Fire Nancy Pelosi!

Healthcare is about 1/6th of the economy according to the Republicans but attempts to regulate it at the federal level on commerce clause grounds violate the constitution. I don't see how those two ideas can be squared.
 
apple0154 said:
General welfare. What constitutes a person's general welfare? When you ask someone how they're doing are you asking how much money they made last week? If they exercised their right to free speech? If they went to church on Sunday?

Promoting the health of the nation is promoting the general welfare. Nothing is more important than a person's health. By what twisted logic could anyone conclude otherwise?
Click to expand...

The greedy, self-centered logic of the average teabagger.
 
What constitutes a person's general welfare?
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter, because the Constitution does not allow the Federal government to preside over your individual general welfare. That is a gross misunderstanding of the Constitution and what it actually says. The Constitution addresses the relationship of the Federal government to the States, so any reference to "promote the general welfare" means, to the States, not the individual. If the Federal government does something that is within the general welfare of all the states, it is constitutional, it has nothing to do with individual welfare of the citizens who reside in those states.
 
You got that right Dixie. Most people are confused about that term. Nice to see someone who isn't.

Dixie said:
It doesn't matter, because the Constitution does not allow the Federal government to preside over your individual general welfare. That is a gross misunderstanding of the Constitution and what it actually says. The Constitution addresses the relationship of the Federal government to the States, so any reference to "promote the general welfare" means, to the States, not the individual. If the Federal government does something that is within the general welfare of all the states, it is constitutional, it has nothing to do with individual welfare of the citizens who reside in those states.
Click to expand...
 
Dixie said:
It doesn't matter, because the Constitution does not allow the Federal government to preside over your individual general welfare. That is a gross misunderstanding of the Constitution and what it actually says. The Constitution addresses the relationship of the Federal government to the States, so any reference to "promote the general welfare" means, to the States, not the individual. If the Federal government does something that is within the general welfare of all the states, it is constitutional, it has nothing to do with individual welfare of the citizens who reside in those states.
Click to expand...

Huh?

Keeping the citizens healthy has to be a benefit to the States. How can it not be?
 
cawacko said:
Then why are many states suing over it?
Click to expand...

Special interests and greedy people.

Countries with universal medical save money. Not only money on actual medical costs but they gain by having healthier, happier citizens.

Once the benefits are seen countries never switch back and that will happen here. It just takes time.
 
apple0154 said:
Special interests and greedy people.

Countries with universal medical save money. Not only money on actual medical costs but they gain by having healthier, happier citizens.

Once the benefits are seen countries never switch back and that will happen here. It just takes time.
Click to expand...

What special interests would those be?

And what greedy people? If the states are going to get this great benefit and save all this money how could anyone oppose it?
 
cawacko said:
What special interests would those be?

And what greedy people? If the states are going to get this great benefit and save all this money how could anyone oppose it?
Click to expand...

The same way some people oppose raising the minimum wage.

A person's wealth is determined by those around him. The less others have the wealthier they are.

The people who contribute, either on or under the table, to political folks are usually business owners and the poorer the general population is the greater the chance of getting employees who work and shut their mouth. LOL
 
apple0154 said:
The same way some people oppose raising the minimum wage.

A person's wealth is determined by those around him. The less others have the wealthier they are.

The people who contribute, either on or under the table, to political folks are usually business owners and the poorer the general population is the greater the chance of getting employees who work and shut their mouth. LOL
Click to expand...

The attorney general of each state is who files the law suit against the health care bill. The attorney general has nothing to do with the raising of the minimum wage that is the legislature. Not sure where you are going trying to compare those two.
 
NigelTufnel said:
Healthcare is about 1/6th of the economy according to the Republicans but attempts to regulate it at the federal level on commerce clause grounds violate the constitution. I don't see how those two ideas can be squared.
Click to expand...

They don't...it's part of the die-hard neocon ideology that essentially enters the "twilight zone". It's like when they wail about infringement of private enterprise preventing this reform bill from being Constitutional...yet they shut their yaps and slink away when you point out that the health insurance companies enjoy an exemption from the anti-trust laws. Go figure.
 
Damocles said:
Yup. This will work with a few, but IMO the Rs best chance is to create something more like the "Contract With America" that underlines passing a strong Balanced Budget Amendment to be ratified by states, a "Sunshine Law" that makes it so this "sausage factory" politics behind closed doors ends, clarifying that support for wars will be with declarations... These things would be the majority of what got them there. While some will be motivated by "Fire Nancy" more will come for the actual fiscal conservatism and opening government.
Click to expand...
Given it's history, I would throw in getting rid of the filibuster in the Senate.
 
apple0154 said:
General welfare. What constitutes a person's general welfare? When you ask someone how they're doing are you asking how much money they made last week? If they exercised their right to free speech? If they went to church on Sunday?

Promoting the health of the nation is promoting the general welfare. Nothing is more important than a person's health. By what twisted logic could anyone conclude otherwise?
Click to expand...
Just wait. If you want to see twisted logic....Dixie will oblige!
 
cawacko said:
lowering people's taxes was the most devestating legislation in the last 200 years? wow.
Click to expand...
I was just being a smart ass. PiMP's comment was asinine. The track record and the mountains of evidence that have proven the efficacy of these reforms are so self evidently apparent that only the blindest of partisans or a person completely and totally clueless about the complexity of health care reform could make what can only generously be called a staggeringly ignorant comment.

This legislation was long over due and it doesn't go far enough and that will become all to apparent as time goes by.

Keep in mind that the same people who oppose this legislation were the same people who supported the grossly irresponsible Bush tax cuts and the immoral war in Iraq. The point being, that people like PiMP and Dixe and Dano who ideologically driven and have been wrong on virtually every issue they support have no credibility. None, zilch, nada. They just simply don't know what they are talking about.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top