# Historical Question - Has anyone ever tried to add a right to healthcare as a constitutional amend.?



## AndyT (Oct 29, 2017)

I'm just curious. There's been thousands of ideas for amendments discussed, but has anyone ever in US history tried to go through the proposal/ratify method and actually amend the Constitution to add a right to health care? Thanks so much.


----------



## emilynghiem (Oct 29, 2017)

Hi AndyT while I believe that is the correct process required
to expand jurisdiction of federal govt,
unfortunately it seems the very people who believe that health care is a right
tend not to be Constitutionalists, and don't believe they need to go through
this Constitutional step. Because it is such an engrained belief, advocates
believe this is a natural right, any laws obstructing it are violations of basic human rights,
and thus can be 'struck down' merely by voting by majority rule or overruling by courts.

The Constitutionalists who would support the process of passing
a Constitutional Amendment first tend NOT to believe that health care is
a human right. I believe this explains why the push for health care reform
took this direction: conservatives believe in limited govt where things must be Constitutional for govt to do them; liberals believe in using govt to establish the will of the people, so their beliefs and agenda are pushed through the political and legal system UNTIL they are proven and struck down as unconstitutional "after the fact."

The next best alternative I've run across, is someone suggested on another forum:
why not hold a vote in Congress BEFORE such innovative or contested legislation
is passed whether or not that bill is within the Constitutional powers and limits on federal govt.

That seems a logical way to approach this.

Had Congress first voted on whether ACA was even Constitutional or not,
it could be voted down. Then the advocates of ACA can take that vote NO
as a STEP that then calls for passing a Constitutional Amendment in order
to ADD that power to govt.  The opponents can then express their opinion
more clearly that the DUTY itself is outside Constitutional powers of federal govt,
and THAT is the reason for objection (NOT because of the actual content
and purpose promoted as to provide more affordable accessible health care)


----------



## rightwinger (Oct 29, 2017)

Some advanced countries already have it

Our Declaration of Independence called out.......Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness


----------



## AndyT (Oct 29, 2017)

emilynghiem said:


> Hi AndyT while I believe that is the correct process required
> to expand jurisdiction of federal govt,
> unfortunately it seems the very people who believe that health care is a right
> tend not to be Constitutionalists, and don't believe they need to go through
> ...



Hi Emily,
Thanks for much for the in-depth reply. I'm a bit confused by what you say as the next best alternative, though. It's understandable that some individuals believe the ACA is unconstitutional while others do not, but isn't voting for whether the ACA, or any bill really, is constitutional or not a bit redundant? Wouldn't those voting at the time, in case of the ACA example, the majority party Democrats, already believe that this bill was constitutional in the first place? I'm just not sure I see the difference between your example and allowing SCOTUS to decide what parts of the ACA were constitutional in NFIB v. Sebelius, AFTER the bill was in effect. Maybe I'm understanding your scenario wrong, but I'd love to hear more. Thanks!


----------



## rightwinger (Oct 29, 2017)

emilynghiem said:


> Hi AndyT while I believe that is the correct process required
> to expand jurisdiction of federal govt,
> unfortunately it seems the very people who believe that health care is a right
> tend not to be Constitutionalists, and don't believe they need to go through
> ...


Obamacare was Constitutional

SCOTUS already declared it


----------



## AndyT (Oct 29, 2017)

rightwinger said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> > Hi AndyT while I believe that is the correct process required
> ...


In NFIB v. Sebelius they did explain that expansion of Medicaid was not a valid way for Congress to use the SPENDING power, so what I'm saying is that judicial review did happen and examined whether the law was constitutional or not. I'm just questioning how this would be different than theoretically doing that constitutional decision in Emily's alternative example.


----------



## emilynghiem (Oct 29, 2017)

AndyT said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> > Hi AndyT while I believe that is the correct process required
> ...



Hi Andylusion what I was comparing it with
was instead of lobbying to pass a Constitutional Amendment first,
which the believers in right to health care wouldn't do if they already believe it is an inherent right,
Congress could vote on (1) whether ACA was Constitutionally included in federal govt powers or not
before voting on (2) the actual content and bill presented as ACA.

So in this case of ACA, the Republicans would have voted NO, the Democrats would vote YES,
and this would still prove it is biased by BELIEFS on Constitutional grounds and arguments,
instead of arguing that it was based on the content.

I guess what you are saying, we would also need to specify that if the vote
gets split on Constitutional beliefs whether it is Constitutional or not,
then it should go into mediation to address that conflict of beliefs.

In this case, I would have and would STILL recommend that
party and govt leaders acknowledge the ACA mandates violate Constitutional beliefs
while the lack of govt guaranteed health care violates political beliefs in right to health care;
so that the solution would be to SEPARATE funding and jurisdiction
between these two political beliefs. Let the reps, taxpayers and members of parties that believe
it is necessary for equal rights and protections to fund their own programs through their taxes;
and equally allow reps, taxpayers, and members of parties who believe govt health care
can't be forced without consent or representation or it's unconstitutional to fund
their own alternative systems of health care they do consent to.

So if that's what you mean,you are right, there should be a process as to
what to do if the vote on Constitutionality gets split based on politicial beliefs.

Maybe both need to be added to the process,
instead of pushing a contested bill opposed as unconstitutional
through Congress, waiting on the judiciary to rule on it, then
complaining "after the fact" that it's still unconstitutional.
why not address that at the beginning of the process
to fix the flaws and conflicts up front? once it's passed
it causes additional complications trying to repeal, replace, or revise
it while half the country is still yelling and opposed that it's unconstitutional to begin with!


----------



## rightwinger (Oct 29, 2017)

AndyT said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > emilynghiem said:
> ...


Our Congress is broken right now

I would not be giving them additional responsibilities


----------



## williepete (Oct 29, 2017)

Hi Andy,

The constitution does not give us rights. That is a huge misconception come upon innocently by some and foisted upon others by unscrupulous indoctrination centers. The constitution is a restriction on government to protect our inherent rights.

Look into the history of our founding fathers and the founding of the constitution for your answer.

_*The Bill of Rights is a list of limits on government power.* For example, what the Founders saw as the natural right of individuals to speak and worship freely was protected by the First Amendment’s prohibitions on Congress from making laws establishing a religion or abridging freedom of speech. For another example, the natural right to be free from unreasonable government intrusion in one’s home was safeguarded by the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirements._

_Other precursors to the Bill of Rights include English documents such as the Magna Carta, the Petition of Right, the English Bill of Rights, and the Massachusetts Body of Liberties.

Bill of Rights - Bill of Rights Institute_


----------



## JoeMoma (Oct 29, 2017)

Healthcare is a need, not a right.  I don't have a right to demand that other people provide my needs.


----------



## emilynghiem (Oct 29, 2017)

rightwinger said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> > Hi AndyT while I believe that is the correct process required
> ...



Dear rightwinger  Only by YOUR political BELIEF that it is "constitutional" for Congress and Courts to impose such a law under penalty, despite the fact  it violates the Constitutional beliefs of others forced to comply against religious convictions, including these beliefs that it was unconstitutional.

The beauty of the political beliefs argument, is you and I don't even have to agree on political beliefs to prove the argument; in fact, because we disagree and obviously have conflicting beliefs, this PROVES the very argument of why this is unconstitutional to impose. At the very least, consensus would be necessary so neither side, with your beliefs or mine, is imposed on the other side.

You remind me of the "right to life" advocates who would argue
that passing laws and court rulings imposing faith based
beliefs about abortion is "constitutional" as long as it goes through the process.
I disagree - as long as faith based beliefs are involved, then even if
it passes, it isn't "constitutional" to those whose beliefs
and due process are violated by biases in those laws.

The "defense of marriage" act was also passed as if that was "constitutional"
when it discriminated against beliefs in same sex marriage and thus
was NOT fully constitutional. Bans on same sex marriage were
also unconstitutional even though they passed.

