America's coming civil war -- makers vs. takers Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/op

[Bfgrn]

Why don't you quit playing games and come out and say you don't think the Constitution applies anymore. I read that in your post. I just wondered if you had the stones to actually say it.

Let's talk about what kind of country and government our founders designed. Did our founding fathers create an oligarchy where only the wealthy survive? Health care is not in the Constitution, but neither is the word corporation, for the writers had no interest in using for-profit corporations to run their new government.

The Constitution only mentions two entities: We the People and the government. The people are on one side of a line, and we are sovereign and have individual rights. On the other side of the line is the government, which is accountable to the people and has specific duties to perform to the satisfaction of the people. We delegate some of our power to the government in order to perform tasks we want government to do. In a representative democracy, this system should work just fine.

In the Declaration of Independence, the preface to all the documents that followed, Thomas Jefferson famously said:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

Please explain to me how 'Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness is possible without your health?

If you can be well without health, you may be happy without virtue.
Edmund Burke

Let's talk about what kind of country and government our founders designed. Did our founding fathers create an oligarchy where only the wealthy survive? Health care is not in the Constitution, but neither is the word corporation, for the writers had no interest in using for-profit corporations to run their new government.

Our founders created a nation that left domestic issues to the states and a Federal government to insure that the states did not deprive it's citizens of the rights they have.

SO...the federal government has a right to intervene when people's rights are being deprived.

Which is exactly what insurance cartels have been doing by denying coverage to people with preexisting conditions, denying treatment to people needing expensive life saving procedures because of bogus post-claims underwriting, and purging employer accounts, if a small business has an employee, who suddenly has have a lot of treatment, or is in an accident.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Let's talk about what kind of country and government our founders designed. Did our founding fathers create an oligarchy where only the wealthy survive? Health care is not in the Constitution, but neither is the word corporation, for the writers had no interest in using for-profit corporations to run their new government.

The Constitution only mentions two entities: We the People and the government. The people are on one side of a line, and we are sovereign and have individual rights. On the other side of the line is the government, which is accountable to the people and has specific duties to perform to the satisfaction of the people. We delegate some of our power to the government in order to perform tasks we want government to do. In a representative democracy, this system should work just fine.

In the Declaration of Independence, the preface to all the documents that followed, Thomas Jefferson famously said:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

Please explain to me how 'Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness is possible without your health?

If you can be well without health, you may be happy without virtue.
Edmund Burke

Let's talk about what kind of country and government our founders designed. Did our founding fathers create an oligarchy where only the wealthy survive? Health care is not in the Constitution, but neither is the word corporation, for the writers had no interest in using for-profit corporations to run their new government.

Our founders created a nation that left domestic issues to the states and a Federal government to insure that the states did not deprive it's citizens of the rights they have.

SO...the federal government has a right to intervene when people's rights are being deprived.

Which is exactly what insurance cartels have been doing by denying coverage to people with preexisting conditions, denying treatment to people needing expensive life saving procedures because of bogus post-claims underwriting, and purging employer accounts, if a small business has an employee, who suddenly has have a lot of treatment, or is in an accident.

There is no god damn right to healthcare coverage.

 

[Bfgrn]

O.K.

I'll ask.

Did you have a point you wanted to make ?

Yes, maybe if you re-read my post, it will become apparent.

"I willingly acquiesce in the institutions of my country, perfect or imperfect, and think it a duty to leave their modifications to those who are to live under them and are to participate of the good or evil they may produce. The present generation has the same right of self-government which the past one has exercised for itself." --Thomas Jefferson to John Hampden Pleasants, 1824. ME 16:29

Why don't you quit playing games and come out and say you don't think the Constitution applies anymore. I read that in your post. I just wondered if you had the stones to actually say it.

Jefferson also said....

To take from one, because it is thought that his own industry and that of his father’s has acquired too much, in order to spare others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association — the guarantee to every one of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.”

But, hereagain is my point: Already you've stepped into the somehow deciding what a fact is and what constitutes and argument. Just because Jefferson said it...that makes it law....?

No.

And even if something is law....will it always be law ? No.

Unless you think the 18th amendment is still in force.

I made an assertion.....and what you did was simply to deflect to the kind of standard you want to utilize in assessing the usefulness of the assertion....without ever stating as much.

But...you'll bury me in a "debate". I shudder to think what you call debate.

