On Sep 4, 2:30*pm, thunder wrote:
On Fri, 04 Sep 2009 11:06:16 -0700, Jack wrote:
The hell it doesn't. *It's in the Preamble, right after "provide for
the common defence". *It's "promote the general Welfare".

While you guys would love to spin it that way, you damn well know the
founding fathers didn't intend that statement to mean that the gov is
supposed to provide health care or heath insurance to its people. Health
insurance didn't even exist in the US when this was written.

You're fooling no one. *You're either being disingenuous, or you're a
socialist idiot.

Man couldn't fly, either, when the Constitution was written, but we have
an Air Force? *So, are you saying health care doesn't "promote the
general Welfare", or are you saying the Founding Fathers expected this
country to stay exactly as it was in 1787?

The Air Force would fall directly under the part about providing for
the common defense. It's just a modern weapon.

Of course health care promotes one definition of "general welfare".
What's a giant leap is asserting that the founding fathers meant for
the federal government to be directly *providing* this health care by
*taxing* the "rich" and then *transferring* that money into health
care for the poor. We do know that health care did exist back then,
but they didn't address it. They didn't write *anywhere* that the gov
was going to be able to take money from a segment of the population
to, in essence, give it to another segment. That's because they were
most definitely NOT in favor of any such mechanism!! There was no
power to tax, remember? That was added by others almost 100 years
later!

What we do know is that the founding fathers were running away from a
system and goverment that was way too "active" in meddling with
personal choices and freedoms. They set many limits on the federal
gov's reach, which of course has been overstepped now in lots of
ways. Bottom line... you're trying really hard to read something into
a statement that you know was never meant to be there.

Be honest and just say you're for government provided health care.
Don't try to push this bull**** on us that the founding fathers meant
it to be. BO may be able to convince your 10 year old of that next
Tuesday, but it won't fly here.

On Fri, 04 Sep 2009 12:19:31 -0700, Jack wrote:


Be honest and just say you're for government provided health care. Don't
try to push this bull**** on us that the founding fathers meant it to
be. BO may be able to convince your 10 year old of that next Tuesday,
but it won't fly here.

You seem to be jumping to a few conclusions. First, I never said
anything about the founding fathers providing health care. I responded
to a post stating "Congress had no authority to grant 'health care'". I
posted that would come under "promote the general welfare", and
apparently, you agree.

Secondly, as I understand this health care reform, as it now stands,
health insurance will be mandatory. If that is the case, a government
option will be necessary, IMO, to promote competition. As it now stands,
the health insurance industry is not very competitive. I have no strong
desire for a government option to be the only option. I do know,
however, something has to be done on health reform. We are rapidly
approaching 20% GDP on health care expenditures. That is not
sustainable, and, as it is on the backs of businesses, it is anti-
competitive in the global marketplace.

A correction to your post, there most definitely was power to "lay and
collect Taxes" in the Constitution, Sec. 8 - Powers of Congress.

On Fri, 04 Sep 2009 14:40:37 -0500, thunder
wrote:

On Fri, 04 Sep 2009 12:19:31 -0700, Jack wrote:


Be honest and just say you're for government provided health care. Don't
try to push this bull**** on us that the founding fathers meant it to
be. BO may be able to convince your 10 year old of that next Tuesday,
but it won't fly here.

You seem to be jumping to a few conclusions. First, I never said
anything about the founding fathers providing health care. I responded
to a post stating "Congress had no authority to grant 'health care'". I
posted that would come under "promote the general welfare", and
apparently, you agree.

Secondly, as I understand this health care reform, as it now stands,
health insurance will be mandatory. If that is the case, a government
option will be necessary, IMO, to promote competition. As it now stands,
the health insurance industry is not very competitive. I have no strong
desire for a government option to be the only option. I do know,
however, something has to be done on health reform. We are rapidly
approaching 20% GDP on health care expenditures. That is not
sustainable, and, as it is on the backs of businesses, it is anti-
competitive in the global marketplace.

Here's what will happening, in a nutshell. IMO.
The gov, in order to keep the health welfare of the U.S. people
only three steps behind that of Europe/Canada/Austrailia/Japan,
will take action.
Aside from all high-falutin arguments about the Constitution and the
Founding Fathers, there is general agreement among Dems and Reps that
this will be done, as bitter a pill as the Reps find it.
Reality and the 21st Century dictate that.
Given the internet and other means of communications the word has
leaked out that U.S. health care is lagging behind the countries
mentioned above in health care delivery and costs.
There are only quibbles about selected details, details selected
according to whose political ass is being kissed.
The path to accomplish insuring the uninsured, and making insurance
affordable for the lower incomes - without a public option - is to do
it purely through the private insurance companies.
We taxpayers will be taxed or sent deeper into debt by massive gov
payment to insurance companies, and health providers will also suck
harder on gov tit with no oversight or control of cost except that
dictated by insurance company execs.
Gov subsidies to lower income families to pay for private health
insurance is going to happen even without a public option, and even
the Reps have acceded to that reality.
And I'm talking up to 4x poverty level, or about $80k for a family of
4, on a sliding scale.
Good luck voting insurance and health company execs out of office for
stealing your money.
A continuation of the same corporate welfare that has led to the
continual widening of economic classes.
In other words, corporate welfare as usual.
Debt will increase, or taxes will increase either way.
But without the public option, absolute "free enterprise" in the
health care industry will be maintained.
But you WILL be taxed for it. Without representation.
Wonder what the founders would say about that.
To sum up, and this is only my take from observing the fracas, and
with my usual optimism:
Health care reform is here.
Everybody will be provided roughly equivalent health care, like it or
not.
It will be paid for by higher taxation or increased national debt.
It will be provided by either a relatively efficient gov program
somewhat responsive to the taxpayer and cost control, ala Medicare, or
via gov titty milk subsidies to Wall Street health insurance and
health care companies.
Wall street will skim the cream and pass the milk out.
The typical mafia-like casino skimming operation.
Remember AIG, BOA, Goldman Sachs?
Same ****.
Cast your lot with either one. There are no other choices.

--Vic

On Sep 4, 3:40*pm, thunder wrote:
On Fri, 04 Sep 2009 12:19:31 -0700, Jack wrote:
Be honest and just say you're for government provided health care. Don't
try to push this bull**** on us that the founding fathers meant it to
be. *BO may be able to convince your 10 year old of that next Tuesday,
but it won't fly here.

You seem to be jumping to a few *conclusions. *First, I never said
anything about the founding fathers providing health care. *I responded
to a post stating "Congress had no authority to grant 'health care'". *I
posted that would come under "promote the general welfare", and
apparently, you agree.

And you are jumping to your own conclusions, or are being disinginuous
again. You know, based on all the stuff you snipped, that I do NOT
agree that "promote the general welfare" includes gov. healthcare. IT
DOES NOT.


Secondly, as I understand this health care reform, as it now stands,
health insurance will be mandatory. *If that is the case, a government
option will be necessary, IMO, to promote competition. *As it now stands,
the health insurance industry is not very competitive. *I have no strong
desire for a government option to be the only option. *I do know,
however, something has to be done on health reform. *We are rapidly
approaching 20% GDP on health care expenditures. *That is not
sustainable, and, as it is on the backs of businesses, it is anti-
competitive in the global marketplace.

There are plenty of problem with health care as it now stands in the
US, but a bill that no one has had time to read, is being rammed
through, that any dissenting views are being shouted down, is not the
way to do this. Tort reform should be a part of it. The dems are
shutting out half of the country, and now they are turning on each
other. It will fail.


A correction to your post, there most definitely was power to "lay and
collect Taxes" in the Constitution, Sec. 8 - Powers of Congress. *

That initial power was not for federal income tax...

"In addition, the Constitution specifically limited Congress' ability
to impose direct taxes, by requiring Congress to distribute direct
taxes in proportion to each state's census population. It was thought
that head taxes and property taxes (slaves could be taxed as either or
both) were likely to be abused, and that they bore no relation to the
activities in which the federal government had a legitimate interest.
The fourth clause of section 9 therefore specifies that, "No
Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion
to the Census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken."

Taxation was also the subject of Federalist No. 33 penned secretly by
the Federalist Alexander Hamilton under the pseudonym Publius. In it,
he explains that the wording of the "Necessary and Proper" clause
should serve as guidelines for the legislation of laws regarding
taxation. The legislative branch is to be the judge, but any abuse of
those powers of judging can be overturned by the people, whether as
states or as a larger group.

The courts have generally held that direct taxes are limited to taxes
on people (variously called "capitation", "poll tax" or "head tax")
and property.[5] All other taxes are commonly referred to as "indirect
taxes," because they tax an event, rather than a person or property
per se.[6] What seemed to be a straightforward limitation on the power
of the legislature based on the subject of the tax proved inexact and
unclear when applied to an income tax, which can be arguably viewed
either as a direct or an indirect tax."

Of course, congressional acts to pay for the civil war, and subsequent
lawsuits ending in the 16th amendment, changed all that. But one
thing is for sure... the constitution did NOT allow for progressive
taxation to provide health care for all citizens. That is a new,
socialist concept.