Where does the constitution give Congress power to set up national health care?

[ShootSpeeders]

[

And the Constitution affords Congress powers both enumerated and implied, there is no ‘finite list.’

Implied powers? HAHAHA. If that's the case then the constitution means nothing.

think

 

[ShootSpeeders]

[

See the part of the Preamble where it says "promote the general Welfare?" What could better promote the general welfare than health care for all the citizens of the US?

You still have offered no proof that obozocare will indeed promote the general welfare. You just say it will even though history shows the federal govt can't do anything right.

You don't have the proof and that takes us back to the listed powers of congress. That's all they have. Why would the founders list the powers of congress if they wanted congress to have unlimited powers? THINK

 

[ShootSpeeders]

There is nothing in our constitution for the establishment of the FDA.

As a true constructionist I believe in buyer beware.

Well the states could set up their version of the FDA. But really, regulatory agencies are pointless since they always end up being controlled by the industry they are meant to regulate. And the industry then uses the agency to stifle competition.

Better to insure medical safety thru lawsuits.

 

[regent]

Like it or not - this is one of the most ignorant statements ever made. No nation has the "responsibility" to redistribute wealth. You won't find that in a single nations constitution (unless of course they are communist/socialist/marxist).

But hey, when have Dumbocrats ever been knowledgable before opening their mouths and exposing their ignorance to the world?

Every nation has a method of redistributing its wealth, and for that method the nation is responsible. Can you name a nation that does not?

Doing something and being responsible for doing something are two vastly different things.

For instance, every day in America some psycopath somewhere rapes a woman. So because that happens, in your mind does that make it the responsibility of men to rape women?

We are not discussing the rape of women but a simple economic 101 concept, that all nations have a method of redistributing its wealth.
But maybe we better start here: is wealth redistributed in all nations on this planet?

 

[ShootSpeeders]

You forgot to cite your evidence Roberts was ‘bribed.’

HAHAHA. You can't be serious. All officials who are appointed for life take bribes!! You're the only one in the world so dumb he doesn't know that. HAHAHA

 

[P@triot]

Taxes are not just for running the government, but generally for raising revenue and in that process a lot of behavior is changed. But we also have taxes that were intended to change behavior. America has even amended the constitution to change behavior.
I have no idea why you mention murder etc.

I explained why I mentioned murder. Read it again. If you're still "confused" over something so clear and basic, that means you're a Democrat.

Taxes are necessary for our warriors who smite our enemies.

And I don't dispute that in the least since defense is the responsibility of the federal government. I also don't dispute any taxes necessary for congressional salaries, federal courts, and the patent office (among others).

 

[P@triot]

Every nation has a method of redistributing its wealth, and for that method the nation is responsible. Can you name a nation that does not?

Doing something and being responsible for doing something are two vastly different things.

For instance, every day in America some psycopath somewhere rapes a woman. So because that happens, in your mind does that make it the responsibility of men to rape women?

We are not discussing the rape of women but a simple economic 101 concept, that all nations have a method of redistributing its wealth.
But maybe we better start here: is wealth redistributed in all nations on this planet?

Is rape committed in all nations on this planet?

We are discussing rape because it proves that you have invented your own quack version of "economics 101".

Just because something occurs doesn't mean that occurrence is ok or acceptable.

 

[idb]

Doing something and being responsible for doing something are two vastly different things.

For instance, every day in America some psycopath somewhere rapes a woman. So because that happens, in your mind does that make it the responsibility of men to rape women?

We are not discussing the rape of women but a simple economic 101 concept, that all nations have a method of redistributing its wealth.
But maybe we better start here: is wealth redistributed in all nations on this planet?

Is rape committed in all nations on this planet?

We are discussing rape because it proves that you have invented your own quack version of "economics 101".

Just because something occurs doesn't mean that occurrence is ok or acceptable.

Unless it's something to do with guns of course...ya just can't stop that stuff happening.

 

[ron4342]

There is nothing in our constitution for the establishment of the FDA.

As a true constructionist I believe in buyer beware.

Isn't it kind of hard for a buyer to beware when it comes to purchasing medicine? You are ill and you want relief. A man in a white coat working in a drug store sells you a drug that he says will be safe. The drug kills you. Now, how are you supposed to know the medicine he sold you was not safe?
There was a very good reason why the FDA was established and even with this agency tainted meats and veggies still come into this country. Can you possible imagine what it would be like if there was no one working to make our food and drugs safe.

 

[8236]

Why do you want national health care insurance?

Actually, I want 100% National Health Care for America, not the capitalist screwed up version Obama is pushing for congress. But it is a foot in the door approach that America always takes toward an end, so it will eventually get there.