Thank you for citing Thomas Jefferson who was talking about the concept of double taxation, but let's run with it out of context as you tried to use it, OK? Then Jefferson would support the individual mandate.

People who shirk the individual responsibility of having health insurance will still get treated at a hospital if they have an illness or an accident. And people like me who have insurance and all of society PAY FOR their treatment.

The only enemies of the Constitution are those who try to wield it as a weapon against the living, by using the words of the dead.

"The equal rights of man, and the happiness of every individual, are now acknowledged to be the only legitimate objects of government. Modern times have the signal advantage, too, of having discovered the only device by which these rights can be secured, to wit: government by the people, acting not in person, but by representatives chosen by themselves, that is to say, by every man of ripe years and sane mind, who contributes either by his purse or person to the support of his country." --Thomas Jefferson to A. Coray, 1823. ME 15:482

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Yes, maybe if you re-read my post, it will become apparent.

"I willingly acquiesce in the institutions of my country, perfect or imperfect, and think it a duty to leave their modifications to those who are to live under them and are to participate of the good or evil they may produce. The present generation has the same right of self-government which the past one has exercised for itself." --Thomas Jefferson to John Hampden Pleasants, 1824. ME 16:29

Why don't you quit playing games and come out and say you don't think the Constitution applies anymore. I read that in your post. I just wondered if you had the stones to actually say it.

Jefferson also said....

To take from one, because it is thought that his own industry and that of his father’s has acquired too much, in order to spare others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association — the guarantee to every one of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.”

But, hereagain is my point: Already you've stepped into the somehow deciding what a fact is and what constitutes and argument. Just because Jefferson said it...that makes it law....?

No.

And even if something is law....will it always be law ? No.

Unless you think the 18th amendment is still in force.

I made an assertion.....and what you did was simply to deflect to the kind of standard you want to utilize in assessing the usefulness of the assertion....without ever stating as much.

But...you'll bury me in a "debate". I shudder to think what you call debate.

Thank you for citing Thomas Jefferson who was talking about the concept of double taxation, but let's run with it out of context as you tried to use it, OK? Then Jefferson would support the individual mandate.

People who shirk the individual responsibility of having health insurance will still get treated at a hospital if they have an illness or an accident. And people like me who have insurance and all of society PAY FOR their treatment.

The only enemies of the Constitution are those who try to wield it as a weapon against the living, by using the words of the dead.

"The equal rights of man, and the happiness of every individual, are now acknowledged to be the only legitimate objects of government. Modern times have the signal advantage, too, of having discovered the only device by which these rights can be secured, to wit: government by the people, acting not in person, but by representatives chosen by themselves, that is to say, by every man of ripe years and sane mind, who contributes either by his purse or person to the support of his country." --Thomas Jefferson to A. Coray, 1823. ME 15:482

Question If you owned an insurance would you give insurance coverage to someone you knew was already sick and never gave any money for the coverage?

 

[Bfgrn]

Our founders created a nation that left domestic issues to the states and a Federal government to insure that the states did not deprive it's citizens of the rights they have.

SO...the federal government has a right to intervene when people's rights are being deprived.

Which is exactly what insurance cartels have been doing by denying coverage to people with preexisting conditions, denying treatment to people needing expensive life saving procedures because of bogus post-claims underwriting, and purging employer accounts, if a small business has an employee, who suddenly has have a lot of treatment, or is in an accident.

There is no god damn right to healthcare coverage.

Yes there is. It is actually more of a God given right, but you choose to use God in vain.

If anyone is ill or injured, they will receive treatment at any hospital they go to or are brought to. But, if they don't have insurance, people who take the personal responsibility to buy insurance PAY for those welshers.

As a matter of fact, military triage units routinely save the lives of enemy combatants.

 

[Steelplate]

Every time you call yourself a republican you lie might as well get this lying thing out of the way.

Same with you and your boys...everytime you call yourself a patriot.

I realize your need to defend one of your own. But what the fuck is a patriot? Everybody calls themselves one, but do patriots allow someone to fundamentally change the country?

Oh...you mean like you guys? Trying to undo programs that have been in older for damn near a century? For trying to turn the clock back to the robber-baron days that were the norm before the FIRST great depression?

Yeah...a true patriot would not want to revisit those days.

