• 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!

I haven't seen one word from Republicans in years how to get everyone healthcare

aociswundumho said:
Thus demonstrating you have absolutely no clue what the problem is.

I'll be doing a post on healthcare soon showing how government intervention has destroyed the market.
Click to expand...

Bwaaahhh… this will be good. I look forward to your post.
 
Media_Truth said:
It wasn't for the military. According to the link in post #5, the Health Care coverage was for merchant seamen. And it was extended to more coverage for others.

As the nation grew and expanded, the system was also expanded to cover sailors working the private vessels sailing the Mississippi and Ohio rivers.

The program eventually became the Public Health Service, a government operated health service that exists to this day under the supervision of the Surgeon General.
Click to expand...
Don't bother.

Glitch has already shown how he views the constitution. If its not explicitly written in the constitution..and its something he likes.. like nuclear power, air force jets, hydroelectric power.. and a space force...its constitutional.

If its not explicitly written into the constitution..and its something he doesn't like.. then its not constitutional.
 
Threegoofs said:
LOL.

You sure picked a stellar example. In fact, it’s a perfect one to illustrate how abjectly bad your idea is.

Nobody pays $250 for Lasik eye surgery. But they sure advertise it (at a ‘per eye’ price so the idiots think it’s even cheaper!). The actual price will always rise, due to the fact that most surgeries are more complicated (the bait and switch price is for a very small number of patients) and you’ll pay more for follow up and post op care, etc.

So having hospitals put prices on things will cause people to go for the low sticker price, which will be compensated for by charging a boatload for ‘extras’ or complications, leading you to regret the hospital encounter as much as someone regrets a $99 car repainting job from Earl Schieb.

Except your car can be repainted again. Your organ that was damaged from cut rate service cannot.
Click to expand...

Gee... discount eye surgery? What could go wrong with that?
 
Glitch said:
Taking care of the military is not the same thing as Congress enacting healthcare for everyone. They simply where never given that power. I expect Congress to take responsibility for the health and well-being of those who serve in the military. I do not expect Congress to overstep their constitutional authority, and neither should you. Congress is limited to only those powers specifically granted to them by the US Constitution, and no other powers.
Click to expand...
They were never given the authority to have a standing army, either....but they did. Who do you think pays for the military's salary and healthcare? Or did you just think it was free?



My attacks against the left are well justified and fully documented. You may wish to ignore history, but I certainly won't. Even the leftist posters in this thread are saying the US Constitution be damned. They don't give a **** about the rule of law. The left simple wish to impose their will on everyone else. This is also known as fascism. It was a leftist, Benito Mussolini, after all who created fascism. Nationalization of healthcare is just one means of accomplishing that goal.
Click to expand...
Your attacks on the left are extremely stupid and ill informed and say more about you than they do the left.
 
KevinKohler said:
Are you suggesting that the federal government doesn't impose rules and restrictions on states, concerning water, sewer, and power?
Click to expand...

Only where it pertains to international or interstate commerce and navigable waters, as granted under Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution. Otherwise those are powers of the State. The federal government has nothing to do with sewers, since there are no sewers that cross State or international borders.
 
Frigidweirdo said:
And who said I was even trying to violate it?

I mean, where the hell did your response come from?
Click to expand...

You did, when you considered the US Constitution as being part of the problem. It is the federal government and the utter lack of civics education in the US that is the problem, not the US Constitution.

Frigidweirdo said:
Sometimes the problem is the Constitution isn't fit for purpose. And Republicans would probably agree when on a topic they like government intervention in.
Click to expand...
 
jimbo said:
Protect the borders. Conduct the census. Fight the wars. Facilitate interstate commerce.

Everything else is reserved to the states.
Click to expand...

The federal government does have more powers than you listed, but healthcare, education, and social programs are not among them. Those are powers reserved exclusively for the States.
 
Moot said:
They were never given the authority to have a standing army, either....but they did. Who do you think pays for the military's salary and healthcare? Or did you just think it was free?

Your attacks on the left are extremely stupid and ill informed and say more about you than they do the left.
Click to expand...

Don't be silly, of course Congress was given the authority to raise a standing army. Article I, Section 8, Clauses 12, 13, and 14 gives Congress all the authority they require to raise and support a standing army and navy. Have you ever bothered to even read the US Constitution?

My attacks against the left are all based upon history, including recent history. I'm sorry you did not receive the proper education to comprehend history, but it is your ignorance of of history that is "ill informed" not the documented historical facts that I present. When you claimed that fascism was right-wing, instead of being created by a devote socialist, that told me you have been indoctrinated into believing bogus information. Undoubtedly by other leftists trying to conceal their past atrocities against humanity.
 
cabse5 said:
I given my solution many times on DP (and I'm a Republican).

SIAP by someone else.
Revert health care back to what it was before ACA, let it be employer funded, and place those folks who are unemployed and uninsurable into a gov't health care system like Medicaid. Drawbacks would be added cost to the federal government and convincing businesses to take over health care again.
Click to expand...

That would also violate the US Constitution. The federal government has absolutely no authority with regard to our healthcare. Even MediCare/MedicAid are unconstitutional. This is why 32 States (and growing) have flat out refused to accommodate the Affordable Healthcare Act. There are only 12 State exchanges, and 6 exchanges shared between the States and the federal government - everyone of them a Democrat-controlled State naturally. Every other State has flat out refused to allow State exchanges, and only federal exchanges exist in those States.
 
cabse5 said:
All I remember is that ACA was reviewed as constitutional by SCOTUS because ACA was a tax. I don't remember much else 'cause the tax ruling irked me so much.
Click to expand...

The Supreme Court held that the penalty imposed by the Affordable Healthcare Act of 2010 was a tax and not a penalty. Had they ruled that the penalty was in fact a penalty, then the law would have been tossed as unconstitutional because that would have made it a Bill of Attainder, which is specifically prohibited by the US Constitution. Bills of Attainder are when Congress, or State legislatures, enact laws that penalize the citizen without due process. Legislation cannot impose fines and penalties without a trial for the accused.

To avoid that problem the Supreme Count labeled the penalty a "tax."
 
Last edited:
Craig234 said:
All the discussion is Democrats suggestions solutions and Republicans spewing nonsense in response.

How would THEY get everyone healthcare, or will they admit they're happy for people to be killed without it?

All their party has actually DONE is to try to repeal Democratic programs, to leave tens of millions more without healthcare.

So, what's their solution?
Click to expand...


I think both sides want healthcare but the biggest disconnect is funding.
 
Glitch said:
Don't be silly, of course Congress was given the authority to raise a standing army. Article I, Section 8, Clauses 12, 13, and 14 gives Congress all the authority they require to raise and support a standing army and navy. Have you ever bothered to even read the US Constitution?

My attacks against the left are all based upon history, including recent history. [....blah, blah, blah].
Click to expand...

You sure are full of yourself, I must say.


Article I, Section 8, Clause 12

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years.​


"Two years." Let that sink in, Glitch.....no money shall be used to support an army for a term longer than two years. IOW, the army was meant to be temporary, not a permanent standing army like it is today. It's a crying shame that you weren't taught real history as a youngster because I can tell you have an interest. It's just sad how wrong you are and on so many levels.


BTW....the 1798 healthcare bill was for privately employed seamen, not the military. It was for all intent, socialist healthcare.
 
Last edited:
Moot said:
You sure are full of yourself, I must say.


Article I, Section 8, Clause 12

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years.​


"Two years." Let that sink in, Glitch.....no money shall be used to support an army for a term longer than two years. IOW, the army was meant to be temporary, not a permanent standing army like it is today. It's a crying shame that you weren't taught real history as a youngster because I can tell you have an interest. It's just sad how wrong you are and on so many levels.


The 1798 healthcare bill was for sailors, not the army. Sailors, both private and in the newly formed navy were the back bone of the shipping trade that the new world depended on and keeping them healthy was paramount. So no matter how you look at it, it was still socialist healthcare.
Click to expand...

This is exactly what I meant by the utter and complete lack of civics education in the US. Every session of Congress is exactly two years. Congress also appropriates taxpayer revenue and allocates a federal budget EVERY fiscal year. Not just once every two years, as the US Constitution requires. That means the military, as well as every other department and agency under the Executive Branch is being funded by Congress every fiscal year.

The military has always been a permament fixture in the US, even existing before the US. The Army, Navy, and Marine Corps were created in 1775, and reinstated by Congress after the US Constitution was ratified. What you refer to as a "standing army" is not what we have today. In the 18th century a "standing army" consisted primarily of foreign mercenaries. For example, the English employed German Hessian troops to fight the American Revolution. That was the objection, not that we have our own home-grown army.
 
Glitch said:
This is exactly what I meant by the utter and complete lack of civics education in the US. Every session of Congress is exactly two years. Congress also appropriates taxpayer revenue and allocates a federal budget EVERY fiscal year. Not just once every two years, as the US Constitution requires. That means the military, as well as every other department and agency under the Executive Branch is being funded by Congress every fiscal year.

The military has always been a permanent fixture in the US, even existing before the US. The Army, Navy, and Marine Corps were created in 1775, and reinstated by Congress after the US Constitution was ratified. What you refer to as a "standing army" is not what we have today. In the 18th century a "standing army" consisted primarily of foreign mercenaries. For example, the English employed German Hessian troops to fight the American Revolution. That was the objection, not that we have our own home-grown army.
Click to expand...

The point you keep missing is that congress passed the first socialized healthcare bill in 1798. Not for the military...but for seamen who were privately employed. All this other nonsense that you keep throwing up is just a smoke screen to avoid admitting you were wrong.

The standing army was just one example that was meant to show how the founders didn't always follow the intent and exact words in the Constitution that they wrote. Washington thought the Articles, especially Article One, Section 8, Clause 12 was out dated and wanted congress to fix it with new legislation that permanently funded a standing army. The bill was passed in 1789.

The Early Republic


The main point is the Constitution wasn't written in stone.
 
Craig234 said:
All the discussion is Democrats suggestions solutions and Republicans spewing nonsense in response.

How would THEY get everyone healthcare, or will they admit they're happy for people to be killed without it?

All their party has actually DONE is to try to repeal Democratic programs, to leave tens of millions more without healthcare.

So, what's their solution?
Click to expand...

Neither are democrats. They're also spewing hypothetical bull****, no actual way to implement the ideas they have.
 
Glitch said:
This is exactly what I meant by the utter and complete lack of civics education in the US. Every session of Congress is exactly two years. Congress also appropriates taxpayer revenue and allocates a federal budget EVERY fiscal year. Not just once every two years, as the US Constitution requires. That means the military, as well as every other department and agency under the Executive Branch is being funded by Congress every fiscal year.

The military has always been a permament fixture in the US, even existing before the US. The Army, Navy, and Marine Corps were created in 1775, and reinstated by Congress after the US Constitution was ratified. What you refer to as a "standing army" is not what we have today. In the 18th century a "standing army" consisted primarily of foreign mercenaries. For example, the English employed German Hessian troops to fight the American Revolution. That was the objection, not that we have our own home-grown army.
Click to expand...

Building a destroyer or an aircraft carrier takes more than 2 years. They sign up people for the military for more than 2 years. So yes..the government is making fiscal decisions for more than two years. No matter how much you want to waffle around it.
 
Growler said:
I think both sides want healthcare but the biggest disconnect is funding.
Click to expand...

Where are the Republican suggestions how to get everyone having healthcare, and how do they fund it?
 
Glitch said:
Only where it pertains to international or interstate commerce and navigable waters, as granted under Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution. Otherwise those are powers of the State. The federal government has nothing to do with sewers, since there are no sewers that cross State or international borders.
Click to expand...

You're absolutely incorrect.

EPA alone imposes numerous federal rules and standards on states drinking water, waste treatment, and energy. And that's JUST the EPA, dude.
 
Glitch said:
The solution is to remove the federal government from healthcare completely. They have no constitutional authority to be involving themselves in our healthcare in the first place. That is a power only the States have, not the federal government. The problem is the complete and utter lack of civics education in the US. These uneducated morons think the federal government has unlimited authority to do whatever they please, which is how we ended up with the unconstitutional Affordable Healthcare Act of 2010 in the first place. It needs to be abolished completely.

Naturally the anti-American left doesn't give a damn about the US Constitution or the rule of law. They are just eager to instill their particular socialist fascism in order to destroy the nation as quickly as possible.
Click to expand...

How would this prevent people in the United States from dying due to lack of access to healthcare?
 
Frigidweirdo said:
Sometimes the problem is the Constitution isn't fit for purpose. And Republicans would probably agree when on a topic they like government intervention in.
Click to expand...

Even if that were true, it's still the Constitution..
 
Craig234 said:
All the discussion is Democrats suggestions solutions and Republicans spewing nonsense in response.

How would THEY get everyone healthcare, or will they admit they're happy for people to be killed without it?

All their party has actually DONE is to try to repeal Democratic programs, to leave tens of millions more without healthcare.

So, what's their solution?
Click to expand...

Not sure what has Trump said on the issue? I had to look it up....



Sxddjog.gif



Yep he kept all those promises and that was all totally true :lamo
 
Glitch said:
You did, when you considered the US Constitution as being part of the problem. It is the federal government and the utter lack of civics education in the US that is the problem, not the US Constitution.
Click to expand...

Oh wow, just farting WOW. Your logic is so bend it's ridiculous.

Just because something is part of a problem, doesn't mean that you don't have to try and change it legitimately through the system.

No, you're wrong about the US Constitution not being a problem, it's a massive problem that is causing the US to become so partisan it doesn't function properly.
 
Craig234 said:
All the discussion is Democrats suggestions solutions and Republicans spewing nonsense in response.

How would THEY get everyone healthcare, or will they admit they're happy for people to be killed without it?

All their party has actually DONE is to try to repeal Democratic programs, to leave tens of millions more without healthcare.

So, what's their solution?
Click to expand...

The conservative goal is to get everyone WHO WANTS COVERAGE to be able to get it an appropriate price; nobody will be forced to buy more than they want/need. Several Republicans are working on proposals - which the Dems will summarily turn down.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom