Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
By doing their job? That’s crazy talk.
I Agree With The Founders About Healthcare
- Thread starter Robo
- Start date
Well, both NY and MA are maker states that contribute more to the Treasury than they receive.
If you wanted to be resentful of states (and not sure why, other than to just be an asshole), then the states you should be resentful of are the Taker states like Alaska, Oklahoma, Georgia, South Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky, Idaho, Iowa, North Dakota, Arizona, South Dakota, Alabama, Mississippi, Missouri, Arkansas, West Virginia, Indiana, Ohio, and Kansas. All those states take more than they contribute and are the people the Maker states subsidize.
Boris The Animal
It's Just Boris!
Ahh that myth again. Have you ever considered they are also the most business unfriendly states because of ultra high confiscatory taxation?
Without the generosity of the Maker States, all the red states would have to raise their taxes and/or cur essential services in order to close the budget gaps that come from their tax cuts.
Kansas just went through that very thing last year. They repealed their Conservative Tax Cuts because they were blowing giant holes in their budgets and there wasn't enough welfare from the block grant to paper over those deficits.
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
Oh lighten up Gomer. So he gave you a shot to the face. Hell son you take more shots to the face than Mike Tyson or Jenna Jameson. You should be used to it. LOL
Old Trapper
Verified User
So, the Courts did not extend the definition of "person" in Citizens United? Find a "right to privacy" in Roe v Wade that did not exist previous to that? How bout the Kelos ruling where the definition of "public use" was changed? Wna ore examples? They date back to Marbury v Madison in 1803. In todays world ignorance reigns supreme.
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
I don’t know. What does this have to do with my criticism of Robo’s anachronism? A false one too.
Robo
Verified User
I think you're shooting from the hip here. I think most every health insurance policy is portable. I had and still have healthcare through my employer and my job required me to travel into many states and my insurance was valid coverage everywhere I went in the United States. Tell me why if you can a state health insurance system could not be valid everywhere in America and what would make it cost prohibitive.
My assertion was and is simply that an insurance plan that didn't cover you wherever you were at least in the United States would be worthless or as I said worth maybe a dollar.
It makes a difference to me what my healthcare insurance cost and what it covers and how well it's delivered. The "WHO" pays the provider thing is directly connected to "cost," "coverage" and delivery. I don't happen to believe federal government insurance is now or ever will be cost effective, provide just the coverage I personally need or I will receive acceptable delivery of healthcare from a federal government system.
Robo
Verified User
Well friend I think the nonsense is the fact that you haven't explained "HOW" I've made a case for single payer.
Robo
Verified User
Here's what Madison and Jefferson had to say about the general welfare clause. They both noted that if the general welfare clause is what you believe it is, the rest of the Constitution would be null and void, trumped by the general welfare clause. The very notion of that is absurd!@
“If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress…. Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America.” (James Madison)
To lay taxes to provide for the general welfare of the United States, that is to say, “to lay taxes for the purpose of providing for the general welfare.” For the laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union. In like manner, they are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase, not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please, which might be for the good of the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless.
1. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and, as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please. (Thomas Jefferson)
Robo
Verified User
The legal standing behind what you call"crackerjack" positions, is none the less the Constitution of these United States. It's you that need explain why if the general welfare clause is the authority you think it is, that anything else in the Constitution has any standing of value at all. Congress can simply trump anything in the Constitution with the general welfare clause. Think about it friend.
HERE! Again Madison and Jefferson will explain it to you. Our federal government and the courts have been subverting and violating the Constitution since beforte the ink was dry on it.
“If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress…. Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America.” (James Madison)
To lay taxes to provide for the general welfare of the United States, that is to say, “to lay taxes for the purpose of providing for the general welfare.” For the laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union. In like manner, they are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase, not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please, which might be for the good of the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless.
1. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and, as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please. (Thomas Jefferson)
That's because you don't understand, on a fundamental level, what health insurance is, what insurance companies do, and how any of it relates to your actual health care.
Fundamentally, your brain is simply unable to comprehend the concept of health insurance. The wiring in your brain is all fucked up.
The reason it doesn't work on a state level is because of out-of-state workers and providers. You need the entire nation to be in the same insurance pool in order for it to work.[/QUOTE]
Robo
Verified User
You fail to recognize that great Democrat Tip O'Neal once said "All politics is local." What you "CAN" do and what folks actually "DO" is oh so often two different animals. The people of every state are more likely to pay attention to their local representatives in their state houses because they automatically pay more attention to "STATE" law because it affects them quickly and more effectively and sooner than midnight passed laws in the U.S. Congress. They're more likely to actually know who their local representatives are and how they vote in a more local government setting and therefore those politicians are held more responsible than some congress critter sitting in Congeress in D.C..
Robo
Verified User
It might not be an excuse, but it's "REALITY."
Robo
Verified User
Where your argument for single payer fails is the fact the "THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT" is the negotiator. When was the last time you ever saw the feds make a deal for anything that ended up costing "LESS?" The nation doesn't have a 21 trillion dollar debt because the feds are saving you money. The federal government is the very last place I want to invest my money. If you think single payer is so great, take a good look at the VA system. That's single payer, it's always broke, vets are dying on waiting list and now the President just had to sign an Executive Order that allows vets to get private sector insurance to keep from dying on the VA's waiting list.
The founders are silent on healthcare. They are also silent about nuclear waste. They are not concepts that were discovered back then. The founders knew that the country would have lots of problems they could not imagine. So they made the Constitution vague enough and gave it ways to amend it, so it could accommodate the future. That is why originalism is stupid and wrong. We can make our own future while respecting the sense on the constitution. They also recognized the public welfare and our responsibility to making it better for all.
You have some imagination and make wild assumptions with no basis in fact. I only know I had seen an article about 50,000 Canadians and the premier leaving Canada for medical care. I don't know or care who they are and made no attempt to manipulate anybody into thinking Canadians have to wait for medical care. You make everything partisan liberal v. conservative when some posters are just trying to relay some facts without attempting to manipulate or give it a distorted partisan twist. If you wanted more information you should read the articles I cited rather than making up imaginary motivations on my part. A person is not necessarily a conservative because they don''t sing the praises of single payer or Canada's system. Your partisanship seems based on the need to be angry or hostile toward those you perceive do not agree with you.
You will understand after you die.
Boris The Animal
It's Just Boris!
The problem is NOT cutting welfare entitlements commensurate to the tax cuts.