 

[Bfgrn]

Why don't you quit playing games and come out and say you don't think the Constitution applies anymore. I read that in your post. I just wondered if you had the stones to actually say it.

Jefferson also said....

To take from one, because it is thought that his own industry and that of his father’s has acquired too much, in order to spare others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association — the guarantee to every one of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.”

But, hereagain is my point: Already you've stepped into the somehow deciding what a fact is and what constitutes and argument. Just because Jefferson said it...that makes it law....?

No.

And even if something is law....will it always be law ? No.

Unless you think the 18th amendment is still in force.

I made an assertion.....and what you did was simply to deflect to the kind of standard you want to utilize in assessing the usefulness of the assertion....without ever stating as much.

But...you'll bury me in a "debate". I shudder to think what you call debate.

Thank you for citing Thomas Jefferson who was talking about the concept of double taxation, but let's run with it out of context as you tried to use it, OK? Then Jefferson would support the individual mandate.

People who shirk the individual responsibility of having health insurance will still get treated at a hospital if they have an illness or an accident. And people like me who have insurance and all of society PAY FOR their treatment.

The only enemies of the Constitution are those who try to wield it as a weapon against the living, by using the words of the dead.

"The equal rights of man, and the happiness of every individual, are now acknowledged to be the only legitimate objects of government. Modern times have the signal advantage, too, of having discovered the only device by which these rights can be secured, to wit: government by the people, acting not in person, but by representatives chosen by themselves, that is to say, by every man of ripe years and sane mind, who contributes either by his purse or person to the support of his country." --Thomas Jefferson to A. Coray, 1823. ME 15:482

Question If you owned an insurance would you give insurance coverage to someone you knew was already sick and never gave any money for the coverage?

That's exactly why the individual mandate is essential if we are going to be stuck with the private insurance health care law Obama signed.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Same with you and your boys...everytime you call yourself a patriot.

I realize your need to defend one of your own. But what the fuck is a patriot? Everybody calls themselves one, but do patriots allow someone to fundamentally change the country?

Oh...you mean like you guys? Trying to undo programs that have been in older for damn near a century? For trying to turn the clock back to the robber-baron days that were the norm before the FIRST great depression?

Yeah...a true patriot would not want to revisit those days.

Blah blah blah blah
WTF The way your president is taking this country will start a war. Every true patriot will stand up and stop the tyranny or your president just like they stopped the tyranny of King George.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Thank you for citing Thomas Jefferson who was talking about the concept of double taxation, but let's run with it out of context as you tried to use it, OK? Then Jefferson would support the individual mandate.

People who shirk the individual responsibility of having health insurance will still get treated at a hospital if they have an illness or an accident. And people like me who have insurance and all of society PAY FOR their treatment.

The only enemies of the Constitution are those who try to wield it as a weapon against the living, by using the words of the dead.

"The equal rights of man, and the happiness of every individual, are now acknowledged to be the only legitimate objects of government. Modern times have the signal advantage, too, of having discovered the only device by which these rights can be secured, to wit: government by the people, acting not in person, but by representatives chosen by themselves, that is to say, by every man of ripe years and sane mind, who contributes either by his purse or person to the support of his country." --Thomas Jefferson to A. Coray, 1823. ME 15:482

Question If you owned an insurance would you give insurance coverage to someone you knew was already sick and never gave any money for the coverage?

That's exactly why the individual mandate is essential if we are going to be stuck with the private insurance health care law Obama signed.

So you would take the lose out of your pocket to pay for someone who was already sick? I DON'T FUCKING BELIEVE THAT LIE NOT FOR ONE FUCKING SECOND.

 

[JoeNormal]

then please, tell us how this has happened? I thought a rising tide, raises ALL?

Seems to me, that we have laws and regs on the books that have encouraged this gap to become larger and larger and larger...

why is that in your opinion? Businesses were there to make a profit back in 1979 as well as today, so what has caused this?

I think it has a lot to do with the revisionist history that Glenn Beck and his ilk have perpetrated on the poor dumb schmucks in Tea Party land.

That top bracket has tracked pretty exactly the rise in pay for major sports figures, entertainers and CEOs alike.. Got a problem with that?

