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

[ShootSpeeders]

[
The Supreme Court disagrees, and they determine what is or is not Constitutional, not you and other partisan rightists, thankfully.

.’

Where does the constitution say the Supreme Court has authority to decide the constitutionality of laws? Answer - it doesn't. Now have someone read you the tenth amendment.

 

[dblack]

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.

The Supreme Court disagrees, and they determine what is or is not Constitutional, not you and other partisan rightists, thankfully.

And the ACA does not constitute ‘national healthcare.’

ACA is a precursor or even a means to the end which is a single payer system.
The only reason ACA even exists is because Obama was told he'd never get away with ramming a single payer system down our throats.

Equivocation notwithstanding, it's fairly obvious the goal of the health care 'reformers' is to make health care a government responsibility. They want to establish health care as 'right' (however incoherent that may be conceptually).

All the kids (other corporatist nations) are doing it, and the statists in the US don't want to be left behind. If our nation is to compete with the Chinese we need to have solid control over our workers and soldiers, and grabbing them by the 'health care' balls will surely do it.

Next up - food.

 

[idb]

The Supreme Court disagrees, and they determine what is or is not Constitutional, not you and other partisan rightists, thankfully.

And the ACA does not constitute ‘national healthcare.’

ACA is a precursor or even a means to the end which is a single payer system.
The only reason ACA even exists is because Obama was told he'd never get away with ramming a single payer system down our throats.

Equivocation notwithstanding, it's fairly obvious the goal of the health care 'reformers' is to make health care a government responsibility. They want to establish health care as 'right' (however incoherent that may be conceptually).

All the kids (other corporatist nations) are doing it, and the statists in the US don't want to be left behind. If our nation is to compete with the Chinese we need to have solid control over our workers and soldiers, and grabbing them by the 'health care' balls will surely do it.

Next up - food.

I think you'll find most nations with national healthcare also have private medical facilities as well.

 

[dblack]

ACA is a precursor or even a means to the end which is a single payer system.
The only reason ACA even exists is because Obama was told he'd never get away with ramming a single payer system down our throats.

Equivocation notwithstanding, it's fairly obvious the goal of the health care 'reformers' is to make health care a government responsibility. They want to establish health care as 'right' (however incoherent that may be conceptually).

All the kids (other corporatist nations) are doing it, and the statists in the US don't want to be left behind. If our nation is to compete with the Chinese we need to have solid control over our workers and soldiers, and grabbing them by the 'health care' balls will surely do it.

Next up - food.

I think you'll find most nations with national healthcare also have private medical facilities as well.

True. The rich will retain theirs. The point is to get all the grunts dependent on government.

 

[idb]

Equivocation notwithstanding, it's fairly obvious the goal of the health care 'reformers' is to make health care a government responsibility. They want to establish health care as 'right' (however incoherent that may be conceptually).

All the kids (other corporatist nations) are doing it, and the statists in the US don't want to be left behind. If our nation is to compete with the Chinese we need to have solid control over our workers and soldiers, and grabbing them by the 'health care' balls will surely do it.

Next up - food.

I think you'll find most nations with national healthcare also have private medical facilities as well.

True. The rich will retain theirs. The point is to get all the grunts dependent on government.

I thought the point was to give the 'grunts' universal access to healthcare.

 

[francoHFW]

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?

And you complain about 2800 pages. LOL Look it up in other countries- not Switz or Holland, theirs are like O-Care/the GOP plan if lying cheating Pubs would EVER actually vote out their scam "system"...

 

[dblack]

I think you'll find most nations with national healthcare also have private medical facilities as well.

True. The rich will retain theirs. The point is to get all the grunts dependent on government.

I thought the point was to give the 'grunts' universal access to healthcare.

I know. Lots of folks do.

 

[idb]

True. The rich will retain theirs. The point is to get all the grunts dependent on government.

I thought the point was to give the 'grunts' universal access to healthcare.

I know. Lots of folks do.

Yeah, I suppose a conspiracy is a much more plausible explanation.

 

[dblack]

I thought the point was to give the 'grunts' universal access to healthcare.

I know. Lots of folks do.

Yeah, I suppose a conspiracy is a much more plausible explanation.

It's not a conspiracy. Just the natural drive of statists to control everything they can with government.

 

[shintao]

You do understand that the US Constitution is a limiting document, do you not?

No, where does it say that in the constitution?

The entire document was written for the express purpose of limiting the power of government.
The concept was that all men are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights.
That the people are protected by this limiting document from the tyranny of democracy and tyranny of an all encompassing government.
Finally the Tenth Amendment spells this out in plain English.....
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

What that means is, now pay attention because this is the last time you will get this explanation, is this. That if the Constitution does not state that the federal government "may" or "shall" it CANNOT.
The entire premise of this idea is that individuals have God given rights. The Constitution was written to speel out that idea and to insure those in government were well informed. The government serves the people. Not the other way around.
I cannot believe any person of reasonable intelligence would believe that government can basically do what it wants with impunity. Do you believe that?
If not, please explain your interpretation of how things are.
Oh. Here in this link is the explanation of enumerated powers.
This should be the end of your silly notion that the federal government has unlimited power.
Federalism | LII / Legal Information Institute

So, it doesn't say that at all. That means your statement "You do understand that the US Constitution is a limiting document, do you not?" is not true.

 

[Clementine]

Since the ACA isn't anything close to "National Healthcare" (I wish), your "point" is moot.

There is that "regulate interstate commerce" thang as well as that "lay taxes" thang.

It only held up because it is a tax, which Obama lied and lied and lied and said it wasn't a tax.

Their ability to regulate interstate commerce would not apply since they cannot force us to participate in commerce.

Immediately after SCOTUS ruled it was okay since it was a tax, Obama quickly denied that it was a tax. Liar.
We all know it's not a tax. He is forcing us to purchase something and making it way more expensive at that.

It's also unconstitutional because all revenue raising bills must first pass the House, which this did not. The Dems merely gutted another bill that wasn't a revenue raising bill and put this piece of shit health care bill in it's place, then shoved it through. That alone should make it null and void.

If it's not a tax, it might be okay to get it past the House, but then SCOTUS would shoot it down for not being a tax. Obama is lying out of both sides of his mouth.

 

[shintao]

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 didn't say national health insurance, thats a capitalist route. I call what I want 100% NHC, because that is what it could provide. I would fund it it two ways, cut the military, cut corporate aid, cut foreign aid, and secondly, use America's federal resources to fund the rest. Anyone could chose to be exempt, medical personnel or patients. You could run the system like any of the European NHCs are run. The models are already there, funding would be different here.

 

[Billo_Really]

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.

It's their job to maintain the "general welfare" of the country.

If something is harming the country, it's Congress job to step in and enact legislation that stops the threat. In this case, runaway healthcare costs that were resulting in over 50% of bankruptcy's being filed every year.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I know. Lots of folks do.

Yeah, I suppose a conspiracy is a much more plausible explanation.

It's not a conspiracy. Just the natural drive of statists to control everything they can with government.

Yes, it is.

And it’s a very ignorant and tedious conspiracy theory.

 

[Pasco08]

Isn't it the Feds jobs to correct something if it is harming the country? Well i would say the state of our healthcare and the fact that people have to decide between food/healthcare is wrong. I agree healthcare needed some reforms but i believe this was rushed through.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Since the ACA isn't anything close to "National Healthcare" (I wish), your "point" is moot.

There is that "regulate interstate commerce" thang as well as that "lay taxes" thang.

An expanded Medicare program would have been preferable, but the ACA is the first and important step toward a single payer system, and the best option given conservative opposition facts, logic, and reason.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Isn't it the Feds jobs to correct something if it is harming the country? Well i would say the state of our healthcare and the fact that people have to decide between food/healthcare is wrong. I agree healthcare needed some reforms but i believe this was rushed through.

What is your counter proposal?

 

[OKTexas]

No, where does it say that in the constitution?

The entire document was written for the express purpose of limiting the power of government.
The concept was that all men are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights.
That the people are protected by this limiting document from the tyranny of democracy and tyranny of an all encompassing government.
Finally the Tenth Amendment spells this out in plain English.....
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

What that means is, now pay attention because this is the last time you will get this explanation, is this. That if the Constitution does not state that the federal government "may" or "shall" it CANNOT.
The entire premise of this idea is that individuals have God given rights. The Constitution was written to speel out that idea and to insure those in government were well informed. The government serves the people. Not the other way around.
I cannot believe any person of reasonable intelligence would believe that government can basically do what it wants with impunity. Do you believe that?
If not, please explain your interpretation of how things are.
Oh. Here in this link is the explanation of enumerated powers.
This should be the end of your silly notion that the federal government has unlimited power.
Federalism | LII / Legal Information Institute

So, it doesn't say that at all. That means your statement "You do understand that the US Constitution is a limiting document, do you not?" is not true.

Really?

"Our tenet ever was that Congress had not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were restrained to those specifically enumerated, and that, as it was never meant that they should provide for that welfare but by the exercise of the enumerated powers, so it could not have been meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action; consequently, that the specification of powers is a limitation of the purposes for which they may raise money. "
-- Thomas Jefferson letter to Albert Gallatin, 1817

 

[Pasco08]

Isn't it the Feds jobs to correct something if it is harming the country? Well i would say the state of our healthcare and the fact that people have to decide between food/healthcare is wrong. I agree healthcare needed some reforms but i believe this was rushed through.

What is your counter proposal?

I don't have one. Not claiming that i did either.

 

[OKTexas]

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.

It's their job to maintain the "general welfare" of the country.

If something is harming the country, it's Congress job to step in and enact legislation that stops the threat. In this case, runaway healthcare costs that were resulting in over 50% of bankruptcy's being filed every year.

Your ignorance is showing, you might actually do a bit of study before you try to comment on federal responsibilities.