Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Read: "The Preamble of The United States Constitution:
That phrase "Promote the General Welfare" includes the care ofthe people as well as the land and the sanctity of All that supports this nations stability.
I suggest you read Madison's Federalist Paper #41 to put a lie to that statement.
Federalist Paper #41:
Quote:
Some, who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation, have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution, on the language in which it is defined. It has been urged and echoed, that the power "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States," amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction.
Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms "to raise money for the general welfare."
But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon? If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded, as to give meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions be denied any signification
whatsoever? For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity, which, as we are reduced to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection or on the authors of the Constitution, we must take the liberty of supposing, had not its origin with the latter.
The objection here is the more extraordinary, as it appears that the language used by the convention is a copy from the articles of Confederation. The objects of the Union among the States, as described in article third, are "their common defense, security of their liberties, and mutual and general welfare." The terms of article eighth are still more identical: "All charges of war and all other expenses that shall be incurred for the common defense or general welfare, and allowed by the United States in Congress, shall be defrayed out of a common treasury," etc. A similar language again occurs in article ninth. Construe either of these articles by the rules which would justify the construction put on the new Constitution, and they vest in the existing Congress a power to legislate in all cases whatsoever. But what would have been thought of that assembly, if, attaching themselves to these general expressions, and disregarding the specifications which ascertain and limit their import, they had exercised an unlimited power of providing for the common defense and general welfare? I appeal to the objectors themselves, whether they would in that case have employed the same reasoning in justification of Congress as they now make use of against the convention. How difficult it is for error to escape its own condemnation!
No one should die or go bankrupt simply because they got sick or had a major health issue. I don't care who you are, how much money you make or what your job is. That should not happen in the United States of America.
And how exactly does forcing everyone to purchase health insurance prevent any of that from happening?
As much as I consider food and water a human right... strange thing is I pay for food, water, and healthcare... so what? I never told the restaurant it should be free...
Splitting hairs: the last refuge of the misunderstood.
No, last refuge of those who work in a field that depends on precision. By your response, I assume precision is not important in you field. Although, I would disagree with that. A moment ago you were telling me how a judge would respond. How would he/she respond if you replied that he/she were "splitting hairs" after you were reprimanded for imprecise language that could alter the jury's understanding and outcome of a trial?
As much as I consider food and water a human right... strange thing is I pay for food, water, and healthcare... so what? I never told the restaurant it should be free...
Yes, you do. But according to some folks on this thread, you should not be expected to pay. The migrant workers picking your food, toiling in the hot sun, and sweating their lives away should do that for free so that you could eat for free--free of charge and free of labor.
No, last refuge of those who work in a field that depends on precision. By your response, I assume precision is not important in you field. Although, I would disagree with that. A moment ago you were telling me how a judge would respond. How would he/she respond if you replied that he/she were "splitting hairs" after you were reprimanded for imprecise language that could alter the jury's understanding and outcome of a trial?
If I were splitting hairs, I would correct your quote above, "in you field". I knew what you meant, and you knew exactly what I meant, and I'm not performing surgery here, so ... no, surgical precision is not required in a meaningless debate on city-data. As you just demonstrated.
This is the dumbest thing I've ever read. There is no hypocrisy. The government insures all residents. The current networks stay in place. People currently employed in health care stay employed. The only thing that changes is the payor. It's very simple.
The "payor" becomes the people, involuntarily.
Like it or not, no opting out.
A "human right" cannot be forced on someone.
You have a right to seek knowledge....
But you have no right to force me to pay for your schooling.
You have a right to seek employment.....
But you have no right to force me to give you a job.
You have a right to seek sustenance.....
But you have no right to come in my house and raid my refrigerator.
If I were splitting hairs, I would correct your quote above, "in you field". I knew what you meant, and you knew exactly what I meant, and I'm not performing surgery here, so ... no, surgical precision is not required in a meaningless debate on city-data. As you just demonstrated.
Thus in your estimation, the words "student" and "professor" aren't worth your time to differentiate within an average discussion. I see. Carry on, my good swan.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