Today's CEOs are presiding over companies that are 4 to 10X LARGER than they used to be. Caterpillar in the 70s (where that graph starts) was a Medium size business in Peoria with almost ALL American workers. Today it has 20 factories worldwide and 30 business segments. YES -- the compensation needs to go up.. Just like it did for Kobe Bryant.

We don't make basketballs anymore.. But Rawlings serves a larger world. So they reap larger profits. The moral of that story is --- become a MBA or an Industrial Designer -- not a factory worker. Jobs are changing -- manufacturing AS IT IS --- will not support a middle class.

NO MAINSTREAM POLITICIAN is telling you the truth about the future of careers in this country. It's NOT about Green Fantasies or simple tax structure. All of you are being manipulated by the 2 parties and THEIR special interest in gaining power.

Most people don't have a problem with what sports figures or Hollywood notables make because it's obvious what these people bring to the table. Contrast that with upper management in most large corporations. It's generally a fraternity of greedy cronies whose philosophy of success is I'll scratch your back if you'll scratch mine.

 

[Steelplate]

Sorry guys.

Your Atlas Shrugged wet dream isn't going to happen, no matter how many hyperbolic op-eds you can find.

And your 'Let's Be Europe' ain't gonna happen either. No matter how many hyperbolic op-eds you can find.

See, works both ways. When y'all (left and right) get that through those dense heads of yours, the country - the one we all claim to care about - will be better off.

Who? But the most leftist of the Dems have been saying "let's be Europe"? The only thing most of us have been saying is this....EVERY one of our global competitors do not force the workforce to pay for their healthcare...which puts their businesses at a significant advantage over us...our global competitors also help their citizenry with education. They also have no problem with investing in their infrastructure.

Not one of us is saying that these things need to be implemented wholesale and immediately. But if we want to compete with the rest of the world, we need to get on the ball. Lastly...the American people buy up most if the shit that the world produces...we need to pay our workforce at the level that will sustain the gravy train.

That's all anyone is saying.

 

[Moonglow]

Question If you owned an insurance would you give insurance coverage to someone you knew was already sick and never gave any money for the coverage?

That's exactly why the individual mandate is essential if we are going to be stuck with the private insurance health care law Obama signed.

So you would take the lose out of your pocket to pay for someone who was already sick? I DON'T FUCKING BELIEVE THAT LIE NOT FOR ONE FUCKING SECOND.

We already are.

 

[Moonglow]

Sorry guys.

Your Atlas Shrugged wet dream isn't going to happen, no matter how many hyperbolic op-eds you can find.

And your 'Let's Be Europe' ain't gonna happen either. No matter how many hyperbolic op-eds you can find.

See, works both ways. When y'all (left and right) get that through those dense heads of yours, the country - the one we all claim to care about - will be better off.

Who? But the most leftist of the Dems have been saying "let's be Europe"? The only thing most of us have been saying is this....EVERY one of our global competitors do not force the workforce to pay for their healthcare...which puts their businesses at a significant advantage over us...our global competitors also help their citizenry with education. They also have no problem with investing in their infrastructure.

Not one of us is saying that these things need to be implemented wholesale and immediately. But if we want to compete with the rest of the world, we need to get on the ball. Lastly...the American people buy up most if the shit that the world produces...we need to pay our workforce at the level that will sustain the gravy train.

That's all anyone is saying.

No, many countries give healthcare to protect the citizens and make for better workers.
If you work for Mittens you will not be given insurance by his companies.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

That's exactly why the individual mandate is essential if we are going to be stuck with the private insurance health care law Obama signed.

So you would take the lose out of your pocket to pay for someone who was already sick? I DON'T FUCKING BELIEVE THAT LIE NOT FOR ONE FUCKING SECOND.

We already are.

No we aren't most people take care of their own coverage or bills.

 

[Cowman]

Taxes pay for things you don't always want them to go towards.

Welcome to civilization.

 

[Steelplate]

I realize your need to defend one of your own. But what the fuck is a patriot? Everybody calls themselves one, but do patriots allow someone to fundamentally change the country?

Oh...you mean like you guys? Trying to undo programs that have been in older for damn near a century? For trying to turn the clock back to the robber-baron days that were the norm before the FIRST great depression?

Yeah...a true patriot would not want to revisit those days.

Blah blah blah blah
WTF The way your president is taking this country will start a war. Every true patriot will stand up and stop the tyranny or your president just like they stopped the tyranny of King George.

The only tyranny in this country comes from the conglomerate. The rest is in your Dick, AM radio twisted mind. Only a tyranny would say...you don't like our rules? Fuck you...we'll move our shit to China. Good luck in your poverty.

Go fuck yourself in your fake patriotism....it ain't selling with me.

 

[Steelplate]

So you would take the lose out of your pocket to pay for someone who was already sick? I DON'T FUCKING BELIEVE THAT LIE NOT FOR ONE FUCKING SECOND.

We already are.

No we aren't most people take care of their own coverage or bills.

Really? Where the fuck have you been? Our excessively unsustainable insurance premiums have been due to uninsured assholes milking the system by getting "free" health care in Emergency Rooms. 62% of all bankruptcies in this country are due to medical bills that no reasonable person can hope to pay. Guess who pays for all those unpaid bills? I'll give you a minute....

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The right deals with process and scope.....that is part of the debate (i.e. the U.S.Constitution says there is no place for health care....don't really care what John Roberts says....you can't produce anything that shows where it does....the left has never been able to do it....other than to stick their fingers in their ears and yell out General Welfare......General Welfare....General Welfare.....with no thought given to what they are saying.

Nonsense.

The doctrine of Congress’ implied powers dates back to the Foundation Era, as acknowledged by the Supreme Court in McCulloch v. Maryland (1819):

The Government of the Union, though limited in its powers, is supreme within its sphere of action, and its laws, when made in pursuance of the Constitution, form the supreme law of the land. There is nothing in the Constitution which excludes incidental or implied powers. If the end be legitimate, and within the scope of the Constitution, all the means which are appropriate and plainly adapted to that end, and which are not prohibited, may be employed to carry it into effect pursuant to the Necessary and Proper clause.

The power of establishing a corporation is not a distinct sovereign power or end of Government, but only the means of carrying into effect other powers which are sovereign. It may be exercised whenever it becomes an appropriate means of exercising any of the powers granted to the federal government under the U.S. Constitution. If a certain means to carry into effect of any of the powers expressly given by the Constitution to the Government of the Union be an appropriate measure, not prohibited by the Constitution, the degree of its necessity is a question of legislative discretion, not of judicial cognizance.

The Bank of the United States has a right to establish its branches within any state. The States have no power, by taxation or otherwise, to impede or in any manner control any of the constitutional means employed by the U.S. government to execute its powers under the Constitution. This principle does not extend to property taxes on the property of the Bank of the United States, nor to taxes on the proprietary interest which the citizens of that State may hold in this institution, in common with other property of the same description throughout the State.

McCulloch v. Maryland – Case Brief Summary

That the Constitution didn’t specifically authorize the creation of a National bank didn’t forbid its creation either, just as Congress is authorized to enact healthcare legislation; that the word ‘healthcare’ is not in the Constitution is irrelevant.

Moreover:

The Framers understood that the “general Interests of the Union” would change over time, in ways they could not anticipate. Accordingly, they recognized that the Constitution was of necessity a “great outlin[e],” not a detailed blueprint, see McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 407 (1819), and that its provisions included broad concepts, to be “explained by the context or by the facts of the case,” Letter from James Madison to N. P. Trist (Dec. 1831), in 9 Writings of James Madison 471, 475 (G. Hunt ed. 1910).“Nothing . . . can be more fallacious,” Alexander Hamilton emphasized, “than to infer the extent of any power, proper to be lodged in the national government, from . . . its immediate necessities. There ought to be a CAPACITY to provide for future contingencies[,] as they may happen; and as these are illimitable in their nature, it is impossible safely to limit that capacity.” The Federalist No. 34, pp. 205, 206 (John Harvard Library ed. 2009). See also McCulloch, 4 Wheat., at 415 (The Necessary and Proper Clause is lodged “in a constitution[,] intended to endure for ages to come, and consequently, to be adapted to the various crises of human affairs.”).

National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (2012)

Thus the Framers never intended for an ‘originalist’ or ‘literal’ understanding of the Constitution, just as Congress enjoys implied powers to address issues ‘necessary and proper,’ so too is Congress authorized to address issues not possibly anticipated by the Founding Generation, such as the need for healthcare reform.

....don't really care what John Roberts says....

That you and other extremists refuse to acknowledge the principle of judicial review renders this and similar debates pointless.

 

[Bfgrn]

So you would take the lose out of your pocket to pay for someone who was already sick? I DON'T FUCKING BELIEVE THAT LIE NOT FOR ONE FUCKING SECOND.

We already are.

No we aren't most people take care of their own coverage or bills.

Robert Moffit - The Heritage Foundation senior fellow

Let's let Robert Moffit, who was deputy director of domestic policy studies at The Heritage Foundation back in 1994 explain. Here is what conservatives said when THEY proposed the individual mandate in the leading Senate alternative to the Clinton plan.

The Taxpayer Mandate

Policy analysts at The Heritage Foundation have wrestled incessantly with. this problem, while developing a “consumer choice” plan for comprehensive health system reform, now embodied in a major legislative proposal.3 Only after extensive analysis of the peculiar distortions of the health insurance market did Heritage scholars reluctantly agree to an individual mandate.

On this point, some observations are in order. First, much of the debate over whether we should have a mandate is, in a sense, a debate over a “metaphysical abstraction.” 4 For all practical purposes, we already have a powerful and increasingly oppressive mandate: a mandate on taxpayers.

We all pay for the health care of those who do not pay, in two ways. First, people with private insurance pay through that insurance– even though that insurance is often the property of employers under current law. This reflects the ever-higher costs shifted to offset the billions of dollars of costs of uncompensated care in hospitals, clinics, and physicians’ offices. Second, if those who are uninsured get seriously ill and are forced to spend down their assets to cope with their huge medical bills, their care is paid for, not through employer-based or private insurance premiums, but through taxes, money taken by federal and state tax collectors to fund Medicaid or other public assistance programs that serve the poor or those impoverished because of a serious illness.

Hospitals also have legal obligations to accept and care for those who enter seeking assistance. No responsible public official is proposing repeal of these statutory provisions, and very few physicians, if any, are prepared to deny treatment to persons seeking their help merely because they cannot afford to pay. As taxpayers and subscribers to private health insurance, the American people pick up these bills.

Aside from current economic arrangements, the entire moral and cultural tenor of our society reinforces the taxpayer mandate. Those who are uninsured and cannot pay for their care will be cared for, and those who are insured and working will pay for that care.

So, we already have a mandate. But it is both inefficient and unfair.

3 The Consumer Choice Health Security Act. sponsored by Sen. Don Nickles (R-OK) and Rep. Cliff Steams (R-FL). The bill has twenty-four Senate cosponsors, making it the leading Senate alternative to the Clinton plan. S.M. Butler and E.F. Haislmaier, “The Consumer Choice Health Security Act (S. 1743, H.R. 3698),” Issue Bulletin no. 186 (The Heritage Foundation, December 1993).

 

[Listening]

Let's talk about what kind of country and government our founders designed.

Our founders did not design a country. And, they only designed a federal government. They did not get involved in the government of the states. However, they did provide this insight....

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. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.

The operations of the federal government will be most extensive and important in times of war and danger; those of the State governments, in times of peace and security. As the former periods will probably bear a small proportion to the latter, the State governments will here enjoy another advantage over the federal government. The more adequate, indeed, the federal powers may be rendered to the national defense, the less frequent will be those scenes of danger which might favor their ascendancy over the governments of the particular States.

as found in Federalist 45.

This is a foundational statement that you either accept or you don't. It was further backed up the inclusion of the wording:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

This amendment had a clear intention. It has been the basis for many arguments against federal overreach through the years.

Since we are talking truth (as opposed to just a dogmatic argument).....

The ninth amendment says:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Which as always been a rather vaporous concept that has not been fully explored. This amendment has hardly been utilized at all in the argument of constitutional law (based upon what I have read....but I digress).

The point is that we have a clear statement, backed by an amendment in the Bill of Rights, about what kind of government the founders intended.

Did our founding fathers create an oligarchy where only the wealthy survive?

I know of no statement to this effect. However, if this is pointed towards the decision Citizens United, it is a clear departure from the original argument.

You asked the question (I suspect) rhetorically. So I won't go into this any further.

Health care is not in the Constitution, but neither is the word corporation, for the writers had no interest in using for-profit corporations to run their new government.

Before proceeding any further. This appears to be setting the state for a fallacy.

Your first statement is correct.....Health Care is not in the constitition.

Your second statement is also correct.

Whether or not Citizens United achieves what you claim is still up for debate. For-Profit Corporations do not run our country. Our Constitutionally mandated government does. We still elect them and (in theory) hold them accountable through our votes. I am not going to get into the monster the Federal Government has become.

I am going to stick to the notion that what you are setting up here is a False Equivalence.

Even if corporations did "run the government", it would not be an argument for health care.

For the record, I thought the decision (Citizens Unites) was awful.....and wrong. I also happen to believe that government and big business are way to cuddly. But I don't equate those two other. For decades, big business and the federal government have been unholy bedfellows and I believe that situation is big contributor to our weak economy. It is not party specific (that is a claim on my part).

Constitution only mentions two entities: We the People and the government. The people are on one side of a line, and we are sovereign and have individual rights. On the other side of the line is the government, which is accountable to the people and has specific duties to perform to the satisfaction of the people. We delegate some of our power to the government in order to perform tasks we want government to do. In a representative democracy, this system should work just fine.

The term "government" can have many meanings. I vote for candidates at the federal, state, county, and municiple level. Each has a scope of specific duties which the people expect from them. The scope of duties for those elected to be federal officers is clearly defined in the United States Constitution. Up until the New Deal (very corrupt) Court, that system did work just fine. Now....

But to reiterate...."government" requires definition or identification each time it is utilized. We don't have just one government. We have many.

In the Declaration of Independence, the preface to all the documents that followed, Thomas Jefferson famously said:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

This is from the Declaration of Independence. An inspired document in my estimation. However, it is not from the U.S. Constitution.

Taken for the great statement it is, it says Governments were instituted for a specific purpose.....to secure these rights. It does not say the Federal Government was put in place to guarantee any type of outcome.

Please explain to me how 'Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness is possible without your health?

If you can be well without health, you may be happy without virtue.
Edmund Burke

And now we arrive at the argument of the left......which simply does not hold up under any kind of scrutiny.

This question can be viewed on a stand alone basis as your previous statements really are not in support of it. They are commentary (unless I misread them) on the rather twisted interpretation of the SCOTUS in Citizens United.

The job of Government is to clear the path, not populate it.

Your final question could just as easily say

Please explain to me how 'Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness is possible without food?

Please explain to me how 'Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness is possible without sunshine?

Please explain to me how 'Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness is possible without sex four times a week?

While somewhat ridiculous, they all bring into question, the role of government and what it means to provide for the pursuit of happiness.

Such an examination takes pages, so I will only offer up a few points with some help from the internet:

First, what is happiness ? With all due respect to Edmund Burke, what constitutes happiness or being well and how do you know you have arrived. The answer is obviously that you don't. Happiness and the pursuit thereof is unique to each of us. People without health care have been in the hunt for centuries, some of them being quite successful. People with access to health care have been in the hunt and have wound up in the morgue, the result of suicide. The two don't necessarily correlate. And specific examples (some of which are bizzare) don't wash.

We hear about medical bankruptcies. This is people who got care they could not afford (O.K. they got the care they needed...that wasn't the issue....they got cancer treatments, an operation...or whatever) but now they can't pay for it. So they lose their house. That is an economic or financial penalty. They got the care...but lost the house. That then becomes a Health Care issue. Which it isn't. They got the care. This could go on for days (like the average amount of bankruptcy being less than the cost of a low mileage good quality used car......).

No: This is far to reaching a claim. The following blog is a true-blue rant on the subject of health care being a right. It uses all kinds of arguments that can't possibly be reconciled against the issues it creates if you make health care a positive right and insist that others pay for it.

Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness - and Health Care?

On it's own:

It was not a right (and still isn't one....the SCOTUS decision allows you to deny yourself access to Health Care.....they simply plan to penalize you for it).

It hasn't been a right for 230 years.

If you make it a right using the logic you put forth, you open the doors to all kinds of so-called positive rights that should be evaluated as being provided by the Government.

***********************************

O.K.

Having said the above, you made no case for Health Care being in the U.S. Constitution. You said, yourself, it isn't there.

You then asked a question, trying to use some oversimplified "logic" which simply won't wash, about how it is that it shouldn't be there.

That is a different issue. The FACT is that it isn't there.

So:

No tsunami of facts and figures.

No killer argument.

No real argument to speak of.

I don't feel particularly buried.