Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-25-2009, 12:31 AM
 
Location: Maryland about 20 miles NW of DC
6,104 posts, read 5,991,811 times
Reputation: 2479

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by jcarlilesiu View Post
You want me to prove a negative?

The Constitution ONLY gives RIGHTS to the citizens. All other portions of the document LIMIT federal power.

So you want me to prove where providing healthcare is limited? Sure, it doesn't appear in the Constitution.

Have you read the Constitution before?

Tenth Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

You base your opinions on what will benefit YOU. I base my opinions on what the country was founded on.

"When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will hearld the end of the republic" - Ben Franklin

Conservatives want to think that the 10th Amendment limits ability of the Federal government to raise taxes to fund efforts to promote the general welfare of the American people. It does not because the Congress was explicitly given the power to do this in Article 1 Section 8.

Article 1, section 8: The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debits and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform through out the United States.

Making sure all Americans have access to current state of the art medical care is in the general welfare of the United States. It can also be argued that this also meets the "common defense" standard because a uncontroled plagues or pandemics could kill thousands if not millions of Americans just like any foreign invader.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-25-2009, 08:23 AM
 
351 posts, read 375,972 times
Reputation: 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by mwruckman View Post
Conservatives want to think that the 10th Amendment limits ability of the Federal government to raise taxes to fund efforts to promote the general welfare of the American people. It does not because the Congress was explicitly given the power to do this in Article 1 Section 8.

Article 1, section 8: The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debits and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform through out the United States.

Making sure all Americans have access to current state of the art medical care is in the general welfare of the United States. It can also be argued that this also meets the "common defense" standard because a uncontroled plagues or pandemics could kill thousands if not millions of Americans just like any foreign invader.
100% right.
Great post.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-25-2009, 08:28 AM
 
351 posts, read 375,972 times
Reputation: 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greatday View Post
I'm part of that 85%. My insurance is not paid for nor subsidized by any employer.


And, I am VERY happy with my Health Insurance.
You obviously have a problem listening to the healthcare proposals.
If you are happy with your current health insurance cover you can keep it. This i will lose my cover b/s is getting very boring now.
If you are happy with it then keep it. Many of the 85% have their insurance paid by their employers.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-25-2009, 09:22 AM
 
Location: Chicagoland
41,325 posts, read 44,950,814 times
Reputation: 7118
Quote:
Originally Posted by hitchcock View Post
You obviously have a problem listening to the healthcare proposals.
If you are happy with your current health insurance cover you can keep it. This i will lose my cover b/s is getting very boring now.
If you are happy with it then keep it. Many of the 85% have their insurance paid by their employers.
If they are happy with it, they have no choice if their employer wants to change to the government option.

Why do you think stopped making this claim?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-25-2009, 09:31 AM
 
Location: Chicagoland
41,325 posts, read 44,950,814 times
Reputation: 7118
Quote:
Originally Posted by mwruckman View Post
Conservatives want to think that the 10th Amendment limits ability of the Federal government to raise taxes to fund efforts to promote the general welfare of the American people. It does not because the Congress was explicitly given the power to do this in Article 1 Section 8.

Article 1, section 8: The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debits and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform through out the United States.

Making sure all Americans have access to current state of the art medical care is in the general welfare of the United States. It can also be argued that this also meets the "common defense" standard because a uncontroled plagues or pandemics could kill thousands if not millions of Americans just like any foreign invader.
This article will set you straight;

Individual mandate insurance is unconstitutional - Ken Klukowski - POLITICO.com

Quote:
People who decline coverage are not receiving federal money, so that mandate can’t fall under the spending part of the Tax and Spending Clause.

It can’t be an excise tax because that’s a surcharge on a purchase, and here people are not buying anything. It can’t be a capitation (or “directâ€) tax because that is a tax on every person in a state and must be equal for every person in the state; this would be a levy that some people would pay and others would not. And it can’t be an income tax because that must be based on personal income, not purchase decisions.
Read on about the Commerce Clause.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-25-2009, 09:34 AM
 
Location: Chicagoland
41,325 posts, read 44,950,814 times
Reputation: 7118
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/25/he...rssnyt&emc=rss

Quote:
The proposals now before Congress would require just about everyone to buy health insurance or to get it through their employers — which would generally result in lower wages. In other words, millions of people would be compelled to spend lots of money on something they previously did not want, at least not at prevailing prices.

Estimates of this burden vary, but for a family of four it could range up to $14,000 a year over the next decade, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

The paradox is this: Reform advocates start with anecdotes about the underprivileged who are uninsured, then turn around and propose something that would hurt at least some members of that group.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-25-2009, 09:38 AM
 
Location: southern california
61,288 posts, read 87,431,754 times
Reputation: 55562
i hear you. they are abused and dont know it. if they got lots of toys and food they think they are cared for. they got no love, figurately and literally. that will make you fat and ugly.
the new american look-- no more leave it to beaver -- its rush limbbaugh and rosie o'donnell.
as to insurance, the classic selfish fatboy, the mind set of americans, if it didnt happen to me it didnt happen.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-25-2009, 12:10 PM
 
Location: Pinal County, Arizona
25,100 posts, read 39,266,002 times
Reputation: 4937
Quote:
Originally Posted by hitchcock View Post
You obviously have a problem listening to the healthcare proposals.
I was responding to another poster who made a blanket, no exception type post.

As for "listening" to the debate, I not only "listen", I am actively involved in the debate - and have been for some 2.5 years -
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-25-2009, 02:44 PM
 
4,104 posts, read 5,310,577 times
Reputation: 1256
Quote:
Originally Posted by hitchcock View Post
Why should there be a choice between buying food, cars, cigarettes,holidays and healthcare?
This is the whole problem. We have been brainwashed into thinking healthcare is a luxury item when it isn't.
To uphold a abusive system that is the number 1 cause of bankruptcy in America is insane. To then use a financial argument to try to keep it, proves my original point about the "abusers" brain washing the "abused"
Nothing is free in America but to defend a system that is more expensive and less efficient than many other systems is very "stockholm syndrome".

What is Economics? Essentially it is the allocation of scarce resources. It is supply and demand curves, elasticity, and equilibrium. It is price floors and price ceilings and their affect on the market.

In the US, healthcare is deemed less important by a large percentage of the population than the right house, the right car, or the right vacation. This is an indisputable fact. When enough Americans put enough money into healthcare, the rest of the economy will adapt to the new money-supply curve.

For example, currently many families pay 3 times salary for a home. Many families have one year median salary sitting in their driveway. The average family spends 2% of median household income on cable TV. The average cell phone bill is 2% of median household income. Eating out consumes between 4% and 10% of many budgets.

When healthcare is truly important to Americans there will be a paradigm shift in the allocation of resources. The consensus among policy analysts is that Obama's free healthcare will eventually cost the average wage-earner between 6% and 10% of salary. This is consistent with other nations such as Germany, France, and the UK. If this is mandated, this interjects an artificial allocation of resources into the economy. The rest of the economy will adapt to the new "curve".

The first sector of the economy to suffer will be the service sector. Ironically, the US has slowly transitioned to a service-based economy. The list of industries that will be deemed "luxuries" will expand as the money supply contracts to cover healthcare. Currently cable TV is common. Cell phones are ubiquitous. Starbucks is on every corner. Most families have two cars. Expect major contraction in those sectors. Families will be forced to align their budgets to match the new "curve". In the longer-term, we might expect the auto sector to slow as families find other alternatives. Many European families own just one car, or if they own two the second car is older and inexpensive.

These are a few points to think over. The debate about healthcare has less to to with providing Americans insurance than one might think.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-25-2009, 02:47 PM
 
272 posts, read 295,683 times
Reputation: 159
Great Day,
Happy for you. Guess you earn enough to buy good insurance. How much are you paying and what company? Many people are happy because they haven't had experience with a serious illness or unusual illness. You go to the dr for a cold... insurance pays, mammogram they pay no question. How would you feel if you lose your job in the middle of cancer treatment for your wife and no insurance company will pick you up. You watch your wife worry your worried how are you going to be able to afford the treatment your wife's thought is she doesn't want to leave her family with astronomical bills if she is going to die anyway so your wife does with out. Your lucky get a job again so your wife can resume treatment. She dies.... how would you feel who would you blame. What if your son has a brain tumor and treatment is a success only to have him graduate from college not find a job immediately and can't buy insurance on his own because of pre existing condition. He has seizures has the cancer come back of course he goes to the emergency room they stabilize him and tell him to see a neurosurgeon... with out insurance ok what if the cancer is back who pays for that. You look at your son in that condition and tell him good the insurance in our country is and how 85% of the people are happy. Believe me it won't matter to you how many are happy when it isn't working for you and it is your child your worried about dying and suffering.


I hope you can continue to afford your great insurance, I hope you only get sick with illnesses that are curable and covered by your insurance company. It's to bad people who can afford great insurance can't have empathy for those who can not afford or can not get any insurance. We want everyone to be as lucky as your are Great Day.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:53 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top