalty of law, the crooks who you serve lose business?

YES! I do mean that.

People who are healthy don't want to pay for insurance, UNTIL THEY ARE NOT HEALTHY.

The only way to be able to guarantee everyone access to coverage in free market based system is to mandate that they get covered healthy or not.

This is where you go wrong every single time. Government is not tasked with guaranteeing everyone anything. Good little dictators will always sacrifice liberty for their own selfish desires.

You are crazy. Government is tasked WITH MANY THINGS it is to provide it's citizens.

I'm not an ideologue - if there is a way to setup a pure free market to handle a problem I'm all for it, but some things it's just not that good at as bottom line doesn't always line up with acceptable outcomes for us the people.

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.

 

[Zander]

Poor LWNJ's, they rely upon government for everything. It's a sorry state of affairs.

"Personal Responsibility" and "Rugged Individualism" built this country.

Today's Leftwing beta males want hot cocoa, free government health insurance and a pillow to bite.....

 

[oldsoul]

Oh my Allah, you mean that if people are not forced to buy the product of well connected looters under penalty of law, the crooks who you serve lose business?

YES! I do mean that.

People who are healthy don't want to pay for insurance, UNTIL THEY ARE NOT HEALTHY.

The only way to be able to guarantee everyone access to coverage in free market based system is to mandate that they get covered healthy or not.

This is where you go wrong every single time. Government is not tasked with guaranteeing everyone anything. Good little dictators will always sacrifice liberty for their own selfish desires.

You are crazy. Government is tasked WITH MANY THINGS it is to provide it's citizens.

I'm not an ideologue - if there is a way to setup a pure free market to handle a problem I'm all for it, but some things it's just not that good at as bottom line doesn't always line up with acceptable outcomes for us the people.

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

 

[Zander]

YES! I do mean that.

People who are healthy don't want to pay for insurance, UNTIL THEY ARE NOT HEALTHY.

The only way to be able to guarantee everyone access to coverage in free market based system is to mandate that they get covered healthy or not.

This is where you go wrong every single time. Government is not tasked with guaranteeing everyone anything. Good little dictators will always sacrifice liberty for their own selfish desires.

You are crazy. Government is tasked WITH MANY THINGS it is to provide it's citizens.

I'm not an ideologue - if there is a way to setup a pure free market to handle a problem I'm all for it, but some things it's just not that good at as bottom line doesn't always line up with acceptable outcomes for us the people.

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

It says PROMOTE the general welfare, not PROVIDE.

To me that means get government out of the way.

 

[AntonToo]

And how do caps on profits benefit insurance companies and politicians?

They benefit insurance companies because caps on profit come with implied caps on losses (CSR, etc...) They benefit politicians because they control the caps. Win/win?

Horseshit, there are no caps on losses (though there were some risk corridors for lossesin the first years of the system) and CSR has NOTHING to do with profits or losses.

 

[dblack]

And how do caps on profits benefit insurance companies and politicians?

They benefit insurance companies because caps on profit come with implied caps on losses (CSR, etc...) They benefit politicians because they control the caps. Win/win?

Horseshit, there are no caps on losses (though there were some risk corridors for lossesin the first years of the system) and CSR has NOTHING to do with profits or losses.

Sure. Nothing at all.

Actually, maybe you're right. "Profit" usually refers to the margin earned through voluntary free trade. CSR is better characterized as corporate welfare.

 

[danielpalos]

YES! I do mean that.

People who are healthy don't want to pay for insurance, UNTIL THEY ARE NOT HEALTHY.

The only way to be able to guarantee everyone access to coverage in free market based system is to mandate that they get covered healthy or not.

This is where you go wrong every single time. Government is not tasked with guaranteeing everyone anything. Good little dictators will always sacrifice liberty for their own selfish desires.

You are crazy. Government is tasked WITH MANY THINGS it is to provide it's citizens.

I'm not an ideologue - if there is a way to setup a pure free market to handle a problem I'm all for it, but some things it's just not that good at as bottom line doesn't always line up with acceptable outcomes for us the people.

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.

 

[MadChemist]

This is where you go wrong every single time. Government is not tasked with guaranteeing everyone anything. Good little dictators will always sacrifice liberty for their own selfish desires.

You are crazy. Government is tasked WITH MANY THINGS it is to provide it's citizens.

I'm not an ideologue - if there is a way to setup a pure free market to handle a problem I'm all for it, but some things it's just not that good at as bottom line doesn't always line up with acceptable outcomes for us the people.

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.

 

[oldsoul]

This is where you go wrong every single time. Government is not tasked with guaranteeing everyone anything. Good little dictators will always sacrifice liberty for their own selfish desires.

You are crazy. Government is tasked WITH MANY THINGS it is to provide it's citizens.

I'm not an ideologue - if there is a way to setup a pure free market to handle a problem I'm all for it, but some things it's just not that good at as bottom line doesn't always line up with acceptable outcomes for us the people.

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

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.

 

[AntonToo]

You are crazy. Government is tasked WITH MANY THINGS it is to provide it's citizens.

I'm not an ideologue - if there is a way to setup a pure free market to handle a problem I'm all for it, but some things it's just not that good at as bottom line doesn't always line up with acceptable outcomes for us the people.

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

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.

 

[oldsoul]

This is where you go wrong every single time. Government is not tasked with guaranteeing everyone anything. Good little dictators will always sacrifice liberty for their own selfish desires.

You are crazy. Government is tasked WITH MANY THINGS it is to provide it's citizens.

I'm not an ideologue - if there is a way to setup a pure free market to handle a problem I'm all for it, but some things it's just not that good at as bottom line doesn't always line up with acceptable outcomes for us the people.

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.

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?

 

[danielpalos]

You are crazy. Government is tasked WITH MANY THINGS it is to provide it's citizens.

I'm not an ideologue - if there is a way to setup a pure free market to handle a problem I'm all for it, but some things it's just not that good at as bottom line doesn't always line up with acceptable outcomes for us the people.

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.

 

[oldsoul]

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

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?

 

[danielpalos]

You are crazy. Government is tasked WITH MANY THINGS it is to provide it's citizens.

I'm not an ideologue - if there is a way to setup a pure free market to handle a problem I'm all for it, but some things it's just not that good at as bottom line doesn't always line up with acceptable outcomes for us the people.

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.

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.

 

[AntonToo]

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

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.

 

[oldsoul]

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.

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?

 

[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.

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.

 

[oldsoul]

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 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.

 

[oldsoul]

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.

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?