28th Amendment to the Constitution

[Anathema]

...After all, it's what Jesus would do.

Please show me a Constitutional reference to what Jesus would do having ANY bearing on US Governmental policy.

Please also realize that not all Conservatives are religious nuts. In fact, while many Republicans may be religious, most actual Conservatives are not (in my experience).

 

[Pellinore]

"The Congress shall have power"
...
"To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes"
...
"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."


It's called the "elastic clause," in Article I, Section 8. It has that name for a reason.

No rational reading of it supports the abuse of federal power to meddle in areas where the Constitution does not specifically delegate authority to the federal government. Otherwise, what would be the point of the Tenth Amendment?

This was argued over by people far more intelligent and qualified than the two of us, a couple of times about two hundred years ago, with the result being our National Bank. Marshall's decision (for the second bank) was that the "necessary and proper" clause gave the government "implied powers," including the ability to establish the bank. These days, that can easily be applied to health care.

The Tenth Amendment is still in full effect for any issues that aren't related to Commerce, or anything else covered under I:8.

 

[JoeB131]

Please show me a Constitutional reference to what Jesus would do having ANY bearing on US Governmental policy.

Please also realize that not all Conservatives are religious nuts. In fact, while many Republicans may be religious, most actual Conservatives are not (in my experience).

Oh, do believe actual conservative AREA ABSOLUTELY CLUELESS about what Jesus was talking about.

So essentially, you need a philosophy that rationalizes your hate and anger, as though dumping on people who are worse off than you are makes you feel any better. What a sad little man you are.

 

[Anathema]

Oh, do believe actual conservatives ARE ABSOLUTELY CLUELESS about what Jesus was talking about.

So essentially, you need a philosophy that rationalizes your hate and anger, as though dumping on people who are worse off than you are makes you feel any better. What a sad little man you are.

No. We aren’t clueless about Jesus, we just don’t believe that his teachings are not as divinely inspired as others believe them to be.

I bought thst shit for 27 years, until my father passed away in 2001. At that point I did some serious philosophical and spiritual soul-searching thst lead me to turn way from ALL organized religion to a more spiritual path. One that made sense from my life experiences and the realities of what I saw in the world around me. Over time I’ve found many others who follow this path for one reason or another.

 

[hadit]

No rational reading of it supports the abuse of federal power to meddle in areas where the Constitution does not specifically delegate authority to the federal government. Otherwise, what would be the point of the Tenth Amendment?

Again, why are we limiting our thinking to the thoughts of slave rapists who shit in chamber pots and treated colds by bleeding people?

Because the laws they wrote have not been overturned or replaced. You don't get to just ignore the law because you don't like who wrote it.

 

[hadit]

Where, in that sentence, does it say anything about the federal government having any authority to provide health care?

Yes, we absolutely should let poor people die because they don't have the money to treat easily curable diseases.

After all, it's what Jesus would do.

I thought we weren't supposed to have a theocracy. Can you pick a horse and stay on it?

 

[OldLady]

This is why i bring it up: HEALTH CARE is the biggest policy initiative that the Democrats have to work with ( other than legalizing 30 million border-jumpers).

And yet, any manifestation of their dream is unconstitutional, and THIS version of the USSC will shoot it down.

They want Single Payer? They want to make healthcare a Right?

There is only one way for that to happen. A constitutional amendment.

And isn't that appropriate? A major national policy change like that REQUIRES more than a 51-49 vote.

And yet...the Democrats know that they lack the votes, both in Congress and the State legislatures. So they keep dangling these bullshit proposals..."MEDICARE for all", and pretending that it is only Republican obstruction that stands in the way - not the Constitution.

We didn't need a Constitutional Amendment to provide Medicare for some or Social Security for all, so why do we need a Constitutional Amendment to expand Medicare to all?

 

[Anathema]

[QUOTE="OldLady, post: 21392392, member: 56127”]We didn't need a Constitutional Amendment to provide Medicare for some or Social Security for all, so why do we need a Constitutional Amendment to expand Medicare to all?[/QUOTE]

We should have needed a Constitutional Amendment for both of those programs AND for any extension of them... including a Medicare for All program.

I’d like to think it takes more than a 50%+1 vote of both Congressional bodies to end my life

 

[rightwinger]

[QUOTE="OldLady, post: 21392392, member: 56127”]We didn't need a Constitutional Amendment to provide Medicare for some or Social Security for all, so why do we need a Constitutional Amendment to expand Medicare to all?

We should have needed a Constitutional Amendment for both of those programs AND for any extension of them... including a Medicare for All program.

I’d like to think it takes more than a 50%+1 vote of both Congressional bodies to end my life[/QUOTE]
End your life?