What is your interpretation of "national heath insurance"( please stop calling it healthcare).
How would you propose to fund an insurance system for 320 million people? Who would pay? Who would be exempt? How would your system compensate all medical professionals who under your national health insurance system would be de facto federal employees?
How would your system reconcile the true costs of medical , technological research and development of new techniques, equipment and medicines?
How would your system control the cost of an education in the medical fields?
How would your system compensate colleges and universities of medicine?

I reckon the US system of health care is absolutely great! Americans' willingness to fork out extortionate amounts for their medication does wonders for the price those of us who live in the rest of the world have to pay. Thank you very kindly.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

[
There was a very good reason why the FDA was established and even with this agency tainted meats and veggies still come into this country. Can you possible imagine what it would be like if there was no one working to make our food and drugs safe.

HAHAHA. The FDA doesn't make food and drugs safe, you fool. All the agents do is take bribes from the industry giants to look the other way when a toxic but profitable product hits the shelves. THINK

Only way to keep things safe is the threat of lawsuits.

 

[itfitzme]

Taxation Powers, apparently.

 

[regent]

Doing something and being responsible for doing something are two vastly different things.

For instance, every day in America some psycopath somewhere rapes a woman. So because that happens, in your mind does that make it the responsibility of men to rape women?

We are not discussing the rape of women but a simple economic 101 concept, that all nations have a method of redistributing its wealth.
But maybe we better start here: is wealth redistributed in all nations on this planet?

Is rape committed in all nations on this planet?

We are discussing rape because it proves that you have invented your own quack version of "economics 101".

Just because something occurs doesn't mean that occurrence is ok or acceptable.

OK, I think what you are trying to say is that rape is bad and not acceptable, wealth redistribution that all nations do is like rape and bad. That's the best I can do for you.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The ACA must be constitutional, because no one here has given any reasonable explanation otherwise.

We the People elected the House and Senate that passed it, the President signed it, SCOTUS opined it, and We the People re-elected the President who campaigned on its preservation.

The issue of constitutionality has been decided for the mean time.

 

[jon_berzerk]

It's not there and that means they don't have it - the states do. Obamacare is obviously unconstitutional as is 99% of what the feds do. The states need to grow a pair and scream about this.

they are not pushing health care

they are pushing insurance

forced insurance plans

the supreme court says they can do it as long is it a tax

any other way is clearly unconstitutional

so the house is well within its scope to defund it

 

[jon_berzerk]

The ACA must be constitutional, because no one here has given any reasonable explanation otherwise.

We the People elected the House and Senate that passed it, the President signed it, SCOTUS opined it, and We the People re-elected the President who campaigned on its preservation.

The issue of constitutionality has been decided for the mean time.

The ACA must be constitutional

as long as it is a tax

any other mandate the supreme court said is unconstitutional

 

[ShootSpeeders]

The ACA must be constitutional, because no one here has given any reasonable explanation otherwise.

.

What a stupid thing to say.

 

[dcraelin]

The ACA must be constitutional, because no one here has given any reasonable explanation otherwise.

We the People elected the House and Senate that passed it, the President signed it, SCOTUS opined it, and We the People re-elected the President who campaigned on its preservation.

The issue of constitutionality has been decided for the mean time.

the UN-ACA was never supported by the American people
it was pushed by a president who said an individual-mandate was unnecessary
it was passed thru Congress on the promise that wasn't a tax
then in typically twisted logic the the SupremeCourt said it was both not a tax, and a tax
it was written by insurance and medical industry lobbyists

 

[JakeStarkey]

The ACA must be constitutional, because no one here has given any reasonable explanation otherwise.

We the People elected the House and Senate that passed it, the President signed it, SCOTUS opined it, and We the People re-elected the President who campaigned on its preservation.

The issue of constitutionality has been decided for the mean time.

the UN-ACA was never supported by the American people
it was pushed by a president who said an individual-mandate was unnecessary
it was passed thru Congress on the promise that wasn't a tax
then in typically twisted logic the the SupremeCourt said it was both not a tax, and a tax
it was written by insurance and medical industry lobbyists

is

That is the nonsense of a delusional minority wing of the Republican Party.

That is not the sense or vision of the American people.

This is over for those who are balanced and understand our national narrative and the projection of our future.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

[
the UN-ACA was never supported by the American people
it was pushed by a president who said an individual-mandate was unnecessary
it was passed thru Congress on the promise that wasn't a tax
then in typically twisted logic the the SupremeCourt said it was both not a tax, and a tax
it was written by insurance and medical industry lobbyists

Dammit - you left out the biggest point. It's not among the listed powers of congress and hence it is unconstitutional. That's what this thread is all about.