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.