What a Drama Queen

 

[Anathema]

End your life?

What a Drama Queen

As a Principled Nab I cannot take Government assistance in any form; therefore a Nedicare for All program means I lose my ability to see a doctor, go to an ER or even get prescriptions filled. Within probably 18 months that leads to me being DEAD.

 

[boedicca]

FIRST: Effective two (2) years from the effective date of ratification of this Amendment, legal residents of the United States shall be entitled to health care, according to the best contemporary standardsof the medical art.

SECOND: Congress shall have the power to enact all laws and make all expenditures necessary to bring Paragraph FIRST to fruition, notwithstanding any possible contradiction with the Tenth Amendment.

Would Bernie Sanders have the balls to introduce such an Amendment?

Anyone else?

Would Democrats in Congress have the balls to vote for it?

What a stupid idea for an amendment.

 

[rightwinger]

End your life?

What a Drama Queen

As a Principled Nab I cannot take Government assistance in any form; therefore a Nedicare for All program means I lose my ability to see a doctor, go to an ER or even get prescriptions filled. Within probably 18 months that leads to me being DEAD.

You makes your choices
Ya pay your consequences

 

[OldLady]

End your life?

What a Drama Queen

As a Principled Nab I cannot take Government assistance in any form; therefore a Nedicare for All program means I lose my ability to see a doctor, go to an ER or even get prescriptions filled. Within probably 18 months that leads to me being DEAD.

What's a Nab?

 

[Anathema]

You makes your choices
Ya pay your consequences

I value my Soul far more than my body/life.

 

[Anathema]

What's a Nab?

A typo. It should have read Principled Man.

 

[JoeB131]

Because the laws they wrote have not been overturned or replaced. You don't get to just ignore the law because you don't like who wrote it.

So if we throw Trump out through impeachment or the 25th Amendment, you'd be cool with that? Or for that matter, if we indicted him in a criminal court (as there is nothing in the constitution that says you can't.)

Me... I'm of the philosophy, the Constitution is not a suicide pact.

 

[presonorek]

Where, in that sentence, does it say anything about the federal government having any authority to provide health care?

Yes, we absolutely should let poor people die because they don't have the money to treat easily curable diseases.

After all, it's what Jesus would do.

I love darkmatters2525

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Affordable Care Act Was Supposed To Decrease Medicaid Costs To National Debt Through Private Insurance Requirements "

* Giant Holes In The Bucket *

THREE - the legal migrant status of all receiving treatment under medicaid will be verified and any illegal migrant will be deported to their nation of origin immediately following treatment ; and , any realized costs will be levied against any us trade debts to their country of origin .

FOUR - any child of an illegal migrant will receive the citizenship to the country from that of the mother and both will be deported to their nation of origin immediately following delivery .

* National Debt Tax Not Feasible But Premiums At Least Doubled *

An impetus for implementing the affordable care act was to create a different statistic for reducing the effects of medical costs , as medical costs represented a large block of government expenses contributing to the national debt .

Had the government passed a bond measure to pay down the medicaid portion of the national debt in a manner that exacted a cost matching the more than doubled premiums that was the consequence to health insurance premiums consequent to the affordable care act , the national debt might be much , much lower , but the average citizen would likely have launched a revolution .

* Obvious Necessity For Accountability *

The government does not collect premiums and offset losses with investments as do private insurance providers , rather the government pays medical costs directly to private health care providers from taxes or by increasing the national debt .

Supposedly those most likely to use medicaid were those with incomes between 100% and 400% of the poverty line and their premiums were socialized on a graduated scale with a maximum expenditures for those at 400% of the poverty line being approximately 4% of total earned income .

What has been accomplished if there is not a reduction in medicaid costs to the national debt that should be commensurate with the additional expenditures for health insurance incurred by the more than doubled premiums of those beyond the 400% socialized cutoff , for who the government did not " purchase insurance " ?

 

[hadit]

Because the laws they wrote have not been overturned or replaced. You don't get to just ignore the law because you don't like who wrote it.

So if we throw Trump out through impeachment or the 25th Amendment, you'd be cool with that? Or for that matter, if we indicted him in a criminal court (as there is nothing in the constitution that says you can't.)

Me... I'm of the philosophy, the Constitution is not a suicide pact.

If it's done legally, of course. I don't have to agree with something to accept it as legal. Of course, that's just me, as I'm finding out. Apparently, there are some who want to ignore the law of they hate someone enough.

 

[JoeB131]

If it's done legally, of course. I don't have to agree with something to accept it as legal. Of course, that's just me, as I'm finding out. Apparently, there are some who want to ignore the law of they hate someone enough.

I have no problem throwing out trump, legally or illegally, because I never accepted him as legitimate to start with.