• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Reid says Obamacare just a step toward eventual single-payer system[W:1539]

AlabamaPaul said:
The Constitution is intended to protect citizens from the Federal government's removal of basic rights, as a citizen, not to provide for support...
Click to expand...

In part. This part gives fuel to those who see more:

The first clause of Article I, Section 8, reads, "The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States." This clause, called the General Welfare Clause or the Spending Power Clause, does not grant Congress the power to legislate for the general welfare of the country; that is a power reserved to the states through the Tenth Amendment. Rather, it merely allows Congress to spend federal money for the general welfare. The principle underlying this distinction—the limitation of federal power—eventually inspired the only important disagreement over the meaning of the clause.


General Welfare legal definition of General Welfare. General Welfare synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.
 
AlabamaPaul said:
Where are your words in bold, obnoxious font in the Constitution?
Click to expand...
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Click to expand...
The bill of rights and it's amendments say the rest.
Note that it states the GENERAL welfare... not the welfare of the elite and corporations.
Is it still obnoxious to you when it comes from the preamble?
 
Boo Radley said:
In part. This part gives fuel to those who see more:

The first clause of Article I, Section 8, reads, "The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States." This clause, called the General Welfare Clause or the Spending Power Clause, does not grant Congress the power to legislate for the general welfare of the country; that is a power reserved to the states through the Tenth Amendment. Rather, it merely allows Congress to spend federal money for the general welfare. The principle underlying this distinction—the limitation of federal power—eventually inspired the only important disagreement over the meaning of the clause.


General Welfare legal definition of General Welfare. General Welfare synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.
Click to expand...

IMV, Congress is at fault for not reigning in the courts when they exercised the extraordinary power to "interpret" the Constitution rather than uphold it...
 
AlabamaPaul said:
IMV, Congress is at fault for not reigning in the courts when they exercised the extraordinary power to "interpret" the Constitution rather than uphold it...
Click to expand...

Their job is to interpret. Anyone dealing with legal language knows intent means less than what is actually said. That's what makes writing these documents so difficult.


With respect to the meaning of “the general welfare” the pages of The Federalist itself disclose a sharp divergence of views between its two principal authors. Hamilton adopted the literal, broad meaning of the clause;533 Madison contended that the powers of taxation and appropriation of the proposed government should be regarded as merely instrumental to its remaining powers, in other words, as little more than a power of self–support.534 From an early date Congress has acted upon the interpretation espoused by Hamilton. Appropriations for subsidies535 and for an ever increasing variety of “internal improvements”536 constructed by the Federal Government, had their beginnings in the adminis[p.154]trations of Washington and Jefferson.537 Since 1914, federal grants– in–aid, sums of money apportioned among the States for particular uses, often conditioned upon the duplication of the sums by the recipient State, and upon observance of stipulated restrictions as to its use, have become commonplace.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/art1frag29_user.html
 
Last edited:
Buck Ewer said:
You don't read very well do you?
The constitution will support the rights and welfare of all Americans
Wanna try again?
Click to expand...

The whole focus of the Constitution is to establish the responsibilities of the federal government and to limit it's effect on the population. That was the focus of the men who wrote the thing.

Your focus...as a progressive...is to disregard the government's responsibilities and to expand its effect on the population.

The Founding Fathers are spinning in their graves at the things you progressives and liberals have done to their magnificent document.
 
Mycroft said:
The Founding Fathers are spinning in their graves at the things you progressives and liberals have done to their magnificent document.
Click to expand...

Maybe, but maybe not. They were intelligent men who had they lived through the history may well have accepted more of this than some believe. The thing with being dead is we fix them at a place and time and don't allow for what changes time might have born.
 
Boo Radley said:
Maybe, but maybe not. They were intelligent men who had they lived through the history may well have accepted more of this than some believe. The thing with being dead is we fix them at a place and time and don't allow for what changes time might have born.
Click to expand...

That's why they incorporated Article 5 into the Constitution...
 
AlabamaPaul said:
That's why they incorporated Article 5 into the Constitution...
Click to expand...

That would be very inefficient for most small issues that likely fall under some provision. Not everything requires an amendment. But the comment was aimed at the belief that the founding fathers would be disappointed.
 
AlabamaPaul said:
That's why they incorporated Article 5 into the Constitution...
Click to expand...

And at the same time made it very difficult to do! Maybe those "old fogey founders" were not as unaware of human nature as many people today like to think they were?

Good evening, AP! :2wave:
 
polgara said:
And at the same time made it very difficult to do! Maybe those "old fogey founders" were not as unaware of human nature as many people today like to think they were?

Good evening, AP! :2wave:
Click to expand...

Good evening pg. They were smarter than the average person gives credit...
 
Misterveritis said:
The answer is simple. We have no interest in being subjects of the rulers in Washington. You see that as backwards because you are a statist. I see the right to be left alone as essential. I am not part of your collective.
Click to expand...

You sound like you listen to to much Rush Limbaugh--"subjects of the rulers in Washington" indeed. Sheesh.
 
ItAin'tFree said:
I'm not backward in my ability to get top quality healthcare. Are you and if so why? I'm nowhere near rich or even what practically anybody would say is wealthy, so it's not a money issue. Human nature is to provide for yourself, do you have a shortcoming in that area? If so, I'd bet it was because somewhere along the line somebody convinced you other people owed you something. They don't. Or do you just feel you are better qualified and smarter than everybody else so you should decide for them what healthcare they should receive and how it is administered? Or do you just want to control people's lives like the Democrat's do?
Click to expand...

I know countless people who would start their own business if not for the high cost of personal healthcare. I also know that my company is at a disadvantage with foreign competitors in places like Western Europe because those companies do not have to carry the high overhead associated with healthcare. Many of our employees earn less per month in salary than the cost of their healthcare, for example.

BTW, I noticve you Righties always point to yourselves and say stuff like "I have health care, why don't you?" As if the world only revolved around you and I.
 
AlabamaPaul said:
Was there a point to your post?
Click to expand...

Yep. Sorry you missed the obvious. Point being... you need not try to be so pretentiously elitist as to preach to others about the intentions of the constitution when it is spelled out right there at the very top of the constitution in one single sentence. I guess the true question that arises here is why, in the midst of your preaching to others about the constitution, does your interpretation of the intention of the constitution not relate or match the preamble at all?
 
Last edited:
Diogenes said:
If you think corporations are bad, just wait until you meet the government.
Click to expand...

Funny. Government healthcare seems to work pretty well for people over 65, just when they begin using the medical world for real. Fittingly it's called Medicare.
 
Misterveritis said:
Do you think Obama is pure socialist? Increasing fees is just one more means of punishing the military and those who served. There is room in his evil heart for two bad things at the same time.
Click to expand...

Do I think Obama is a Socialist at all? No. Because, unlike you, I actually know what Socialism is. You just define it as you so please with no regards for what it means.

It's funny how you're attacking Obama for his attempts to de-socialize Socialist medicine. The hypocrisy people have here is outrageous.
 
ItAin'tFree said:
You do see this, in a round about way. It has to be round about because there is no other option.

Many people authorized Tricare don't use it. Being it is a government program, it operates under government rules. Wait times for care can be much longer as patients are seen on a priority basis for the same illness. If you are lucky, no problem, you get seen in a reasonable time frame. If not, well, to bad. Funding is always an issue toward the end of the fiscal year. Treatments and procedures, even some medicines can be postponed just to wait on a few fiscal date. The list goes on and on.
Click to expand...

Oh, I never said TRICARE was good. I'm just pointing out TRICARE as an actual, working model of Socialist medicine. It also serves as a tool to point out how people who call Obama a Socialist as dirty word are extremely offended that he attempted to make Socialist Medicine less Socialist.

I don't think the average person really knows all that much about getting all their healthcare handled by a government agency. If they did, most probably would have been and would be a lot more vocal in their opposition to Obamacare and whatever dimwit government idea on healthcare it is that follows it. look at the games that were played in the funding of Medicare just to get Obamacare to pass. Well, unless things change, it will be games such as those played on people every year except to an even larger scale. Bad ideas don't get better with time.
Click to expand...

But this still doesn't get to the point that a single payer system is not Socialist. Private healthcare funded by a single payer isn't Socialist. As you stated, TRICARE's Socialist medicine has problems. But a single payer system doesn't own the hospitals, employ the doctors and make the drugs.

Single Payer can in theory do quite a bit of good for healthcare in depressing costs, streamlining medical records, and cutting out middle men. There's always a chance it can go wrong, but what doesn't have that problem?
 
zimmer said:
Anyone with a half brain knew ObamaKare was merely a step towards the Socialists of Amerika Partei's (SAPs) ultimate goal.

It's a prime example of the party of Lies & Deceit. They pass the bill using parliamentary procedures, their Top Hag Frau Pelosi tells us we have to sign it and then read it... Scott Brown wins Dead Kennedy's seat in MA in an effort to stop the idiocy, and now, years later they reveal their real goal.

The SAPs really do reflect their Rotten to the Core Royalty... The Felonious Clintons.
Click to expand...

Yep. Obamacare is the ultimate camel (the animal designed by committee). Rather than wasting everyone's time trying to correct the problem of being only 1st world country without national healthcare.... (with the most expensive, least efficient healthcare system in the 1st world) by adopting the Heritage Foundation's healthcare vision of using private insurance and compelling people to buy it by mandate, they should have simply used their votes to adopt the correct plan: single payer. Even though the Dems offered up the Republican plan, they got no takers, so why did they waste their time in compromise?
 
Last edited:
upsideguy said:
Yep. Obamacare is the ultimate camel (the animal designed by committee). Rather than wasting everyone's time trying to correct the problem of being only 1st world country without national healthcare.... (with the most expensive, least efficient healthcare system in the 1st world) by adopting the Heritage Foundation's healthcare vision of using private insurance and compelling people to buy it by mandate, they should have simply used their votes to adopt the correct plan: single payer. Even though the Dems offered up the Republican plan, they got no takers, so why did they waste their time in compromise?
Click to expand...
Good question.
In the end single payer universal coverage is the only solution that will work. If you try to lay down and compromise with repiglicons you come out smelling like a pig. The president's attempts to placate these swine has only screwed up the vision and delayed the inevitable. I expect that Hillary will expound on what our current President has begun and save us from the extortion and financial oppression of corporate medical and corporate pharma.
Historically, whenever conservative powers come to oppose human rights and try to use the power of government for their purposes, they have always eventually lost.
Healthcare is no different.
The US will never regain the status as the greatest country in the world until we get our humanity together, bring equitable healthcare to all Americans and re-establish a solid middle class.
I have confidence that these things are still achievable within my lifetime.
 
Buck Ewer said:
Good question.
In the end single payer universal coverage is the only solution that will work. If you try to lay down and compromise with repiglicons you come out smelling like a pig. The president's attempts to placate these swine has only screwed up the vision and delayed the inevitable. I expect that Hillary will expound on what our current President has begun and save us from the extortion and financial oppression of corporate medical and corporate pharma.
Historically, whenever conservative powers come to oppose human rights and try to use the power of government for their purposes, they have always eventually lost.
Healthcare is no different.
The US will never regain the status as the greatest country in the world until we get our humanity together, bring equitable healthcare to all Americans and re-establish a solid middle class.
I have confidence that these things are still achievable within my lifetime.
Click to expand...

Lol, you guys really need to get your own country.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom