View Poll Results: Do you support single-payer health care?

Voters
109. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    50 45.87%
  • No

    53 48.62%
  • Maybe, if

    6 5.50%
Page 14 of 26 FirstFirst ... 4121314151624 ... LastLast
Results 131 to 140 of 252

Thread: Do you support single-payer health care?

  1. #131
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    In the land of steers and queers
    Last Seen
    06-03-10 @ 12:07 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    1,563

    Re: Do you support single-payer health care?

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    There was no broad grant of power; there was a specific grant among other specific grants.
    There was both, boo dog. During the making of the Constitution, the general welfare clause was interpreted two different ways.

  2. #132
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Do you support single-payer health care?

    Quote Originally Posted by reefedjib View Post
    But it is supported by my other comment, that got lost:
    Explain that.
    The articles of Confederation are irrelevant, especially any given clause taken in space. They did not work for a miltitude of reasons; citing the deletion of one clause from the AoC to the Constitution doesnt mean anything regarding the intent of the Constitution.

    I'll agree to 1) The explicit clauses are unnecessary under the Hamilton view, except as perhaps the starter laws, as the government first forms.
    Under your argument, they are unnecessary, period.
    Under your argument, all that was necessary is the 1st and last clause.
    And yet, there are 16 more. Why? If the intent was to create a goverment with virtually ulimited power, why include those 16 clauses?

    I don't know what the 9th amendment has to do with this - it is dealing with explicit and implicit rights, not powers. Please explain.
    The primary argument against the bill of rights was that by specifying certain rights in such a bill the implication was that these were the only rights held by the people. This led to the 9th amendment, whuch states this is not the case.

    This is an example of the midset of the people creating the constitution -- 'all that's there is what is specified' - that by specifying certain powers in a section described as 'the powers of Congress', the implication was that these were the only powers held by congress.

    If there was any thought that the Constitution was intended to confer virtually unlimited power to Congress, there would have been a similar discussion regarding those 16 superflous powers, in that they might be construed to mean that these were the only powers Congress was to have.

    Thus, the inclusion of those powers defeats the argument that the intent was to that virtually unlimited power.

    And the, there's the 10th amendment:
    If the federal government was to have unlimited power, what powers then are reserved to the states? Under ths 'unlimited power' argument, the 10th amendment is meaningless.

    I'll agree again 2) that this interpretation provides unlimited power.
    This then clearly the argument is unsound, as a federal government with 'unlimited power' is what the constitution was intended to avoid.

    Once again 3) I agree.
    So you agree that the implementation of the Hamiltonian view by the court is nothing more than a 'because we said so'.
    Given that, why support it?

  3. #133
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Last Seen
    07-23-12 @ 03:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    6,763
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Do you support single-payer health care?

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    Why? If the intent was to create a goverment with virtually ulimited power, why include those 16 clauses?
    I do not know. Good question.

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    So you agree that the implementation of the Hamiltonian view by the court is nothing more than a 'because we said so'.
    Given that, why support it?
    Because it gets me what I want. It is the lower standard, requiring a majority in the House and Senate to pass a law providing healthcare for all. If we have to go the proper course, in light of a more restrictive General Welfare Clause, then I would need a Constitutional Amendment to get mandatory healthcare, correct?

    That said, I am awfully worried about the growth in entitlement spending. In another thread, for 2009 I computed $660 billion for DOD and GWOT, and $1.7 for entitlements (SS, Welfare, Medicare, Medicaid, Unemployment) and growing.

  4. #134
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Do you support single-payer health care?

    Quote Originally Posted by reefedjib View Post
    I do not know. Good question.
    Its one I think I'd want answered before I embrace the argument.

    Because it gets me what I want.
    HA!
    You do know that's not a sound argument, right?
    Tell me: What argument do you have to counter the 'unlimited power' argument when its something that you do NOT want?

    If we have to go the proper course, in light of a more restrictive General Welfare Clause, then I would need a Constitutional Amendment to get mandatory healthcare, correct?
    You are correct.
    The amendment process, BTW, is another argument against the 'unlimited power' argument.

  5. #135
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Last Seen
    07-23-12 @ 03:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    6,763
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Do you support single-payer health care?

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    HA!
    You do know that's not a sound argument, right?
    If it works, it works.

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    Tell me: What argument do you have to counter the 'unlimited power' argument when its something that you do NOT want?
    Yours is a pretty good argument if you can get Congress and SCOTUS to abide by it.

    I thought of a way to enforce a more restrictive General Welfare Clause other than a SCOTUS decision. You could pass an amendment that locks in the enumerated powers. Then we would need an amendment for healthcare, welfare, social security. Again, I think these things should be handled at the state level, but with the federal government helping to pay for them to make them 'mandatory'.

  6. #136
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Do you support single-payer health care?

    Quote Originally Posted by reefedjib View Post
    If it works, it works.
    Until they want to do someting you disagree with - then you're left with nothing to say.

    Yours is a pretty good argument if you can get Congress and SCOTUS to abide by it.
    Its a sound argument, period.

  7. #137
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    In the land of steers and queers
    Last Seen
    06-03-10 @ 12:07 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    1,563

    Re: Do you support single-payer health care?

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    Under your argument, they are unnecessary, period.Under your argument, all that was necessary is the 1st and last clause. And yet, there are 16 more. Why? If the intent was to create a goverment with virtually ulimited power, why include those 16 clauses?
    If the intent of the 16 clauses was to limit the powers of Congress to those enumerated in the clauses, why did they include a clause that could easily be construed to grant almost unlimited power?

    Dude, the lawmakers weren't stupid. The Constitution was written ambiguously so the details could be worked out in the political process. Otherwise, they would have never gotten it adopted.

  8. #138
    Anti-Hypocrite
    molten_dragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Southeast Michigan
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:56 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    9,351

    Re: Do you support single-payer health care?

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    Under your argument, they are unnecessary, period.
    Under your argument, all that was necessary is the 1st and last clause.
    And yet, there are 16 more. Why? If the intent was to create a goverment with virtually ulimited power, why include those 16 clauses?
    It's a good question to be honest, but you can ask the reverse question as well. If those were the only powers congress was to be given, why put in the 'to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States' clause and muddy the waters? Why not come right out and say that the powers listed are to be the only powers given to congress.

    Instead, I think the 16 specific powers listed are intended to be the minimum powers retained by congress under all circumstances. They can have others, but never less than those 16.

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    This is an example of the midset of the people creating the constitution -- 'all that's there is what is specified' - that by specifying certain powers in a section described as 'the powers of Congress', the implication was that these were the only powers held by congress.
    This is clearly not universally true. Hamilton helped create it, and he argued that those were not the only powers held by congress.

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    If there was any thought that the Constitution was intended to confer virtually unlimited power to Congress, there would have been a similar discussion regarding those 16 superflous powers, in that they might be construed to mean that these were the only powers Congress was to have.

    Thus, the inclusion of those powers defeats the argument that the intent was to that virtually unlimited power.
    An equally plausible argument is that the general welfare clause does grant much broader power to congress and the 16 specific powers listed were to be the minimum powers it had.


    To be quite honest, I think that that particular section of the constitution (as well as several others) was written to be ambiguous on purpose. The people who wrote it were all smart enough to realize that in the future, situations would come up that they couldn't have conceived of when the document was written, and that dealing with them might require some flexibility in the constitution. A little ambiguity gives the people of the country the room to interpret it in whatever way they decide is best.
    If you build a man a fire, he'll be warm for a day.

    If you set a man on fire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

  9. #139
    Sage
    Harry Guerrilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Not affiliated with other libertarians.
    Last Seen
    09-01-17 @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    28,955

    Re: Do you support single-payer health care?

    Quote Originally Posted by gabehwkns View Post
    I'm curious how many people on this forum support single-payer health care and why or why not. I understand that there are many small groups of people spread out over the United States that support single-payer, but they aren't able to make much noise.

    So, do you support single-payer health care, and why or why not?
    No I don't support it.

    You can't have major medical advances, low cost and timely care with a single payer system.
    Most of them rely on waiting times and old treatments to keep costs low.
    I was discovering that life just simply isn't fair and bask in the unsung glory of knowing that each obstacle overcome along the way only adds to the satisfaction in the end. Nothing great, after all, was ever accomplished by anyone sulking in his or her misery.
    —Adam Shepard

  10. #140
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Do you support single-payer health care?

    Quote Originally Posted by molten_dragon View Post
    It's a good question to be honest...
    If you cannot answer it, you should question your support for the argument.

    ...but you can ask the reverse question as well. If those were the only powers congress was to be given, why put in the 'to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States' clause and muddy the waters?
    That you can do this in no way nullifies my point.
    That said, the reverse question is easily answered - it explains why congress was given the power to tax and spend; said preamble, gives no more power to the governmen than does the actual preamble to the Constituion.

    Why not come right out and say that the powers listed are to be the only powers given to congress.
    They did.
    When something says you "shall have the power to..." and lists a number of powers, anything not found in that list is not a power you shall have.

    Instead, I think the 16 specific powers listed are intended to be the minimum powers retained by congress under all circumstances. They can have others, but never less than those 16.
    This is unsupportable, especially given the 'unlimited power thru the general welfare clause' argument. Under that argument, all of these powers are already included, as they all relate to the general welfare and/or common defense.

    This is clearly not universally true. Hamilton helped create it, and he argued that those were not the only powers held by congress.
    Hamilton was first among those that argued against the bill of rights, for the reason I supplied - that to specifically list certain rights would lead to the denial of those not listed.

    In that light, if he did indeed hold that the enumeratesd powers were not the only powers of Congress, where are his argument against the enumeration of powers itself, in that specifying certain powers in a section described as 'the powers of Congress' denotes that these were the only powers held by congress, and would then lead to the denial of those not listed?


    An equally plausible argument is that the general welfare clause does grant much broader power to congress and the 16 specific powers listed were to be the minimum powers it had.
    This is unsupportable, especially given the 'unlimited power thru the general welfare clause' argument. Under that argument, all of these powers are already included, as they all relate to the general welfare and/or common defense.

    To be quite honest, I think that that particular section of the constitution (as well as several others) was written to be ambiguous on purpose.
    To be quite honest, the only people that see ambuguity are those that want the Federal Government to do something that they know it has not been given the power to do -- thus, the 'general welfare' argument.

    The people who wrote it were all smart enough to realize that in the future, situations would come up that they couldn't have conceived of when the document was written...
    I fully agree - That's why they included Amendment X and Article V.
    Last edited by Goobieman; 11-19-09 at 03:04 PM.

Page 14 of 26 FirstFirst ... 4121314151624 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •