Yep
Constitutional Tender Act
- Thread starter Centinel
- Start date
Yep
G
Guns Guns Guns
Guest
Maybe you should secede. Look into it.
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
Just so you're aware; the person you're exchanging comments with, is a Kanadian and believes that the US should adopt Kanada's failing system.
Centinel
Tenther
Thank you for the heads up.
apple0154
MEOW
Failing system? Not bad for a government plan that has been in force for over 40 years.
15 years ago I spend 6 weeks in hospital (3 weeks in intensive care) and another 6 weeks in a rehab facility due to an auto accident. Total cost: $0.00. I now see my family doctor every six months. Total cost: $0.00. Once a year a complete physical with accompanying blood tests. Total cost: $0.00.
Monthly premium (mandate): $0.00
Do a little research. There is not one country that has reverted to a "pay or suffer" system once adopting a government plan. There is not one country proposing to revert. There is not one politician of any importance in any country with a government plan suggesting dismantling their plan.
Opponents of government health can't show one example where the citizens of a country with a government plan desire a return to a "pay or suffer" system. Not one example.
Talk of death panels, bankrupt plans, no doctors available, lousy service.....yet not one country has or is dismantling their plan. Do you think that maybe all that talk could be BS?
icedancer2theend
Verified User
Article I, Section 8, Clause 5: The Congress shall have Power…To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures. By regulating values congress creates a likelihood of credit. Trade deficits; interstate commerce; etc. These means of trade and distribution create a necessary need for credit. There is not enough gold, to manage a 2 trillion, let alone 13 trillion dollar economy.
apple0154
MEOW
You make it sound like the Preamble was nothing more than a stump speech. "Promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty" just political rhetoric?
It seems the Founding Fathers went to a lot of work to create a Presidency and Congress and Supreme Court if it was their intention to play a minor role in the lives of the citizens.
icedancer2theend
Verified User
Promoting general welfare does not mean to hand out free money and goods. It means, in context of it's full statement, to provide a stable and safe nation so that people can prosper.
Centinel
Tenther
In the language of the day, the term "regulate the value" referred to the process of determining the amount and fineness of silver or gold contained in the coins. Notice that this clause is in the weights and measures section. The it gives congress the power to coin silver and gold of various values, meaning containing particular amounts of gold and silver.
I'm not sure you mean when you say, "By regulating values congress creates a likelihood of credit." Maybe you can explain further.
Also, how much gold would be sufficient, in your opinion, to manage a 13 trillion dollar economy?
Centinel
Tenther
No, the preamble was not just a stump speech. It was an introductory statement that outlines the reasons for the constitution.
And yes they did go to a lot of trouble. This was a huge deal. Huge. The sovereign countries of America were creating a federation and they were giving it the power to tax their own citizens, after they had just fought a revolution over taxes.
Yes, the powers of the federation where extremely limited, but this was a very big deal, and almost died on the vine, since patriots like Patrick Henry came out against it. Many assurances had to be given that the union would ONLY have the powers delegated and would not infringe on the sovereignty of the member countries.
For a comparison, imagine us allowing the UN to tax American citizens, even if the tax was only supposed to go for one narrow purpose, such as raising an army. It would be a HUGE deal.
icedancer2theend
Verified User
Did you know that colonial notes were "bills of credit"? They were used in our colonies before the revolution. Regulating value implies a control. There is no way to trade without credit- both extending it and having it extended to us.
I do not see how we can return to a gold standard, because there is not enough gold to cover the amount of money that runs our economy.
apple0154
MEOW
While no one is suggesting handing out free money the words "promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty" imply an active role. Whether ensuring food is safe to eat or requiring a prescription for certain drugs the role of the Federal Government is more than simply defense and trade.
It seems some folks look at the States/Federal Government as one may view the European Union, more of an association between countries as opposed to an actual government but the Preamble, "the Founding Fathers' intentions regarding the Constitution's meaning and what they hoped the Constitution would achieve" is written on a personal level. Who else but an individual can experience the blessings of liberty?
Even the most basic reading/understanding of the role of the Federal Government is, as you wrote, "so that people can prosper". The primary concern of the Federal Government was/is the citizen. It's incomprehensible for one to suggest that if/when the Federal Government has the ability to save thousands of citizen's lives it should stand aside and do nothing.
icedancer2theend
Verified User
Keeping a nation stable and safe is the role of government in the US- in that way they secure (defend) our liberty (freedom) and promote (encourage) our welfare (prosperity). Taking our money via taxes and giving it to causes and persons it deems worthy is not their role.
apple0154
MEOW
Perhaps this helps clarify my position.
(Excerpt) Legal Tender Cases, 79 U.S. (12 Wall.) 457, 545 (1871) ("The Constitution was intended to frame a government as distinguished from a league or compact, a government supreme in some particulars over States and people."); id. at 554–55 (Bradley, J., concurring) ("The Constitution of the United States established a government, and not a league, compact, or partnership. It was constituted by the people. It is called a government.").
The phrase "to form a more perfect Union" has been construed as referring to the shift to the Constitution from the Articles of Confederation.[69] In this transition, the "Union" was made "more perfect" by the creation of a federal government with enough power to act directly upon citizens, rather than a government with narrowly limited power that could act on citizens (e.g., by imposing taxes) only indirectly through the states.[70] Although the Preamble speaks of perfecting the "Union," and the country is called the "United States of America," the Supreme Court has interpreted the institution created as a government over the people, not an agreement between the States.[71] The phrase has also been interpreted to confirm that state nullification of any federal law,[72] dissolution of the Union,[73] or secession from it,[74] are not contemplated by the Constitution.
the Preamble has been interpreted as meaning that the Constitution was not the act of sovereign and independent states.[51] In short, although in some ways the meaning and implications of the Preamble may be contested, at the least it can be said that the Preamble demonstrates that the federal government of the United States was not created as an agreement between or coalition of the states. Instead, it was the product of "the People" with the power to govern the People directly, unlike the government under the Articles of Confederation, which only governed the People indirectly through rules imposed on the states. (End)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preamble_to_the_United_States_Constitution
The Constitution was an "agreement by the people", not an agreement between States. At least that's how it's interpreted by the courts giving the Federal Government the power to directly govern people. My point is if the Federal Government is a "government" then surely it's reasonable to conclude it has the right to protect the lives of citizens.
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
Health system failing elderly and chronically ill, says report
Cancelled surgeries. Patients who need hospital care but who can't get it. Families forced to sell their homes to pay for an autistic child's treatment.
In person and online, thousands of Canadians who participated in a nationwide consultation over the past year say the country's health system is faltering badly and that more needs to be done to deliver care when and where it's needed.
The nation's "once proud" health system is fundamentally fractured and failing — especially for vulnerable groups such as children, the elderly, aboriginal peoples and those with mental illness — says a new report from the Canadian Medical Association.
The "Voices Into Action" document summarizes what the country's largest doctors' group heard from nearly 1,500 Canadians who attended six standing-room-only public town halls, in Halifax, Toronto, Edmonton, Vancouver, La Prairie, Que. (the south shore of Montreal) and Ottawa, as well as more than 4,000 online comments.
"Without a doubt concerns about our health care system run deep," says the report. "We heard that there is a 'moral imperative' to fix the system, but that our biggest adversary is apathy."
Canadians spoke about long wait times, the high cost of prescription drugs, patients languishing on hospital wards who need care in long-term facilities, doctors offering next-day surgery in a private clinic for $2,000 rather than have the patient wait a year or two to do so in hospital, and the need to spend less money on administration and more on front-line workers and services.
"Normally people just automatically say: 'Just give us more money.' That didn't happen," said CMA president Dr. Jeff Turnbull, chief of staff at The Ottawa Hospital.
"They said we need value for money, we need management, we need better delivery systems so that we're accountable for health care."
Turnbull said he was struck by the strong and clear support for a publicly funded health system. "They recognized it was failing them, but universally everyone we spoke to said this health care system is important to us, we believe in it and we think that it can be fixed," said Turnbull.
But he also heard tragic, "real-life" stories of a system consistently failing patients.
"We heard of people who waited inordinately long — and their health suffered as a result of that — to get meaningful, thoughtful services," Turnbull said.
"Long waits in emergency departments, cancelled surgeries — we heard that right across the country. We heard of not being able to access a primary-care physician, right across the country.
"We heard about people surprised that they had to pay for long-term care or home-based care. We heard passionate responses from patients saying, 'My son has autism. This is a medical disorder but I can't pay for that.' People saying that, 'I can't afford medications that would cure my illness.'
"I just can't conceive of that in Canada. It's not the health-care system I want to work in."
One woman in Halifax who was caring for someone dying from pancreatic cancer talked about the "insane amounts of time" she spent waiting to meet with health care providers. Another woman in Edmonton told how her husband, who died 18 months ago, "did not die a death with dignity." She couldn't take him home when he begged her to because she couldn't look after him at home, alone.
"With the population aging there is an urgent need to build a system of home-based care to provide families with the support they need to allow patients to get the best care they can at home," the report says.
Many said the Canada Health Act, which covers only doctor and hospital care, should be broadened in scope to include home care as well as a national prescription drug plan.
Others spoke about the need to address access to affordable housing, food and other conditions that determine health. At the town hall in Toronto, one audience member told of a woman admitted to Toronto General Hospital with an abdominal blockage so severe she needed radical surgery. The woman was on welfare; all she could afford to eat was white rice.
"It cost more to perform that operation than it would have cost to feed (her) good nutritious vegetables for 20 years."
The report says the system is good at providing acute, or short-term care immediately after an illness or injury — what one participant called "Humpty Dumpty medicine." Where it fails, participants said, is in providing care to the elderly and others with chronic, long-term illnesses.
Dr. Chris Simpson is chair of the Wait Time Alliance, an association of medical societies lobbying for more efficient health services. He said the report builds on a growing consensus that patients need to be put first.
"It's not just about a wait time for a single test or procedure — it's about a whole patient journey," said Simpson, professor and head of the division of cardiology at Queen's University in Kingston, Ont.
Take a patient having bypass surgery. "We measure and report how long it takes to wait to get bypass surgery. What we don't take into consideration is how long did it take for them to come to attention in the first place? Did they have a family doctor? Did they have to come to the emergency room? Did they wait in the emergency room? How many tests did they have to have and how long did they wait for those?
"People want to know, 'What's going on, how much does it cost and why can't we do any better?'"
The doctors' group is hoping to get the attention of the federal and provincial governments as it heads into its 144th annual meeting in St. John's Aug. 21-24. This year's meeting will be dominated by discussions on the federal-provincial health-accord, due to expire in 2014.
"Everybody has to come to the table," Turnbull said. People want to see "action, they want to see change in the way we deliver services and where we deliver services and how we do that. And they want some leadership."
Canada's premiers and doctors are looking to secure a new long-term health transfer deal from the federal government. In June, the Harper government pledged continual six-per-cent increases in federal health care transfers to the provinces.
Centinel
Tenther
Under our constitution, both the state and the federal government are prohibited from issuing bills of credit, the states due to an explicit prohibition and the union due to the lack of delegated power to do so. In fact, during the constitutional convention it was suggested that the power to emit bills of credit be given to the US, and many delegates freaked out. The issue was dropped, and the US never was delegated the power to emit bills of credit.
Could you further explain how "regulating value implies credit"? Credit can be provided by anyone with the funds to lend. All congress is empowered to do is to create coins of various metal content. It is not authorized to issue bills of credit (paper notes).
How much gold currently exists, and how much gold would be necessary?
Centinel
Tenther
Yes, I am aware that after the civil war the federal government decided that it was not created by the states. I am certainly not surprised by this.
However, in the ratification declarations of both Virginia and New York, they explicitly say they are accepting the constitution on behalf of their people and that they could resume the powers they were delegating whenever it shall become necessary for their happiness.
Regardless, the general welfare clause was noted by those opposed to the constitution, and the constitutions proponents gave assurances that it was not a general grant of power. This was the understanding under which the people of the states accepted the document.
apple0154
MEOW
There's all sorts of good stuff at the link you posted!
Canadian health system more efficient than U.S.:
The Canadian health-care system may be plagued by countless stories of lengthy wait times and crowded emergency rooms, but a new study shows the amount of time and money spent on administrative duties is a fraction of that required by the U.S. system.
The study from the University of Toronto and New York's Cornell University says U.S. doctors pay an average of nearly $83,000 each for administrative costs associated with insurance documents. In Canada, for doctors based in Ontario that cost is significantly less at just over $22,200.
http://www.canada.com/health/Canadian+health+system+more+efficient+than+Study/5207591/story.html
Canadians can expect to live longer than Americans:
Canadians can expect to live longer than their U.S. counterparts, despite the fact that both were once nations of heavy smokers, and currently have high levels of obesity, new research shows.
Still, since 1980, the growth in average life expectancy in the U.S. has lagged behind other western countries, such as Canada, Japan and France, the study said.
http://www.canada.com/health/Canadians+expect+live+longer+than+Americans+Study/4164058/story.html
U.S. longevity rates rising more slowly than Canada:
NEW YORK — Poor health care is responsible for a slower rise in longevity for people in the United States than those in Canada and 11 other developed countries with universal coverage, U.S. researchers said Thursday.
http://www.canada.com/health/longev...+slowly+than+Canada+others/3643132/story.html
A health care system that is more efficient (economical) AND results in a longer life expectancy. When it comes to health care what else is there to discuss?
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
There's all sorts of good stuff at the link you posted!
Canadian health system more efficient than U.S.:
The Canadian health-care system may be plagued by countless stories of lengthy wait times and crowded emergency rooms, but a new study shows the amount of time and money spent on administrative duties is a fraction of that required by the U.S. system.
The study from the University of Toronto and New York's Cornell University says U.S. doctors pay an average of nearly $83,000 each for administrative costs associated with insurance documents. In Canada, for doctors based in Ontario that cost is significantly less at just over $22,200.
http://www.canada.com/health/Canadian+health+system+more+efficient+than+Study/5207591/story.html
Canadians can expect to live longer than Americans:
Canadians can expect to live longer than their U.S. counterparts, despite the fact that both were once nations of heavy smokers, and currently have high levels of obesity, new research shows.
Still, since 1980, the growth in average life expectancy in the U.S. has lagged behind other western countries, such as Canada, Japan and France, the study said.
http://www.canada.com/health/Canadians+expect+live+longer+than+Americans+Study/4164058/story.html
U.S. longevity rates rising more slowly than Canada:
NEW YORK — Poor health care is responsible for a slower rise in longevity for people in the United States than those in Canada and 11 other developed countries with universal coverage, U.S. researchers said Thursday.
http://www.canada.com/health/longev...+slowly+than+Canada+others/3643132/story.html
A health care system that is more efficient (economical) AND results in a longer life expectancy. When it comes to health care what else is there to discuss?
But your proclamation doesn't seem to be shared by everyone in Kanada, so why is that; or do you find it OK that homes have to be sold, or that the solution seems to be to throw more money at it?
icedancer2theend
Verified User
I am not sure how much gold currently exists- But it would all have to be held by specific entities in order to have guarantees and it would have to be enough to run current economies.
I did not articulate my argument well, regarding implied credit. Congress having the power to regulate value and set trade policy can extend credit and have credit, extended to them, via the Federal Reserve. I understand that this has created bottomless pit of potentially valueless debt and no security for savings... But I see no way to return to a gold standard with a 14 trillion dollar economy?