Slavery laws were enforced by legislatures and by courts
that ruled that slaves were property of their owners
and had to be returned by the laws.

rightwinger, why do you think slave descendants argued for reparations?
because govt, all three branches of govt, kept enforcing laws treating
human slaves as property of their owners without equal rights.

So if you want to go back to the mentality of slave laws
being passed and enforced and endorsed by "all three branches of govt"
keep thinking the way you do.

Maybe rightwinger that is the best way for you to understand
how could people have gone along with those laws.
Because you are doing similar when you impose your beliefs
as law just because a majority of people voted on it in Congress and Courts,

Well rightwinger, the other half of Congress voted NO
and the other half of the Supreme Court voted NO in a close 4-5 vote.

You have the right to your political beliefs
and so do the others like me who believe it isn't constitutional
and we do not consent to taxation without representation.

I did not agree to give up my religious freedom to a 4-5 vote by Judges
or a majority rule vote in Congress either.  The ACA mandates and penalties
depend on political beliefs that I don't support but which violate my own beliefs.

By the First and Fourteenth Amendments, no govt vote has authority
to discriminate against or penalize me for not complying with policies that violate my beliefs.

That's fine if you don't agree, if you believe it's constitutional to impose such a law anyway.
but I disagree and find it violates other Constitutional principles, beliefs and ethics.

thank you, but I do count political beliefs as religious beliefs
so these cannot be either prohibited or established by govt,
but must reflect and respect the free exercise, choice and consent of the people affected
in order to be Constitutional.

That's my Constitutional belief, I have the right to exercise it,
without being penalized for it or discriminated against by a vote in Courts or Congress.

Yours truly, Emily


----------



## AndyT (Oct 29, 2017)

emilynghiem said:


> AndyT said:
> 
> 
> > emilynghiem said:
> ...


Hi Emily,
I understand better what you are arguing now. Thanks for the reply. I just don't understand the logic because _of course _there will be bias, so voting on (1.) the constitutional grounds of the bill AND (2.) the content of the bill seems like you will most likely in MOST cases get about the same amount of votes in both vote procedures. This just seems like an extra step that will lead to the exact same result, basically because I think most politicians will always vote with their party whether they vote on constitutionality or content.


----------



## AndyT (Oct 29, 2017)

williepete said:


> Hi Andy,
> 
> The constitution does not give us rights. That is a huge misconception come upon innocently by some and foisted upon others by unscrupulous indoctrination centers. The constitution is a restriction on government to protect our inherent rights.
> 
> ...


Thank you for the reply, JoeMama. I'm not advocating for or against this proposal, I'm just curious as to if it's ever happened, because there have been so many different interesting amendment proposals.


----------



## AndyT (Oct 29, 2017)

AndyT said:


> williepete said:
> 
> 
> > Hi Andy,
> ...


JoeMama and WilliePete* My mistake.


----------



## emilynghiem (Oct 29, 2017)

JoeMoma said:


> Healthcare is a need, not a right.  I don't have a right to demand that other people provide my needs.



JoeMoma for people who believe it is a right, have a responsibility to provide it for those who share that belief.
similar to the responsibility given to right to life advocates, who are barred from imposing those beliefs
through govt to make all taxpayers fund and follow those policies or face penalties.

It amazes me that so few liberals can see the parallels between the right to life and right to health care arguments.

It seems both sides switched places, where now the right to life people are yelling for "free market choice" outside govt,
while the right to health care people are pushing for mandates through govt to save lives!

It is sad that people cannot see the discrimination by creed going on.
If right to life is barred from being imposed through govt against free choice,
the same treatment should be given to right to health care.

If right to health care can be enforced and imposed on people against their consent as taxpayers and free citizens,
so should the same be allowed for right to life beliefs in saving lives by forcing policies on the public with or without their consent.

If one should be barred from govt on the basis of belief vs. free choice,
shouldn't the other by the same principles and arguments?

By the time more people get that this imposition of beliefs is mutually violating the beliefs of the other,
maybe we will call a truce and agree to fund our respective partisan beliefs SEPARATELY
and quit imposing either one on people of dissenting beliefs.  I hope this leads to an
agreement to recognize political beliefs equally as religious beliefs,
where govt can neither prohibit nor establish them, regulate, penalize or 
discriminate but must respect the consent and beliefs of all people equally,
regardless of affiliation with the majority or the minority. Beliefs are not subject to govt vote,
but remain free choice of the people, whether expressed as religious, secular, political or other form of creed.


----------



## BETH-MIDAN (Oct 29, 2017)

You'd have to do it without re-writing the already given natural rights given in modern medicine.
Nobody has gotten anywhere attempting to authorize a welfare state into the constitution.


----------



## saveliberty (Oct 29, 2017)

Is Social Security a Constitutional Amendment?  Nope, never would have passed.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Oct 29, 2017)

emilynghiem said:


> Hi AndyT while I believe that is the correct process required
> to expand jurisdiction of federal govt,
> unfortunately it seems the very people who believe that health care is a right
> tend not to be Constitutionalists, and don't believe they need to go through
> ...



Congress does not decide constitutional issues.


----------



## emilynghiem (Oct 29, 2017)

AndyT said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> > AndyT said:
> ...



Yes AndyT so we need to pin this down,
and PROVE where bills/issues are getting split votes based on partisan bias.

We need to recognize this, and start calling out parties on these conflicts of political beliefs.

In all practicality, and to protect the democratic process,
we should WELL address these beliefs BEFORE it comes to a vote in Congress/Courts.
(and not let the entire process go downhill by bullying for political dominance of one side's ideology over the other, but enforce equal inclusion, representation and protection of all beliefs especially where these are in conflict and require carefully written laws to remain neutral)

We already KNOW where the right to life and right to health care beliefs
are written into party platforms, and that the other parties oppose that because it violates their
own beliefs in free choice and free market, also well established in creeds and campaigns
if not voting history.

Why not negotiate around these points and conflicts and keep them out of govt
where the beliefs clash? Allow people and parties to fund their own beliefs separately
even if that requires tax deductions, tax breaks or tax choices in where to direct their portions,
and agree that only where all people and parties AGREE on policies and programs to fund,
those are approved for passage and enforcement through state or federal levels according to
where people agree this represents their beliefs and values.

We require religious organizations to keep their beliefs out of govt.
If we treated political beliefs with the same respect,
yes, we would negotiate and resolve these issues
BEFORE pushing policies for a vote through Congress or Courts.

So AndyT in order to get past the vote test of constitutionality,
that means the proposed legislation or reform would already have had
to be crafted and troubleshot through the various parties to make
sure it WOULD pass Constitutional muster, or it WOULD be struck down at the start.

It would have to get past that test, before the CONTENT of the law
could be voted on, which presumably would also be well reviewed and troubleshot
in advance, in order to even get past the vote for Constitutionality.

If the standard for the test vote of Constitutionality had to be
2/3 or 3/4 then a 51/49 partisan split would not be enough to pass it.
I would support a 100% agreement it is constitutional, provided
that any objections are required to be resolved to reach 100%.

the Code of Ethics for Govt Service was passed in 1980
'unanimously' by Congress; thus if laws are written well enough
to represent uniform standard, 100% consensus is possible
www.ethics-commission.net
why not a consensus on voting if a law or reform is Constitutional or not,
where any conflicts or objections are required to be resolved by mediation and consensus?


----------



## emilynghiem (Oct 29, 2017)

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> > Hi AndyT while I believe that is the correct process required
> ...



Question Admiral Rockwell Tory
should members of Congress be in the business of proposing, passing and pushing
proposed legislation they either know or opponents know and argue
is biased by beliefs and violates the beliefs of others? See Code of Ethics
about not putting loyalty to party above govt duty (which includes equal protection
of the laws for all people regardless of creed) www.ethics-commission.net

If it isn't Congress' job to determine that before proposing voting on or passing
proposed laws, should the people in the districts and state those reps
represent review these laws before giving them to reps to present in Congress?

Should we have a review process at ALL levels of govt decisions,
whereby our Electors review any policy or decision that people in that district
have complained or contested as "unconstitutional or unethical abuses"
and/or biased by conflicting beliefs or interests, and have some Grand Jury
or review system "closer to the people" that catches these conflicts
BEFORE they are proposed and voted on in Congress?

Are you saying it should be checked by people and not members of Congress?

Shouldn't we the people be able to check Govt against abuses
at ALL levels and ALL steps of the democratic process?

Wouldn't it save more resources to resolve conflicts IN ADVANCE
instead of wasting money lobbying for or against without resolving the objections,
then waiting until AFTER a "compromise" bill gets passed to try to fix
the points that got "compromised"

See Code of Ethics on seeking to employ the most economical
means of getting tasks accomplished www.ethics-commission.net

If this isn't the duty of Congress to ensure that proposed laws
AREN'T biased by party over public duty to Constitution,
are you saying the people have to intervene instead of :Congress
to catch correct and prevent conflicts or abuses in advance?


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Oct 29, 2017)

emilynghiem said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> > emilynghiem said:
> ...



Why do you want to reinvent the wheel?

If you, as a member of Congress do not believe a bill is constitutional, get up on the House and Senate floor and say so.  Then if and when it comes to a vote, vote against it!  If you lose, the courts will figure it out.

You really have some bizarre concepts of how government should work.


----------



## Spare_change (Oct 29, 2017)

rightwinger said:


> Some advanced countries already have it
> 
> Our Declaration of Independence called out.......Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness


Now, if the Declaration of Independence was considered law ........


----------



## emilynghiem (Oct 29, 2017)

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> > Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> ...



Dear Admiral Rockwell Tory 
to build a consensus on respecting political beliefs equally as religious beliefs,
I don't just expect to go to the Senate floor.

This level of enforcing equal protections of the law, by nature, involves
building respect for consent of the governed among all people
who equally influence govt and should expect govt to represent them.

the entire population becomes the senate floor when we respect
people as the basis of government.

the major differences I see in laws
* I interpret religious freedom as applying to all beliefs, not just religious,
but secular, political and individual beliefs and creeds, with or without a label or established group.
Because otherwise, it woudl be discriminating on the basis of creed
if people of an established group are treated differently from
people with their own beliefs nobody else may share but them.
I find this to be necessary to ensure equal protections of laws.
and to deter bullying by dominance, exclusion or coercion to force one group's
beliefs by majority rule over the equal rights and protections of any minority interest.
* I interpret due process and the right to petition for redress of grievances
as applying to all people as resolving our conflicts directly
where we are equally responsible as govt for corrections, reforms, restitution, etc as needed for 
equal justice and protections under law for all sides in all conflicts and complaints of abuses or wrongs
* I interpret the principles in the First Amendment as listing
the individual rights and freedoms that collectively become
the same as the three powers or branches of govt. Whatever govt
does on a collective scale representing the public, we do on a local
scale representing and exercising our own rights and power.

As for the spirit of the laws
* for the judicial branch I focus more  on
restorative justice and corrections and restitution
rather than retributive justice by judgment and punishment alone
* for the legislative branch I focus on resolving
conflicts through mediation, conflict resolution and consensus to include protect
and represent all interests and beliefs equally
rather than allowing conflicts of interest to cause bullying by exclusion or coercion
to skew the democratic process by dominance of one side over others
* for executive authority I focus on cooperative
economics and collective responsibility for shared credit
for mutual solutions, rather than unfair competition
and collective punishment and blame for problems that doesn't solve anything.

It is unusual to believe that people can form consensus on laws
and decisions instead of fighting to bully and dominate each other.

but I find the more people find points and principles of agreement
where we can, the ability to form a consensus grows, we share
solutions that would satisfy all parties, and start voting and growing
in that direction.  whatever works best is going to dominate.
so where we all agree is going to be the driving force, and
where we disagree is going to either separate or disintegrate
but it can't be the dominating policy if not all the public agrees.

Only the principles, policies and programs that truly reflect
public consent will prevail while contested and conflicted policies will get struck down.
by process of elimination we won't stop until consensus is reached we can all live with.


----------



## Darkwind (Oct 29, 2017)

AndyT said:


> I'm just curious. There's been thousands of ideas for amendments discussed, but has anyone ever in US history tried to go through the proposal/ratify method and actually amend the Constitution to add a right to health care? Thanks so much.


If healthcare truly is a right, then the last thing you would want is for it to become an Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Individual rights do not come from government.  They exist despite government.

Always remember.  A government powerful enough to give you things (like rights) is powerful enough to take them from you.


----------



## emilynghiem (Oct 30, 2017)

Darkwind said:


> AndyT said:
> 
> 
> > I'm just curious. There's been thousands of ideas for amendments discussed, but has anyone ever in US history tried to go through the proposal/ratify method and actually amend the Constitution to add a right to health care? Thanks so much.
> ...



Dear Darkwind
I think that would be the equivalent of getting right to life incorporated as an Amendment.
By the time we have any agreement on either one, the right to life or right to health care,
we should agree to recognize these as political beliefs, that opposing sides only
want for themselves, but don't want others to have when it comes to those beliefs.

thus, we'd either agree to recognize these equally under "free exercise" of religion
and neither prohibit or establish either sides' beliefs through govt,
or we might agree to some process of addressing and resolving
conflicts between political beliefs, which are one degree
deeper than religious beliefs, because they are harder
to separate from govt when they directly involve beliefs about govt!


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Oct 30, 2017)

emilynghiem said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> > emilynghiem said:
> ...



Wow!  You sure can put out a lot of words without really saying anything!  I have no idea what point you are trying to get across.  It got lost in that rambling incoherent maze you just threw together.


----------



## rightwinger (Oct 30, 2017)

JoeMoma said:


> Healthcare is a need, not a right.  I don't have a right to demand that other people provide my needs.



Yea...people gotta live

No reason you should have to worry about it


----------



## rightwinger (Oct 30, 2017)

Spare_change said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Some advanced countries already have it
> ...



Our founders cared about citizens life

Conservatives don't


----------



## dblack (Oct 30, 2017)

AndyT said:


> I'm just curious. There's been thousands of ideas for amendments discussed, but has anyone ever in US history tried to go through the proposal/ratify method and actually amend the Constitution to add a right to health care? Thanks so much.



I don't think a "right to healthcare" makes much sense. The rights embodied in the Constitution are protections from unnecessary government interference, not entitlements that government must provide.

Regardless, if the nation wants to make health care a service provided by the federal government, an amendment is the only way I could support the effort. Such a massive change to our society's relationship with government should require more than a simple, partisan majority in Congress.


----------



## Spare_change (Oct 31, 2017)

rightwinger said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...





rightwinger said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Nice statement ---- bullshit, but a nice statement nonetheless.


----------



## rightwinger (Oct 31, 2017)

Nothing is more important to We the People than our health

It is great for our General Welfare


----------



## Natural Citizen (Oct 31, 2017)

Dr. Ron Paul, the champion of the constitution, on why healthcare is not a right...


----------



## dblack (Oct 31, 2017)

rightwinger said:


> Nothing is more important to We the People than our health
> 
> It is great for our General Welfare



You forgot the other member of the Holy Trinity - the Commerce Clause.


----------



## rightwinger (Oct 31, 2017)

Natural Citizen said:


> Dr. Ron Paul, the champion of the constitution, on why healthcare is not a right...


LOL...Ron Freak'n Paul???

The man who when asked about someone who didn't have healthcare replied....Let him die, he made his choice


----------



## Natural Citizen (Oct 31, 2017)

rightwinger said:


> The man who when asked about someone who didn't have healthcare replied....Let him die, he made his choice




Freedom isn't popular to those who hate freedom.

That said, if there's anything in that video that you find error in, I'll be in the neighborhood. I'm qualified to debate the matter if you wish.


----------



## dblack (Oct 31, 2017)

rightwinger said:


> Natural Citizen said:
> 
> 
> > Dr. Ron Paul, the champion of the constitution, on why healthcare is not a right...
> ...



Yes. Someone who understands both the Constitution and health care. 



> The man who when asked about someone who didn't have healthcare replied....Let him die, he made his choice



That's an oft-repeated, but utterly untrue, claim. Shall we whip out the video and rub your nose in it once again?


----------



## Natural Citizen (Oct 31, 2017)

dblack said:


> That's an oft-repeated, but utterly untrue, claim. Shall we whip out the video and rub your nose in it once again?



Ron Paul: How To Solve The Healthcare Crisis.


----------



## rightwinger (Oct 31, 2017)

Natural Citizen said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > The man who when asked about someone who didn't have healthcare replied....Let him die, he made his choice
> ...



Like most of Pauls rants...I ignore them

Our courts don't seem to support his views


----------



## rightwinger (Oct 31, 2017)

Natural Citizen said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > That's an oft-repeated, but utterly untrue, claim. Shall we whip out the video and rub your nose in it once again?
> ...



Tell em Ron......just let em die


----------



## Natural Citizen (Oct 31, 2017)

rightwinger said:


> Like most of Pauls rants...I ignore them



Well, freedom isn't popular. I understand.



rightwinger said:


> Our courts don't seem to support his views



Of course not, our courts don't generally support the constitution. lolol.


----------



## TNHarley (Oct 31, 2017)

rightwinger said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> > Hi AndyT while I believe that is the correct process required
> ...


They had to make it a tax. What you said, is about as far off as comparing banana DNA to a plant found on Nibiru


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Oct 31, 2017)

Has someone already posted about this? 

Not exactly what the OP asked the US has never invested in our own people.
And - would never be very popular because it would not enrich the 1%. We've already seen trump get a damn good start on what the Rs want - take safety away from Americans. Poison the water, the food, the air and tough shit finding a way to take care of your family. 

*The 28th Amendment Project*

Giving all Americans the right to be born into a healthy environment that does not cause chronic disease.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Oct 31, 2017)

rightwinger said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> > Hi AndyT while I believe that is the correct process required
> ...




And in spite of the constant sabotage, it is the law of the land.


----------



## dblack (Oct 31, 2017)

Luddly Neddite said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > emilynghiem said:
> ...


The Republicans in Congress like the power that ACA gives them, just as much as much as the Democrats do. They'll never let go of it


----------



## Spare_change (Oct 31, 2017)

Luddly Neddite said:


> Has someone already posted about this?
> 
> Not exactly what the OP asked the US has never invested in our own people.
> And - would never be very popular because it would not enrich the 1%. We've already seen trump get a damn good start on what the Rs want - take safety away from Americans. Poison the water, the food, the air and tough shit finding a way to take care of your family.
> ...


Let's tell the truth -----

The 28th Amendment Project is simply another naked attempt by the liberal left to grab control of our society. Hiding behind a quasi-logical curtain, they want to impose an impossible set of criteria that can be molded into a cudgel against anyone who has the temerity to challenge their right to rule.

It ain't about health - it's about power.


----------



## MadChemist (Oct 31, 2017)

rightwinger said:


> Some advanced countries already have it
> 
> Our Declaration of Independence called out.......Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness



1. Healthcare is not used in there.
2. If you think it refers to healthcare, then you likely think you have a right to sex.
3. The Declaration of Independence is NOT the constitution.
4. Some have it at the federal level.  Many don't.


----------



## MadChemist (Oct 31, 2017)

rightwinger said:


> Nothing is more important to We the People than our health
> 
> It is great for our General Welfare



Ho hum.....

The General Welfare clause of the U.S. Constitution only applies to those powers granted it (specifically enumerated) in the Constitution.  

Obamacare isn't great for anyone, but you know that despite your little disingenuous piddle.


----------



## MadChemist (Oct 31, 2017)

rightwinger said:


> Natural Citizen said:
> 
> 
> > Dr. Ron Paul, the champion of the constitution, on why healthcare is not a right...
> ...



Yes, Ron Paul.

A great man who understands how things work.

Some with healthcare skips a colonoscopy because he does not like the procedure.  Never gets one even after 50.  At 55 he is diagnosed with colon cancer.  Now, his insurance is going to pay big money for his treatment and care.  They do, but it's to far along.  Insurance spends more time fighting other cancers and finally providing Hospice while he dies.

He made his choice.  And he died.


----------



## MadChemist (Oct 31, 2017)

dblack said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Natural Citizen said:
> ...



Please share the video....I am about 60 posts into the board and it is already apparent who the hacks are.


----------



## rightwinger (Nov 1, 2017)

Natural Citizen said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Like most of Pauls rants...I ignore them
> ...





Freedoms just another word for nothing left to lose


----------



## rightwinger (Nov 1, 2017)

MadChemist said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Natural Citizen said:
> ...




Exactly why Ron Paul was laughed off the stage

A doctor who says....Let em die

Some doctor


----------



## rightwinger (Nov 1, 2017)

TNHarley said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > emilynghiem said:
> ...



Obamacare was legal

Only the penalties were declared a tax


----------



## TNHarley (Nov 1, 2017)

rightwinger said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 1, 2017)

AndyT said:


> I'm just curious. There's been thousands of ideas for amendments discussed, but has anyone ever in US history tried to go through the proposal/ratify method and actually amend the Constitution to add a right to health care? Thanks so much.


Health care is part of the general welfare. It is only about politics.

The right wing only complains when the poor may benefit.  

Where Is The Outrage Over Corporate Welfare?


----------



## dblack (Nov 1, 2017)

rightwinger said:


> MadChemist said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Paul was laughed off the stage for the same reason that Trump was elected.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 1, 2017)

emilynghiem said:


> Hi AndyT while I believe that is the correct process required
> to expand jurisdiction of federal govt,
> unfortunately it seems the very people who believe that health care is a right
> tend not to be Constitutionalists, and don't believe they need to go through
> ...


Providing for the general welfare is in our Constitution.  Providing for the general warfare is not.

Guess what the right wing complains about most, especially if the poor may receive some benefit.


----------



## TNHarley (Nov 1, 2017)

danielpalos said:


> AndyT said:
> 
> 
> > I'm just curious. There's been thousands of ideas for amendments discussed, but has anyone ever in US history tried to go through the proposal/ratify method and actually amend the Constitution to add a right to health care? Thanks so much.
> ...


our current healthcare system doesnt fit the criteria of a "general welfare"


----------



## Dale Smith (Nov 1, 2017)

danielpalos said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> > Hi AndyT while I believe that is the correct process required
> ...




As our hospitals are overrun with illegals squirting out anchor babies and come over for treatment that their own government will not provide for them? Somehow it is MY responsibility to pay more in taxes and higher premiums to subsidize those that abuse the system. You really are a naive little fuckwad.......probably one of those that suck off the public teat as well.


----------



## rightwinger (Nov 1, 2017)

TNHarley said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > TNHarley said:
> ...



Its true
Healthcare exchanges are perfectly legal.


----------



## rightwinger (Nov 1, 2017)

Dale Smith said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > emilynghiem said:
> ...



I hear those illegals are responsible for Chem Trails


----------



## Dale Smith (Nov 1, 2017)

rightwinger said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



You are too fucking deaf to "hear". I shit  turds that are smarter than you......fact.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 1, 2017)

TNHarley said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > AndyT said:
> ...


Yes, it does.  General means comprehensive, not major or common.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 1, 2017)

Dale Smith said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > emilynghiem said:
> ...


I am a federalist on the left.  It is practically, federal doctrine to not take the right wing seriously about politics or the law.

Health care is part of the general welfare. It is only about politics.

The right wing only complains when the poor may benefit. 

Where Is The Outrage Over Corporate Welfare?


----------



## BuckToothMoron (Nov 1, 2017)

AndyT said:


> I'm just curious. There's been thousands of ideas for amendments discussed, but has anyone ever in US history tried to go through the proposal/ratify method and actually amend the Constitution to add a right to health care? Thanks so much.



There is no need to do that, the Libs have read the constitution while wearing their magic stupid hats, and they say affordable healthcare is a right.


----------



## rightwinger (Nov 1, 2017)

Dale Smith said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...



Dale, you are such a nutcase, you probably hold conversations with your intelligent turds


----------



## Dale Smith (Nov 1, 2017)

danielpalos said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



We don't have "laws", we have acts, statutes, codes, ordinances and what they call "public policy" because corporations cannot pass laws under the Uniform Commercial Code which is all about commerce and cohesion contracts and unless you understand Black's Law dictionary? You have no hope of defending yourself in an admiralty court.


----------



## TNHarley (Nov 1, 2017)

danielpalos said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


Basically, yes. 
So how do you understand that and still think our current system of healthcare fits that? Have you tried actually thinking about it?


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 1, 2017)

Dale Smith said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...


How about in landlocked States?


----------



## BuckToothMoron (Nov 1, 2017)

emilynghiem said:


> Hi AndyT while I believe that is the correct process required
> to expand jurisdiction of federal govt,
> unfortunately it seems the very people who believe that health care is a right
> tend not to be Constitutionalists, and don't believe they need to go through
> ...



That is a really bad idea! 
It’s not the job of congress to decide what is or isn’t constitutional. That is clearly the judicial branch’s job. Nor is it the job of SCOTUS to write or amend laws. Had SCOTUS not declared the individual mandate of the ACA to be a tax, WHEN IT WAS CLEARLY WRITTEN AS A PENALTY,  then  ACA would have been struck down. SCOTUS should have judged the law the way it was written, and not amend it by changing was is intended to be a penalty to a tax. Allowing one branch to do the others’ job removes the checks and balances system. 

Besides, which congress person do you think would vote for a bill they thought was unconstitutional? In other words, those who voted ACA ( even tho they didn’t read it or understand it) clearly presumed it to be constitutional. 

Yea, it’s a horrible idea.


----------



## Natural Citizen (Nov 1, 2017)

danielpalos said:


> Health care is part of the general welfare.



No, it isn't


----------



## MadChemist (Nov 2, 2017)

rightwinger said:


> MadChemist said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Soooooo.....no real argument.

And no....that isn't why Paul was laughed off the stage.

My example was of someone who not only made a choice and died, but cost the system a lot of money while he did it.

How is it that your reply applys to my post at all ?


----------



## MadChemist (Nov 2, 2017)

danielpalos said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> > Hi AndyT while I believe that is the correct process required
> ...



You seem to not understand the purpose of the General Welfare Clause.

It is not a call or a decree for the General Welfare of the people.

It is a statement that allows the federal government to do what they need to do in order to accomplish their specifically enumerated powers.


----------



## MadChemist (Nov 2, 2017)

danielpalos said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



Sorry, but as much as you want it to be so...it isn't.  That claim didn't exist for 200 years for a reason.

Now, in the past 10 years, it became so.......

That seems very very convenient.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 2, 2017)

TNHarley said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > TNHarley said:
> ...


The democrats actually got health care reform passed.  The right wing still has nothing but repeal.


----------



## Natural Citizen (Nov 2, 2017)

General Welfare Clause is properly explained here - Principle 5. Limited Government 

Principles 3 and 4 are referenced in Principle 5 and may be referenced here for clarity - The Twelve Basic American Principles

Have a nice day, all.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 2, 2017)

Natural Citizen said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Health care is part of the general welfare.
> ...


Yes, it is.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 2, 2017)

MadChemist said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > emilynghiem said:
> ...


General means comprehensive, not major or common.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 2, 2017)

MadChemist said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...



I don't think so; progress is not always that easy and convenient.


----------



## TNHarley (Nov 2, 2017)

danielpalos said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


lol burnout


----------



## Natural Citizen (Nov 2, 2017)

danielpalos said:


> Natural Citizen said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...




You're out of your league on this one. I've provided you the means to read and grasp what the General Welfare Clause means. Go do it and get back to us.  Psst....


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 2, 2017)

TNHarley said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > TNHarley said:
> ...


lol drugless wonder


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 2, 2017)

Natural Citizen said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Natural Citizen said:
> ...


Projecting much?  You have nothing but an appeal to ignorance.  It is what the republican doctrine is good for.


----------



## Natural Citizen (Nov 2, 2017)

danielpalos said:


> Natural Citizen said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



You're not here for the hunting, are you?


----------



## MadChemist (Nov 2, 2017)

danielpalos said:


> MadChemist said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



Sorry....but just you saying it does not make it so.

It wasn't that way for over 200 years.  But....NOW it is ?


----------



## MadChemist (Nov 2, 2017)

danielpalos said:


> MadChemist said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



That is no argument for healthcare falling under the General Welfare Clause.

It is more an argument for conveniently using General Welfare to accomplish your ends.  Regardless of what the truth might be.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 2, 2017)

Natural Citizen said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Natural Citizen said:
> ...


lol.  i have more than, nothing but repeal.

Health care is part of the general welfare.  General means comprehensive, not major or common.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 2, 2017)

MadChemist said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > MadChemist said:
> ...


Projecting much.  Words have meaning.  General is not major or common.

Why do believe health care is not part of the general welfare?

Do you also believe the common defense encompass the general warfare.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 2, 2017)

MadChemist said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > MadChemist said:
> ...


Only in a vacuum of special pleading.  Why whine about income taxes and make it political, right wingers.


----------



## MadChemist (Nov 2, 2017)

danielpalos said:


> MadChemist said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



When your argument make sense, I'll respond.  Or you could choose to connect the dots.

Otherwise, you continue to show that you have no argument and that hiding behind the General Welfare Clause is just a way of getting what you want.....regardless of the truth.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 2, 2017)

Health care is part of the general welfare. It is only about politics.


----------



## MadChemist (Nov 2, 2017)

danielpalos said:


> MadChemist said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



200 years of history is a pretty strong indication of what was.

Everyone understood the word General for what it meant in that context.

You lose again.


----------



## MadChemist (Nov 2, 2017)

danielpalos said:


> Health care is part of the general welfare. It is only about politics.



Keep dreaming.  

Or maybe you can show where Madison said that.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 2, 2017)

MadChemist said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Health care is part of the general welfare. It is only about politics.
> ...


Madison, the federalist wrote it in the federal doctrine.

Madison, the republican was a right winger.


----------



## MadChemist (Nov 2, 2017)

danielpalos said:


> MadChemist said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



Please show me where he said health care was in the Federal Doctrine.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 2, 2017)

MadChemist said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > MadChemist said:
> ...


Promoting the general welfare is in our Constitution; promoting the common defense is not.

Only the right wing, never gets it; especially when the poor may benefit.


----------



## MadChemist (Nov 2, 2017)

danielpalos said:


> MadChemist said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



From Federalist 45:

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.

#############################

General Welfare is "defined" ?


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 2, 2017)

MadChemist said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > MadChemist said:
> ...


General welfare is not general badfare.  It is political.  No one is claiming health care reform does not provide for the general welfare.


----------



## MadChemist (Nov 2, 2017)

danielpalos said:


> MadChemist said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



So, no response to Madison...duly noted.

Few and defined....and don't include healthcare.

Bummer dude.


----------



## MadChemist (Nov 2, 2017)

Natural Citizen said:


> General Welfare Clause is properly explained here - Principle 5. Limited Government
> 
> Principles 3 and 4 are referenced in Principle 5 and may be referenced here for clarity - The Twelve Basic American Principles
> 
> Have a nice day, all.



You nailed it.


----------



## Spare_change (Nov 2, 2017)

danielpalos said:


> MadChemist said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



Actually, I would argue just the opposite ...

Government healthcare does NOT enhance the general welfare. Political control of personal decisions results in arbitrary decision making that may, or may not, be advantageous to your particular situation. Further, as we've seen, government meddling has driven up total healthcare costs while decreasing product availability.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 2, 2017)

MadChemist said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > MadChemist said:
> ...


That was the response; too illiterate, right winger?

Providing for the general welfare, can include health care.  Why do you believe, the general welfare may not include health care?


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 2, 2017)

Spare_change said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > MadChemist said:
> ...


It became political because the right wing whines about taxes.  Health care is a promotion of the general welfare.


----------



## MadChemist (Nov 2, 2017)

danielpalos said:


> MadChemist said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



I don't have to believe anything.  It says it in black and white.  

The General Welfare called out the Constitution does not include anything not specfically enumerated by the Constitution as being the responsibility of the Federal Government.

That is clear and 200 years of history show it.

Just because you want it to be so.....well, sorry.

When you can produce something other than your own connection, I'll be interested.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 2, 2017)

You are simply clueless and Causeless, like most right wingers.

Here are the general powers delegated to our federal Congress:



> 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;​
> but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;


----------



## kiwiman127 (Nov 2, 2017)

Well, there is this;
* The Preamble of the United States Constitution*
_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_.
==============================================
*General Welfare*
_The concern of the government for the *health*, peace, morality, and safety of its citizens._
Providing for the welfare of the general public is a basic goal of government. The preamble to the U.S. Constitution cites promotion of the general welfare as a primary reason for the creation of the Constitution. Promotion of the general welfare is also a stated purpose in state constitutions and statutes. The concept has sparked controversy only as a result of its inclusion in the body of the U.S. Constitution.
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


----------



## MadChemist (Nov 2, 2017)

Spare_change said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > MadChemist said:
> ...



I would be O.K. with a conversation in my home state around health care.  

I am O.K. with trying it at a level of 5 million people, not 320,000,000 people.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 2, 2017)

MadChemist said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


At least California had a vote on health care reform; the right wing has nothing but repeal.


----------



## emilynghiem (Nov 3, 2017)

danielpalos said:


> MadChemist said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


Dear danielpalos
1. You remind me of Prolife defenders who argue that "right to life" applies to and includes unborn lives in the uterus. They believe in this definition of "right to life" as much as those who believe "right to health care" is included in general welfare. Both are political beliefs when they believe GOVT is required to enforce and impose this as part of the law for all the public to follow.

Do you see where it becomes dangerous to allow OTHER beliefs or groups to impose THEIR beliefs by law if these go against YOUR beliefs???

2. So that's why it's so critical to enforce the REST of the Constitution including
A. Due process of law:
NOT depriving people of liberty
without first going through "due process" to prove WHICH people are convicted of violations that merit such deprivation as a penalty by law.

So even if you have equal right to believe, interpret and/or exercise  general welfare as requiring govt to guarantee right to health care, This Still Does NOT
override OTHER Constitutional laws protecting due process , rights and freedoms of others from deprivation or from discrimination by Creed.

B. Equal Protections of the law of the First and Fourteenth Amendment rights of people, including no taxation without representation, protection from govt either establishing or prohibiting free exercise of religion, and protection from discrimination by Creed.

danielpalos for sake of equal protections and enforcement of Constitutional principles,
please respect the equal rights of others NOT to believe in using Govt to impose EITHER
* Right to life arguments and beliefs to impose legislation  against the will, consent, free choice and beliefs of others who believe in free choice and not depriving others due to this right to life belief;

* "general welfare" to dictate or impose "right to health care" mandates through govt that violate the due process, free choice, right to representation in voting on terms of taxation, and other Constitutional rights principles or beliefs of others.

Is this more clear?

Even if you were right, no laws can be passed that violate due process by depriving liberty of citizens not convicted of crimes, or that's violating other principles equally included within Constitutional laws.

This also explains how right to life advocates can be completely correct that abortion is wrong, yet cannot pass laws on that which violate due process!

In both cases, you still can't pass laws that violate other Constitutional standards and checks on govt . Please be fair and equal in both cases, or it's "discrimination by Creed" to treat right to life one way but right to health care another. Both are political beliefs. If you don't agree with govt imposing one, how can you argue to impose the other?

This point is VERY critical
to the future of laws and govt in our country being tested  danielpalos
so I hope you see the wisdom
and justice in what it truly means to defend equal protections and justice under law. To defend the laws for others as we invoke these same protections for ourselves when it comes to our beliefs !


----------



## MadChemist (Nov 3, 2017)

danielpalos said:


> MadChemist said:
> 
> 
> > Spare_change said:
> ...



Yes the did.

And that was an education for many on both sides.

I applaude the effort.

Tennesse actually has a state run healthcare sytem....Tenncare.  Good old Tennessee, a left wing bastion if ever there was one.....

The system has undergone several evolutions, not repeal as you call it....in response to costs (yeah...that nasty reality that exists).  But it still exists.

You might remember that Vermont was a on path to single payer.  It died before it ever got started.  Why ?  Costs.  I guess you could call that a repeal. 

Why single payer died in Vermont

You really have demonstrated nothing in the way of knowledge regarding the realities of health care.  

Like many "intellectuals" who are good on "ideas" but useless on implementation, you sit around and complain....but have nothing to offer.

And please don't take the term "intellectual" as a complement.  It only denotes a class of individuals who have more faith in their paltry reasoning than they do in the reality of the world.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 3, 2017)

emilynghiem said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > MadChemist said:
> ...


Here are the general powers delegated to Congress by the People:



> 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;​
> but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;



Why do you believe health care does not promote the general welfare?


----------



## MadChemist (Nov 4, 2017)

danielpalos said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



As has been explained 100 times, General Welfare only relates to those powers specifically delegated to the Federal Government.

Health Care is not mentioned in the Constitution.  

So the General Welfare Clause does not apply to them.  

Collection of taxes is also only for those powers delegated to them.

I understand this is hard for you, but try.


----------



## dblack (Nov 4, 2017)

MadChemist said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > emilynghiem said:
> ...


I hate to admit it, but It's apparently hard for the Court to understand as well.


----------



## MadChemist (Nov 4, 2017)

dblack said:


> MadChemist said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



Not sure it is hard for them to understand.....or easy to ignore.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 5, 2017)

MadChemist said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > MadChemist said:
> ...


the right wing had literally, nothing but repeal as their political platform; it makes all of the political difference in the World.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 5, 2017)

MadChemist said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > emilynghiem said:
> ...


dear, that Only applies to Republicans because, it is Their doctrine.  

that is why it seems, the right wing really is, clueless and Causeless.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 5, 2017)

dblack said:


> MadChemist said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


The Judicature knows, some lefty will show up to "harass them to do their Job", eventually.


----------



## emilynghiem (Nov 5, 2017)

Hi in





danielpalos said:


> MadChemist said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



Dear danielpalos:
I think I already replied to you on this. Previously I remember making these points on this thread or a related one:
1. Comparing right to life being INTERPRETED as inherently including unborn person's which advocates will argue should NOT require additional legislation, similar to how you don't believe general welfare requires additional laws passed or amendments to clarify this "inherently including" the "right to health care." If one requires added legislation voted on by states, by Congress or by people, that's similar to voting to clarify or expand on general welfare.
2. I replied to BULLDOG that even with Constitutonal rights and laws that we agree are govt jurisdiction, there are other Constitutional rights and principles that must be respected when crafting and enforcing laws . I mentioned due process and not depriving liberty of people not convicted of any crime or violation that merits losing freedom normally exercised under law. Also respecting religious freedom not to be imposed upon by govt or discriminated against on the basis of Creed or beliefs, as long as people are law abiding and not abusing religion to commit crimes already against the law such as child abuse. 

danielpalos
A third point I will make here :
3. If people are already used to exercising freedom of choice in health care systems, it makes more sense to offer a public option and allow people to choose what degree they want to fund and rely on govt run health care.
A . Where we might agree is for govt to fund the SITES where each district state and county has access proportionate to their populations demand. But from there, people in each state or collective organization may choose to fund and participate in different options for the actual health care services. Some may have a better business model while others use a nonprofit or church run hospital. The VA and prison and mental health systems could be a mix of public and private. So perhaps on a federal or state level, there could be one policy to cover maintaining physical facilities so there is equal affordable access.
B. But the programs run internally could vary per district where some ppl want govt run and others want private business or charities .

4. As for comparing right to health care with right to bear arms:
A. again ppl have to agree how legislation is written because of contrasting political beliefs that should all be included equally without discrimination. The problem is when laws that favor one bias end up imposing costs or loss of rights and protections of ppl who didn't agree to those laws and consequences, intended or not. Drug laws and voting laws run into similar problems with unintended consequences if these are crafted carefully to avoid complications. 
B. It has been argued that demanding health care as a right incurs costs of labor services and resources on someone providing these things. So the system(s) must be set up where ppl agree to provide health care under those terms or it imposed taxation without representation. There are countless areas where personal freechoice is affected such as with reproductive Rights and hospice or euthanasia beliefs. So because health care involves personal beliefs that's why it's a huge issue for federal govt to be involved. That's why I recommend only paying for the sites and letting taxpayers have equal free choice what medical programs or health care systems to pay for.


----------



## BULLDOG (Nov 5, 2017)

emilynghiem said:


> Hi in
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You mentioned lots of things, but failed to answer the question, and failed to prove your point.


----------



## regent (Nov 5, 2017)

Has America ever been without government health care since the Constitution?


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 5, 2017)

emilynghiem said:


> Hi in
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Providing for the general welfare must include health care, since general is comprehensive.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 5, 2017)

We have a US, uniformed health service.  Only the right wing, never gets it.


----------



## MadChemist (Nov 5, 2017)

danielpalos said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> > Hi in
> ...



It's unfortunate that they didn't spend more money on your education.


----------



## MadChemist (Nov 5, 2017)

I have not followed the thread with complete thoroughness.

But, as near as I can tell, the answer to the question in the OP is no.

There has been no effort to codify healthcare as a right.

And the country has never behaved like everyone had a right to healthcare because there have always been those who wanted it and could not purchase it.


----------



## DGS49 (Nov 6, 2017)

(1). The Federal Government is a government of expressly limited powers, as clearly stated in the Tenth Amendment.

B.  The only branch of Government that is empowered to spend money is the Legislative (Congress), and Article I, Section 8 delineates ALL of the areas where Congress is empowered to act (spend money).

B(1). Some uninformed people look at the words referring to "general welfare" in Article I, and conclude that Congress has the power to do anything it wants, if Congress thinks it will promote the "general welfare" of the U.S.  This argument has been resolved literally for hundreds of years, and that is not a correct interpretation.  The specifically enumerated powers in Section 8 are the limit of Congress' powers.

(c). Creating a massive "single payer" healthcare system - such as is the case in many other countries - is not possible in the U.S. without a Constitutional Amendment to grant Congress the power to create it.  This is entirely appropriate with our history.  A change this massive MUST be authorized by supermajorities in both Congress and the States, as it is a total "game-changer" for the country, and should NEVER be implemented by a slim majority in Congress, regardless of which party holds that majority.

(iv). In the case of a massively-Unconstitutional law such as ACA, one notes that there is a GIANT HOLE in our Federal Court system.  That hole is simply this:  The U.S Supreme Court cannot render a "Declaratory Judgment."  In other words, if a law is arguably unconstitutional, then it SHOULD be possible for its opponents to go directly to the Supreme Court and ask for an opinion, before that law goes into effect.  But under our Constitution and laws, the USSC may only hear actual "cases and controversies," and not general questions of law of constitutionality.  So to get a law before the USSC, it is first necessary to have a lawsuit or a criminal prosecution under the questionable law, and have it decided in a low court, then appealed, then appealed again, until it comes up before the USSC - a process that can take years.  And when it finally does get to the USSC, ONLY THAT PARTICULAR ASPECT OF THE LAW will be reviewed, not the whole damn law.  When the ACA was first challenged, the process was gone through to challenge a couple different aspects: the need to have a state "exchange" (the Feds had set one up, contrary to what the law required), and the individual mandate.  In both cases, the Roberts Court ignored the un-Constitutionality of the law, and tried to "interpret" the law to mean SOMETHING OTHER THAN WHAT IT ACTUALLY SAID, in order to try to defer to the wishes of Congress.

5.  Nevertheless, each of our Congresspersons and governors swear an oath of office that requires that the uphold and defend the laws and the Constitution in carrying out their duties. Thus, any Congressperson signing onto a clearly-unconstitutional law is violating his or her Oath of Office.  It is not rational or honest to act as though any law is presumptively constitutional until the USSC has a chance to review it and strike it down.  Especially where there is. no viable means of getting the Court to opine on the general constitutionality of the law before it goes into effect.

P.S.  Congress has the absolute power to define the jurisdiction and powers of the Federal Courts, up to and including the USSC.  Were Congress acting in the best interest of the country, it would take that right/obligation a little more seriously and address this hole in the USSC's powers, things like "forum shopping," lifetime tenure of judges and a few other odds and ends of a similar nature.

Healthcare is not a "right" in the United States.  And until and unless the Federal Government actually HIRES and army of doctors and other medical practitioners, and OWNS hospitals, labs, clinics, etc. (like the Veterans Administration), it cannot be a "right" under U.S. law because of the restrictions of the Thirteenth Amendment.  It is what it is.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 6, 2017)

MadChemist said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > emilynghiem said:
> ...


I didn't mind, saving costs.  

Health and safety is what State government is for.  Providing for the general welfare must include health care, since general is comprehensive.

Only the right wing has nothing but, continuance, diversion, and other forms of fallacy.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 6, 2017)

DGS49 said:


> (1). The Federal Government is a government of expressly limited powers, as clearly stated in the Tenth Amendment.
> 
> B.  The only branch of Government that is empowered to spend money is the Legislative (Congress), and Article I, Section 8 delineates ALL of the areas where Congress is empowered to act (spend money).
> 
> ...


Providing for the general welfare, is a general power delegated to Congress.


----------



## MadChemist (Nov 6, 2017)

danielpalos said:


> DGS49 said:
> 
> 
> > (1). The Federal Government is a government of expressly limited powers, as clearly stated in the Tenth Amendment.
> ...



Keep believing that....then explain to us why the federal government never provided for it in the past.


----------



## MadChemist (Nov 6, 2017)

danielpalos said:


> MadChemist said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



Actually, that is you.

You won't address the arguments that have been put before you that clearly show that health care was never in the purview of the federal congress.

All you keep saying is comprehensive is general.  Which, in this case it is within the general duties of the federal government as defined by the constitution.


----------



## dblack (Nov 6, 2017)

danielpalos said:


> Providing for the general welfare, is a general power delegated to Congress.



This, of course, make no sense. But if that were the actual intent of the welfare clause, why in the world would they have wasted time writing anything else?


----------



## MadChemist (Nov 6, 2017)

dblack said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Providing for the general welfare, is a general power delegated to Congress.
> ...



Which is what essentially what Madison said:

“General Welfare” and “Common Defense” Explained by James Madison


----------



## Spare_change (Nov 6, 2017)

danielpalos said:


> MadChemist said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


Wow --- are you REALLY that disconnected from reality, or are you just spouting unjustifiable bumper sticker slogans?


----------



## MadChemist (Nov 6, 2017)

Spare_change said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > MadChemist said:
> ...



I supposed we can keep waiting for a reply as to why Vermont wouldn't move forward with a state run plan (you know it's a blue state which means it must be swimming in money....).


----------



## Spare_change (Nov 6, 2017)

MadChemist said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


Indubitably.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 7, 2017)

MadChemist said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > DGS49 said:
> ...


Means nothing; where was a Space Race or Moon Race in our Constitution.

Providing for the general welfare must include health care, since it is general and must be comprehensive.

There is no drug war clause.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 7, 2017)

MadChemist said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > MadChemist said:
> ...


Yes, general means, comprehensive since it is general, and not major or common.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 7, 2017)

dblack said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Providing for the general welfare, is a general power delegated to Congress.
> ...


Ask the right wing; there is no general warfare clause nor any common offense clause.

Why do you have any problem with a general welfare clause?  It is not a general badfare clause.  That is the whole and entire difference.  Now do y'all understand.


----------



## dblack (Nov 7, 2017)

danielpalos said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



Clear as mud!


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 7, 2017)

MadChemist said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


To raise money for the general welfare, not the general warfare; Only the right wing, never gets it.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 7, 2017)

Spare_change said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > MadChemist said:
> ...


What health care plan does the right wing have?


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 7, 2017)

dblack said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...


Yes, dear; general means comprehensive so health care can be included in Any deliberation regarding the general welfare.

There is no general badfare clause which includes, the general warfare or the common offense.

Yes, the right wing really is, "that dumb".


----------



## Spare_change (Nov 7, 2017)

danielpalos said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...





danielpalos said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


Therein lies your fault .... you continue to rabble about the "general welfare clause" using a generally discredited definition in order to justify your position. There is NO requirement for a health care plan - never has been, never will be. You need to get over your misconception that, somehow, the General Welfare clause gives you a mandate for a national health care plan. 

Your historical perspective is seriously lacking. You take two words, out of context, from the Constitution and try to create a strawman that justifies socializing health care under the guise of a "mandate" for the general welfare, even though "general welfare" is notoriously undefined. 

I strongly suggest you go back and read the Federalist Papers #41, and then read the Declaration of Independence in its entirety. You will find that both explicitly reject your twisted interpretation of the General Welfare clause.


----------



## MadChemist (Nov 7, 2017)

Spare_change said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Spare_change said:
> ...



We've provided Madison's explanation.

But, typical to the arrogant ignorant of the world, they think they know it all....so why confuse things with historical facts.

You've pretty much nailed it.

No reason to bother with this person anymore.


----------



## MadChemist (Nov 7, 2017)

The answer is still no to the OP.

You don't see anyone trying now...they know it would never pass.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 8, 2017)

Spare_change said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Spare_change said:
> ...


dear, you only have appeals to ignorance.

The general welfare clause is a general power, along with paying the debts and providing for the common defense.


----------



## dblack (Nov 8, 2017)

MadChemist said:


> The answer is still no to the OP.
> 
> You don't see anyone trying now...they know it would never pass.



And it (passing an amendment to the Constitution) should be a minimum requirement for socializing health care.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 8, 2017)

dblack said:


> MadChemist said:
> 
> 
> > The answer is still no to the OP.
> ...


Nope; providing for the general welfare covers it.  The right wing needs a better solution at lower cost.


----------



## dblack (Nov 8, 2017)

danielpalos said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > MadChemist said:
> ...



Take another bong hit, Daniel. That should cover it.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 8, 2017)

dblack said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...


General welfare is just as comprehensive as general warfare and covers a common offense for that purpose.


----------



## MadChemist (Nov 9, 2017)

danielpalos said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



You can keep repeating it and be no less wrong this time than you were the first time you said it.

BTW: Saying someone, that has provided good information, is appealing to ignorance is simply thrashing in the dark.

You are wrong.

History proves you wrong.

There is no effort on the part of the federal government to cover everyone...and if general welfare included health care....you can bet people would be suing to get it (and I would not blame them).

So even the present shows you have no clue on that about which you speak.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 9, 2017)

MadChemist said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...


dude; You don't know what you are talking about.  The federal government maintains a Uniformed Health Service.


----------



## MadChemist (Nov 9, 2017)

danielpalos said:


> MadChemist said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



Then why do we worry about the uninsured......

I said, no effort to cover EVERYONE.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 9, 2017)

MadChemist said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > MadChemist said:
> ...


Until recently.


----------



## MadChemist (Nov 9, 2017)

danielpalos said:


> MadChemist said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



No.

Obamacare never ever claimed to try to cover everyone.

It was openly acknowledged that it would not.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 9, 2017)

MadChemist said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > MadChemist said:
> ...


Who would not be covered?


----------



## MadChemist (Nov 9, 2017)

danielpalos said:


> MadChemist said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



Are you saying you thought everyone would be covered ?


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 10, 2017)

MadChemist said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > MadChemist said:
> ...


Eventually.  How many people need drug war coverage.


----------



## MadChemist (Nov 10, 2017)

danielpalos said:


> MadChemist said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



There was no eventually with Obamacare.

Hence, there was no effort to cover everyone.

Hence, the federal government wasn't acting like Health Care was a right or covered as you claim.

Hence, you are incorrect in your assertions.

Hence, you deflect with a comment about drug war protection.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 10, 2017)

MadChemist said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > MadChemist said:
> ...


Why any mandate, if the effect was not to try to insure, everyone, eventually?


----------



## dblack (Nov 10, 2017)

danielpalos said:


> MadChemist said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



Why indeed.


----------



## MadChemist (Nov 10, 2017)

danielpalos said:


> MadChemist said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



You continually shoot yourself in the foot.

How is the mandate supposed to "provide" health insurance for everyone ?  The answer is that it didn't.  It was a weak attempt to force people to buy it....which they haven't.

They are not attempting to insure everyone.  They are attempting to coerce everyone into private plans.

If General Welfare means providing General Welfare for everyone, the the federal government would simply step up, nationalize the health care system and take it over making it available to everyone.

They haven't.
They are not trying.
They won't.

Hence, there is no General Welfare being provided here.

Additionally, they are pushing people onto plans they can't afford.

That is General Welfare.

While I am not happy with the current state of things, to call this kind of system any better than the one we had before....seems silly.

I am going to start another thread which I hope you will participate in and not simply slather with one line unsupported claims.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 10, 2017)

By requiring people purchase insurance, if they are able.


----------



## MadChemist (Nov 10, 2017)

danielpalos said:


> By requiring people purchase insurance, if they are able.



That isn't General Welfare.

End of conversation.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 10, 2017)

MadChemist said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > By requiring people purchase insurance, if they are able.
> ...


requiring some form of health insurance is not welfare?


----------



## MadChemist (Nov 24, 2020)

danielpalos said:


> MadChemist said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



It is not "required".  If you don't get it, you pay a fine.  You still don't have it.

And if the Federal Government considered that to be part of their perview, they would simply provide it.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Nov 25, 2020)

MadChemist said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > MadChemist said:
> ...



Did you mean "purview"?


----------



## Bernhard (Nov 25, 2020)

Guess that doesn't directly answer the question, but in the German Constitution, Grundgesetz Article 20 Abs. 1 it says "Germany is a social, federal state".

That means social systems that are supposed to support those in need are required by our constitution. It's open for the political process, however, to determine how extensive or small they are supposed to be.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 25, 2020)

MadChemist said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > MadChemist said:
> ...


They do simply provide for some.  Means testing is one method of delivery.  

Solving simple poverty means Persons should be able to afford some basic healthcare insurance; then, mandating it would make more sense and even fines for non-compliance.  We allege to subscribe to Capitalism and a market based economy.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 25, 2020)

Bernhard said:


> Guess that doesn't directly answer the question, but in the German Constitution, Grundgesetz Article 20 Abs. 1 it says "Germany is a social, federal state".
> 
> That means social systems that are supposed to support those in need are required by our constitution. It's open for the political process, however, to determine how extensive or small they are supposed to be.


This is what we are supposed to be doing with our form of Government:

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.

Only the right wing believes bigotry and black codes were ever an authorized, social power.


----------



## Bernhard (Nov 25, 2020)

danielpalos said:


> Bernhard said:
> 
> 
> > Guess that doesn't directly answer the question, but in the German Constitution, Grundgesetz Article 20 Abs. 1 it says "Germany is a social, federal state".
> ...



Of course I don't want to speak for Americans, but I'm in favor of social safety nets. 

Guess it's all about the right balance... they shouldn't be so big they take away incentives to work and don't damage the economy too much, but big enough to allow at least most of those who really are in need to have a dignified life. 

But I'm old-fashioned. I believe there is such a thing as a "common good".


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 25, 2020)

Bernhard said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Bernhard said:
> ...


Some on the left are advocating for actually solving simple poverty via equal protection of our at-will employment laws in our at-will employment States for unemployment compensation.  Actually solving for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment in a market friendly manner promotes the general welfare and general prosperity through a positive multiplier and helps automatically stabilize our economy in the process.


----------



## MadChemist (Nov 25, 2020)

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> MadChemist said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



My apologies.


----------

