Healthcare Models

Mott the Hoople said:
It's a strawman. The US constitution makes absolutely no provisions about mandating universal public education but we have done so. Are you suggesting that this is unconstitutional and that we should abandon universal public education?
Click to expand...
At the federal level, yes. If its that important to you then pass an amendment. :pke:
 
Southern Man said:
Thanks for again showing us that you don't have a fucking clue that Government derives its powers solely from the governed, not the other way around. :pke:
Click to expand...
and thank you for not answering the question by reverting to some lame and irrelevent rehtoric. Please answer my question. I can answer your question. Universal Health Care is not authorized specifically by the US Constitution. Neither is universal public education but more importantly neither one is prohibited by the US Constitution.

Please show me where the US Constitution prohibits either universal health care or universal education?
 
Southern Man said:
At the federal level, yes. If its that important to you then pass an amendment. :pke:
Click to expand...
Like hell. Alls Congress has to do is pass a law and the President of the United States can sign that law into force. Then the courts have the right to review that law to determine its constitutionality. You're assertion that a constitutional ammendment is required is blatantly absurd.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
and thank you for not answering the question by reverting to some lame and irrelevent rehtoric. Please answer my question. I can answer your question. Universal Health Care is not authorized specifically by the US Constitution. Neither is universal public education but more importantly neither one is prohibited by the US Constitution.

Please show me where the US Constitution prohibits either universal health care or universal education?
Click to expand...

We the People of the United States... do ordain and establish this
Constitution for the United States of America.
Click to expand...

The People have only authorized what the Government can do, not what it can not do. What part of that don't you understand?
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Like hell. Alls Congress has to do is pass a law and the President of the United States can sign that law into force. Then the courts have the right to review that law to determine its constitutionality. You're assertion that a constitutional ammendment is required is blatantly absurd.
Click to expand...

The SCOTUS has failed in its duty. Since FDR flooded the court with liberals they have routinely let Congress do whatever the hell pleases it.
 
Southern Man said:
The People have only authorized what the Government can do, not what it can not do. What part of that don't you understand?
Click to expand...
So your telling me that all the laws passed in the history of this nation are not valid because they were not specified specifically by the US Constitution or the US Constitution was not ammended to specify them? You have either not read the US Constitution or you are smoking something funny. :pke:
 
Southern Man said:
The SCOTUS has failed in its duty. Since FDR flooded the court with liberals they have routinely let Congress do whatever the hell pleases it.
Click to expand...
Oh that's a crock. The SCOTUS has had a conservative majority since Nixon (that's over 40 years!). You're making a completely bogus claim about the judicial branch of government.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
So your telling me that all the laws passed in the history of this nation are not valid because they were not specified specifically by the US Constitution or the US Constitution was not ammended to specify them? You have either not read the US Constitution or you are smoking something funny. :pke:
Click to expand...
Not all laws, nice straw man attempt. Its obviously you that hasn't read the Constitution. Where is, say, Social Security authorized in the Constitution?
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Oh that's a crock. The SCOTUS has had a conservative majority since Nixon (that's over 40 years!). You're making a completely bogus claim about the judicial branch of government.
Click to expand...

Prior to FDR the Court had five members; FDR filled it with nine. That courts rulings then became precedent for later courts. And today, many jurists give precedence equal or greater weight than original intent, which is itself bullshit.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
I'd prefer the French or the Taiwan system. There more costly (about 10% of GDP) but they do achieve higher results with a more flexible private market segment but the Japanese system is certainly superior to ours. They are also superior at implementing modern IT technology in health care.
Click to expand...
Well, the Japanese utilize the private system more effectively and have emphasis on new technology. I don't like the French system because it often effectively lowers the levels of technology available for your care. I'd have to research more of the Taiwan system, I don't know much about theirs.

I very much dislike the Canadian system, like the Premiere they'd all come here if they could afford it.
 
Southern Man said:
Prior to FDR the Court had five members; FDR filled it with nine. That courts rulings then became precedent for later courts. And today, many jurists give precedence equal or greater weight than original intent, which is itself bullshit.
Click to expand...


FDR's wheelchair was apparently a time-machine.
 
Did someone say Healthcare Models?


NaughtyNurse.jpg


18611.jpg
 
Southern Man said:
Prior to FDR the Court had five members; FDR filled it with nine. That courts rulings then became precedent for later courts. And today, many jurists give precedence equal or greater weight than original intent, which is itself bullshit.
Click to expand...

The supreme court had nine members during FDR's term. He was never successful at his court packing scheme (which would have actually brought the number of members to 15), and the court packing scheme effectively made him a lame duck, only able to wave the flag during WWII and not much else.
 
Southern Man said:
I see you're here for your weekly thrashing, Liberal, so I'll ax you the same question that I ax'd Mott. Where is, say, Social Security authorized in the Constitution? :pke:
Click to expand...

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises....to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;"
 
TheKingOfCarrotFlowers said:
"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises....to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;"
Click to expand...

"[G]eneral Welfare of the United States..." How does that give the Government authority to provide welfare to the People, or to individual States? :)
 
Southern Man said:
Prior to FDR the Court had five members; FDR filled it with nine. That courts rulings then became precedent for later courts. And today, many jurists give precedence equal or greater weight than original intent, which is itself bullshit.
Click to expand...
The Southern Man was technically wrong, yet ideologically correct;

How many justices are on the US Supreme Court?

The Supreme Court of the United States has nine justices. There is one Chief Justice and eight Associate Justices.

The Judiciary Act of 1789 provided for a 6-member Court, with a Chief Justice and 5 Associate Justices. Congress adjusted the size of the Court a number of times through the during the 19th-century.

1. Judiciary Act of 1801: Court size, 5
2. Repeal Act of 1802: Court size, 6
3. Judiciary Act of 1807: Court size, 7
4. Judiciary Act of 1837: Court size, 9
5. Judiciary Act of 1863: Court size, 10
6. Judiciary Act of 1866: Court size, 7
7. Judiciary Act of 1867: Court size, 8
8. Judiciary Act of 1869: Court size, 9


After the election of President Ulysses S. Grant, Congress passed the Judiciary Act of 1869, which set the Court's membership at nine. This number has remained the same ever since.

In 1937, Franklin D. Roosevelt attempted unsuccessfully to expand the membership of the court to gain support on the Court for his New Deal programs. He proposed adding one justice to the Supreme Court for every member over 70.5 years of age, with the potential of adding as many as six additional justices, for a total of 15. Congress refused to pass Roosevelt's legislation; however, the President had an opportunity to nominate eight justices* to vacancies that occurred during his terms of office, which created a court more receptive to his ideas.


* Franklin D. Roosevelt appointed more Supreme Court Justices, at 8, than any other President, with the exception of George Washington, who appointed a total of 10.
Click to expand...

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_justices_are_on_the_US_Supreme_Court
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top