• 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!

Do you support single-payer health care?

Do you support single-payer health care?

  • Yes

    Votes: 31 43.7%

  • No

    Votes: 36 50.7%

  • Maybe, if

    Votes: 4 5.6%
  • Total voters
    71
reefedjib said:
The Tenth Amendment would not stop the exercise of the implicit power in the General Welfare Clause.
Click to expand...

No.

The Tenth Amendment is a few words on a piece of paper.

What's needed to stop Congressional abuse of the general welfare clause has been proven to be angry mobs and the Second Amendment.


reefedjib said:
You are basing that statement on an interpretation of the ambiguous General Welfare Clause and case law is against you.
Click to expand...

Arguing from authority, a common logical fallacy employed by wishers, not thinkers.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Congress can only enact laws that allow it to execute the specifically enumerated powers.
Click to expand...

Unlimited power over the general welfare is one of the specifically enumerated powers granted to Congress, hoss. "General Welfare" is an ambiguous term that could mean almost anything.
 
reefedjib said:
Well, I guess we have run out of comments to make about it. I don't think your argument stands. You have to get it in front of the SC to have a decision in your favor. That depends on having jurists of the strict constructionist bias.
Click to expand...

No. One does not have to find case law or otherwise cite remote authority to determine what the meaning of the Constitution is. It's clearly written in the Constitution itself.

The Constitution does not allow, for example, federal funding of public education....authorization for it not only cannot be found in the Constitution, but Jefferson himself admitted as much in his Third Inaugural. He requested Congress amend the Constitution to add this provision. Congress refused both the Amendment request and funding for public schools.

That such funding now occurs does not imply that it suddenly became constituitonal to do so. no. The Constitution still lacks wording authorizing federal to financing of schools. The is allowed only because the people have refused to hold their government to the law embodied by the Constitution.

There are numerous examples of the failure of the people to demand the Constitution be obeyed. Not one of those cases implies the illegal actions become Constitutional at any time. They all demonstrate the decay of the pioneer spirit that made this sad corpse of a free nation food for maggots.
 
Whip Comes Down said:
Unlimited power over the general welfare is one of the specifically enumerated powers granted to Congress, hoss. "General Welfare" is an ambiguous term that could mean almost anything.
Click to expand...

Sorry, idiots continually reasserting already dismissed points don't get prizes.

You're still wrong.
 
Whip Comes Down said:
Deception, boo, deception.

If the enumerated powers were supposed to exhausted, why would they have granted Congress unlimited power over something as ambiguous as the "general welfare?"
Click to expand...

Yes, the rest of us know your use of circular reasoning is indicative of nothing more than your intellectual bankruptcy, and you're probably not even aware that you're being circular, if we're generous enough to believe you even know what a circular argument is.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Nope.

Guess what?

That either was, or was not, the first time the Constitution was violated.

What's yer point?
Click to expand...

Let us now proceed to consider the rules, by which the Constitution ought to be interpreted; for, if these rules are correctly laid down, it will save us from many embarrassments in examining and defining its powers. Much of the difficulty, which has arisen in all the public discussions on this subject, has had its origin in the want of some uniform rules of interpretation, expressly or tacitly agreed on by the disputants. Let us, then, endeavour to ascertain, what are the true rules of interpretation applicable to the constitution; so that we may have some fixed standard, by which to measure its powers, and limit its prohibitions, and guard its obligations, and enforce its securities of our rights and liberties.

--Joseph Story

Joseph Story: Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States: Book 3 Chapter 5​
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
...the meaning of the Constitution is...clearly written in the Constitution itself.
Click to expand...

d6078223fc4b7bc73ba408373a94aaaa0417e50e
d6078223fc4b7bc73ba408373a94aaaa0417e50e
d6078223fc4b7bc73ba408373a94aaaa0417e50e
d6078223fc4b7bc73ba408373a94aaaa0417e50e
 
Unlimited power over the general welfare is one of the specifically enumerated powers granted to Congress, hoss. "General Welfare" is an ambiguous term that could mean almost anything.
 
Last edited:
Whip Comes Down said:
Unlimited power over the general welfare is one of the specifically enumerated powers granted to Congress, hoss. "General Welfare" is an ambiguous term that could mean almost anything.
Click to expand...

If Congress has the power to do almost anything, what need was there for a Constitution at all?

What purpose does it serve if it doesn't limit government?
 
Goobieman said:
No more so than your adherece to the idea that there -is- ambiguity.


I see you did not comment on the purpose of the clarification. Do you agree or disagree?

This has been explained to you. You may choose to ignore the explanation, but the explanation stands. If a contact gives you a list of powers/rights in a contract, and there is a statement in that contract that powers not listed are otherwise held, there's no way to argue that you have powers/rights not listed in the contract.


Thank you.
I believe it wa federalist 33. One of them in that area. I hav since closed the link. I apologize for not including it as a cite.


The 'ambiguity' is based on Hamilton's comments.
If his comments are inconsistent -- he argues one way and then the other -- then Hamilton's comments are useless; any argument based on them is unsound -- including the interpertation of the 'general welfare' clause.
Click to expand...

I'm bowing out at this point. We're starting to go in circles around the "is it ambiguous or not" point and it's clear that's not going to go anywhere since we seem to have fundamentally different views on the matter.

I enjoyed the debate, and the chance to refine my own ideas on the subject.
 
Most of what your average Americans consider necessary health care I consider health luxuries. I would probably consider 90%+ of all medical procedures that are preformed today as luxuries. People tend to look for the easiest and most convienent path and this includes ones health.

Face it, we have become a society that has been led to believe we should feel perfect all the time and if we dont the medical community has our solution. We as Americans run to the doctors office for alot of things that are not life threatening but expect to be treated. I consider this a luxury. The medical communty also do there share to insure you feel dependent on them.

Take a very common medical ailment in the US, Diabetes. Chances are if you are diabetic you purchase a whole slew of maintenance products including, test strips, meters, syringes, insulins, and will your entire life. Why do you do this? Because it enables you to have a broader range of foods that you enjoy and lets you be more reckless in your daily choices. Naturally we dont want to be limited if we dont have to be. But these things are not necessary once you know what you need to do and live with it. Exceptable blood glucose levels can be controled by diet and diet alone but for most this is to limiting and to inconvenient and so they choose to take the easy and more expensive path.

Another prime example is our teeth. We constanty have them cleaned, filled, whitened, streightened. All of this comes down to luxuries. Instead of having teeth removed when they become flawed we spend money to constantly maintain them. Again it all comes down to our own convenience and enjoyment and not about actual life threatening issues. We could live a healthy life without teeth but who wants to if they dont have to? Again a health luxury and not a necessity.

The list of is nearly endless. We have simply become reliant on medical care for things that we shouldnt need. We have come to expect more then what we probably should and argue because it is not enough or not everyone can recieve it all. We really are a messed up society.
 
Baralis said:
Take a very common medical ailment in the US, Diabetes. Chances are if you are diabetic you purchase a whole slew of maintenance products including, test strips, meters, syringes, insulins, and will your entire life. Why do you do this? Because it enables you to have a broader range of foods that you enjoy and lets you be more reckless in your daily choices. Naturally we dont want to be limited if we dont have to be. But these things are not necessary once you know what you need to do and live with it. Exceptable blood glucose levels can be controled by diet and diet alone but for most this is to limiting and to inconvenient and so they choose to take the easy and more expensive path.
Click to expand...

You don't have clue what you are talking about. A diabetics need of test strips, meters, syringes, insulins, and medications has nothing to do with allowing a broader range of foods. Even on the most low-carb diet, which is extremely hard to maintain, you still have a need to test your BG and inject insulin. To take your medication. These things are essential for both Type 1 and Type 2 diabetics to stay alive.
 
reefedjib said:
You don't have clue what you are talking about. A diabetics need of test strips, meters, syringes, insulins, and medications has nothing to do with allowing a broader range of foods. Even on the most low-carb diet, which is extremely hard to maintain, you still have a need to test your BG and inject insulin. To take your medication. These things are essential for both Type 1 and Type 2 diabetics to stay alive.
Click to expand...

Sorry to say I know what I am talking about. I have seen it first hand more then once.

My long time girlfriend of 9 years has type 2 diabetes. She struggled with it for almost 15 years. She freqented the medical community and like you was told that she must constantly maintain her glucose with insulin injections. Finally being fed up with the routine she explored other avenues. After doing alot of research she heard from others that were insulin indepented and found that they could maintain glucose with diet alone. It took her many months of trial and error but she also achived an exceptable glucose level (around 130-150) with diet alone. It was not easy and probably not particulaly enjoyable. She was very limited on foods and had to eat very small and freqent meals.

My father was diagnosed 3 years ago with diabetes. Again he was told he needed these things. I set out to help him avoid insulin because he was refusing to inject himself several times a day. We have been working on this for several months now and while we have not gotten it lowered consistanly below 150, this is mainly due to his wavering dedication and frequent straying. However most of the time he is under 200 even when he eats things he should not. I believe if he would stick to the things he should eat he could be sucessful just as my gf was.
 
Baralis said:
Sorry to say I know what I am talking about. I have seen it first hand more then once.

My long time girlfriend of 9 years has type 2 diabetes. She struggled with it for almost 15 years. She freqented the medical community and like you was told that she must constantly maintain her glucose with insulin injections. Finally being fed up with the routine she explored other avenues. After doing alot of research she heard from others that were insulin indepented and found that they could maintain glucose with diet alone. It took her many months of trial and error but she also achived an exceptable glucose level (around 130-150) with diet alone. It was not easy and probably not particulaly enjoyable. She was very limited on foods and had to eat very small and freqent meals.

My father was diagnosed 3 years ago with diabetes. Again he was told he needed these things. I set out to help him avoid insulin because he was refusing to inject himself several times a day. We have been working on this for several months now and while we have not gotten it lowered consistanly below 150, this is mainly due to his wavering dedication and frequent straying. However most of the time he is under 200 even when he eats things he should not. I believe if he would stick to the things he should eat he could be sucessful just as my gf was.
Click to expand...

There are people that can do this, but not everyone. I have tried for the past 9 months and am unable to get below 150 consistently. The argument you are making is that diabetic supplies are luxuries and that is plain horse****.
 
reefedjib said:
There are people that can do this, but not everyone. I have tried for the past 9 months and am unable to get below 150 consistently. The argument you are making is that diabetic supplies are luxuries and that is plain horse****.
Click to expand...

Maybe I came off a little harsh. I was saying that once you break out of the cycle of believing that it cannot be done and rely on other things other then the medical community these things can become obsolete. Particuarly when a person first learns they have diabeties they need to closely monitor thier glucose to help them find what works for them. Its not the same for everyone. Take potatos, my gf could not eat potatos or they would send her levels up to high but my father can eat a small portion and not go over. I suspect everyones body reacts a little differently to things. But to believe it cannot be done is the wrong attitude. Hell, when has anyone here gone to the doctor and them not given a prescription for something? Its rare for them to simply say "youll be ok, go home". But then again they wouldnt be self serving then would they. I bet like my gf and father they never even mentioned that diabetics do succeed and being insulin independent. They never want to give you the idea that it is possible not to rely on them.
 
Last edited:
Baralis said:
Maybe I came off a little harsh. I was saying that once you break out of the cycle of believing that it cannot be done and rely on other things other then the medical community these things can become obsolete. Particuarly when a person first learns they have diabeties they need to closely monitor thier glucose to help them find what works for them. Its not the same for everyone. Take potatos, my gf could not eat potatos or they would send her levels up to high but my father can eat a small portion and not go over. I suspect everyones body reacts a little differently to things. But to believe it cannot be done is the wrong attitude. Hell, when has anyone here gone to the doctor and them not given a prescription for something? Its rare for them to simply say "youll be ok, go home". But then again they wouldnt be self serving then would they. I bet like my gf and father they never even mentioned that diabetics do succeed and being insulin independent. They never want to give you the idea that it is possible not to rely on them.
Click to expand...

The ADA is hopelessly behind some of the things the diabetic community has learned to do. The flashpoint tends to be the low-carb diet. There are risks with this kind of diet, namely that microalbumin levels will increase and put your kidneys at risk. I prefer taking my insulin and not having such a restrictive diet. But it is no luxury.
 
Baralis said:
Maybe I came off a little harsh. I was saying that once you break out of the cycle of believing that it cannot be done and rely on other things other then the medical community these things can become obsolete. Particuarly when a person first learns they have diabeties they need to closely monitor thier glucose to help them find what works for them. Its not the same for everyone. Take potatos, my gf could not eat potatos or they would send her levels up to high but my father can eat a small portion and not go over. I suspect everyones body reacts a little differently to things. But to believe it cannot be done is the wrong attitude. Hell, when has anyone here gone to the doctor and them not given a prescription for something? Its rare for them to simply say "youll be ok, go home". But then again they wouldnt be self serving then would they. I bet like my gf and father they never even mentioned that diabetics do succeed and being insulin independent. They never want to give you the idea that it is possible not to rely on them.
Click to expand...

My grandmother has dealt with Type 1 diabetes for over 40 years. She knows as well as any diabetic alive how to manage her diet and what she can/can't eat, and she still needs to check her blood sugar and occasionally take insulin. I know of at least twice that she would have died had she not noticed that her blood sugar was too high and gotten to the hospital in time to get it dealt with. It's no luxury. Sure, you could do without it, but that's going to bite you in the ass eventually.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom