My ideas are shared by millions here, Bernie Sanders for example. There's nothing in the constitution that prevents the American people deciding whether to have a nationalized health care.
Yeah, I know. Open borders and unbridled illegal immigration to the tune of 10+ million has that effect. As for Bernie Sanders, LOL, the DNC dumped him before they dumped your favorite vegetable. Just another senile Marxist.
There doesn't have to be. That's not how the Constitution works. The salient point is that there's nothing in the Constitution that authorizes a federal takeover of health care.
That's right the Democrats and Republicans are more or less the same, they are both owned by private wealth, they both support genocide in Gaza, they both supply weapons to foreign despotic regimes, they both oppose universal health care.
There's nothing in the Constitution that authorizes a federal takeover of drug classifications or a federal takeover of state election policies.
Agreed. The Court has failed us more than once.
Yep. Unfortunately, some people don't want to go to the trouble. They think we can just pretend the Constitution means something else and roll with that, because majority rules.
If all of that were true, it would tend to indicate that your views are in the minority. Hmmm. Next.
I'm sure some views are and some aren't, what's new?
Healthcare back then was scarce, private, often ran by charities and mainly the wealthy had access.
So were roads, and they travelled by horse and buggy. Nonetheless, the founding document also ordered and empowered the new government to build "post roads." Plus, there were doctors in those days, and druggists. Back in those days most if not all doctors honored the Hippocratic Oath, and often traded their work for food and other necessary items.
It's not a question of whether it's important enough or not. The question is whether government should control it. or if it's something people should be free to deal with as they see fit.
I'm not advocating for the government to control it per se, but rather that the people receive the benefit. It can be done, but you're right that it could certainly present a slippery slope given the fascist tendencies we have.
If the government was created to solve special problems, and I agree that it was, and the government's powers in the founding document are enumerated and finite, do we agree that what we have as governance today is mostly illegitimate? In violation of letter and spirit of the founding document?
Unfortunately, you can't separate the two. Wherever pays the bills is in control.
Yep. If we socialize health care every election will be a bitterly contested struggle over how "we" do health care. The fearmongers will go into overdrive and your vote will be cast as a referendum on whether grandma lives or dies.
That's not my argument. It's a question of liberty - whether I can spend my money on health care as I choose, or whether government takes that money from me in the form of taxes and spends it on my behalf.
Government is there to solve very specific problems, primarily in the area of conflict resolution. We create government so we can enjoy living in society without packing a gun to defend our rights.
Much of it, yes. That's no reason to add more fuel to the fire.
Who runs the NHS in the UK and is it one organisation?
Ask somebody who knows.
I know, I just wondered any Yanks did because their posts indicates a big fat no.
Everything you say there dblack is contradicted by the Preamble to the Constitution and by the Declaration of Independence. Why should I give your claims any credibility?
