Quote:
Originally Posted by sickofnyc
To give more tax cuts to the rich...
Americans who support this douche need their heads examined so they should care about healthcare.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by greywar
Didnt he say he would not do this? LOL. Shocker. (not)
|
The source is
Mother Jones, which is not a reliable source, since they always lie and distort the truth, plus lie by omission.
That actually happens to be the case now: Mother Jones lied, lied by omission and distorted the truth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by emm74
I can't help noticing you didn't bother to link to the Politifact post you claim supports the lie that Trump isn't proposing cutting Medicare.
|
The PPACA cut Medicare by $716 Billion, but you're not mad about that.
The actual truth is the proposed budget
affects Medicare -- and that is the proper word to use.
What Mother Jones conveniently forgot to say is that the affect on Medicare is a reduction in payments over a 10 year period.
So, it's not $845 Billion today, it's $845 Billion over 10 years or $84.5 Billion per year.
If you go to Kaiser's web-site, the cuts do not affect patients, they only affect payments to hospitals and other medical providers.
That, is what the PPACA did, too, but none of you have a problem with that.
Your issue is not that the payments to hospitals that over-charge are being reduced, it's that a Republican whom you don't like proposed it. If a Democrat whom you liked proposed the same thing, none of you would even blink.
Your hospital monopolies and monopolistic cartels illegally collude to illegally fix prices above market rates, thanks to arcane 1930s "enabling laws" your State legislatures passed at the behest of the American Hospital Association.
None of you have the moral courage to force your State legislatures to repeal those laws and stop hospital monopolies from illegally colluding to illegally fix prices way too high.
Oddly, all of you whine about "oil monopolies" even though no such thing exists, yet when it comes to hospital monopolies your silence is deafening.
If hospital can't deal with lower payments, then they can, um, do
like Europe and break up into clinics an policlinics.
Quote:
Originally Posted by burdell
Well, the Constitution does say "Promote the General Welfare"
It's only a matter of interpretation.
|
It's not a matter of interpretation. The "United States" is clearly defined in the committee meeting notes by the men who wrote the Constitution. You just have to want to read the committee notes.
The "United States" refers solely and exclusively to the federal government and not to the States or the people.
For those who don't get it, only the federal government was bound to the Constitution.
Neither the States nor the people were bound or subject to the Constitution.
When the Constitution refers to the States, it uses the phrase "the several States" and when it refers to the people, it says "people."
The phrase "general Welfare" refers solely to the general welfare of the federal government and its ability to perform the duties it is obligated to perform under the Constitution. It does not refer to the States or the people.
The States were bound to the Constitution only
after the 14th Amendment was passed.
The should be more than obvious, given the fact that some States actually did declare a State religion, and banned other religions, and allowed churches to create taxation districts so that you as a resident living in a church taxation district paid taxes to the church whether you went to that church or not, whether you were a member of that religion or not, and whether you wanted to or not.
If you refused to pay the taxes to the church, church officials would drag you out of your home, bring you before an ecclesiastical court, convict you of non-payment of taxes and seize your property to pay the taxes you owe.
Businesses paid taxes to the churches, too. In fact, corporations trying to avoid paying the taxes is what led to rulings by State Supreme Courts declaring corporations to be people.
See Goodell Mfg. Co. v. Trask, 28 Mass. (1831).
The argument here was that since none of the shareholders lived in the church parish, the company could not be taxed. The court ruled that "a corporation is an independent legal person" and subject to the tax.
The people are not bound to the Constitution.
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.
