First of all, welcome to DP. A piece of advice, when you link to hyper-partisan sites like Breitbart, it doesn't do a lot for your credibility. In other words, don't present spin and talking points to support your argument.
1) Have the bills been reconciled yet?
2) Has anybody actually been fined for not buying health insurance?
3) Why would someone who could afford health insurance not have it?
4) Won't the fines offset the massive costs of running public hospital emergency rooms that are being misused as primary care physicians?
If you're a fat slob super-sizing your way to early onset diabetes, get off your couch, sell your widescreen tv, and buy some friggin' insurance, porky.
Let's all calm the f the down and take an objective intelligent look at the proposed bills... Shall we?
I can tell you right from the start that you are using purposefully flawed analysis, the general welfare clause has NOTHING to do with providing basic services, it is basically to insure against things that no individual or community can provide which cannot be used by the public. i.e. a bridge, dam, public road, etc.The federal government is granted the power to ensure the general welfare of it's people. The health of it's people is included in "general welfare". Sorry , but read the constitution.
That's terrific, so how do you propose we do that, considering this bill just raised costs?I do believe everyone should have basic health insurance as long as hospitals are forced to treat them.Not addressed in this bill, however tax increases, mandates, etc. are included.The people should not have to pay for their treatment through higher taxes, premiums and healthcare costs. The government should be there to help those that can not afford insurance to get it.
So, you want an awful bill with no benefit and even less chance of repeal as opposed to leaving things alone until people who actually have a good idea come around? That doesn't make any sense.I think the healthcare bill is horrible but I do know the system is broken and something had to be done.
Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.
We elected people in government to decide what is the best welfare of the people. The constitution gave them broad power to determine what general welfare means and our votes determines who makes those calls. It's what a democracy is.
General welfare can include education, health, and basic needs of the people. It's just as important as defense. The people we elected make the decisions as to what is best for us. That's just the way it is. I didn't write the Constitution. If I had I would haverestricted federal government much more.
The thing is, there really is not a good solution that everyone will agree on. There never is. What if this bill passes and turns out to reduce costs and does provide insurance for everyone? No one knows for sure what will happen if it's passed.
" provides that the governing body empowered by the document may enact laws as it sees fit to promote the well-being of the people governed thereunder. Such clauses are generally interpreted as granting the state broad power to regulate for the general welfare that is independent of other powers specified in the governing document."
Last edited by Dirty Harry; 12-26-09 at 07:53 PM.