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

[Spare_change]

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.

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

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.

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

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

What health care plan does the right wing have?

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.

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

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.

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

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

What health care plan does the right wing have?

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]

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

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.

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

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

What health care plan does the right wing have?

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

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.

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

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

What health care plan does the right wing have?

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.

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]

The answer is still no to the OP.

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

 

[danielpalos]

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

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.

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

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

What health care plan does the right wing have?

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

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.

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

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

What health care plan does the right wing have?

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.

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]

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]

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.

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

 

[dblack]

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.

Nope; providing for the general welfare covers it.

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

 

[danielpalos]

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.

Nope; providing for the general welfare covers it.

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

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

 

[MadChemist]

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.

Nope; providing for the general welfare covers it.

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

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

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]

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.

Nope; providing for the general welfare covers it.

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

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

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.

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

 

[MadChemist]

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

Nope; providing for the general welfare covers it.

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

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

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.

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

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

I said, no effort to cover EVERYONE.

 

[danielpalos]

Nope; providing for the general welfare covers it.

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

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

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.

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

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

I said, no effort to cover EVERYONE.

Until recently.

 

[MadChemist]

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

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

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.

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

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

I said, no effort to cover EVERYONE.

Until recently.

No.

Obamacare never ever claimed to try to cover everyone.

It was openly acknowledged that it would not.

 

[danielpalos]

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

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.

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

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

I said, no effort to cover EVERYONE.

Until recently.

No.

Obamacare never ever claimed to try to cover everyone.

It was openly acknowledged that it would not.

Who would not be covered?

 

[MadChemist]

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.

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

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

I said, no effort to cover EVERYONE.

Until recently.

No.

Obamacare never ever claimed to try to cover everyone.

It was openly acknowledged that it would not.

Who would not be covered?

Are you saying you thought everyone would be covered ?

 

[danielpalos]

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

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

I said, no effort to cover EVERYONE.

Until recently.

No.

Obamacare never ever claimed to try to cover everyone.

It was openly acknowledged that it would not.

Who would not be covered?

Are you saying you thought everyone would be covered ?

Eventually. How many people need drug war coverage.

 

[MadChemist]

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

I said, no effort to cover EVERYONE.

Until recently.

No.

Obamacare never ever claimed to try to cover everyone.

It was openly acknowledged that it would not.

Who would not be covered?

Are you saying you thought everyone would be covered ?

Eventually. How many people need drug war coverage.

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]

Until recently.

No.

Obamacare never ever claimed to try to cover everyone.

It was openly acknowledged that it would not.

Who would not be covered?

Are you saying you thought everyone would be covered ?

Eventually. How many people need drug war coverage.

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.

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

 

[dblack]

No.

Obamacare never ever claimed to try to cover everyone.

It was openly acknowledged that it would not.

Who would not be covered?

Are you saying you thought everyone would be covered ?

Eventually. How many people need drug war coverage.

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.

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

Why indeed.

 

[MadChemist]

No.

Obamacare never ever claimed to try to cover everyone.

It was openly acknowledged that it would not.

Who would not be covered?

Are you saying you thought everyone would be covered ?

Eventually. How many people need drug war coverage.

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.

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

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.