Gov healthcare
- Thread starter DS
- Start date
wkmac
Well-Known Member
One more quick note Brett & AV, You might find this of interest and it's the voice of the Old Right Icon in Garet Garrett.
c ya!
c ya!
av8torntn
Well-Known Member
Last edited:
av8torntn
Well-Known Member
Wkmac
I do not think or state or post that this health care plan will be ruled unconstitutional. I do however feel that the constitution was intended to protect our freedoms from a big government not to protect us from ourselves. My question about what part of the constitution do you think applies was intended to bring up the common defense and general welfare part.
It is amazing that it takes five pages of posts for someone to bring this up.
I am no attorney. I did not want to work 14 hours a day seven days a week when I was younger now as a feeder driver and small business owner it seem that is exactly what I ended up with.
I just want to clarify what the constitution really means. You guys are saying the when they put in common welfare that means that our government is obligated to insure, feed, cloth, buy cars for it's citizens. Common defense on the other hand means that you cannot raise an army to fight in a foreign country. Not really making sense to me so help a brother out.
We have Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech and this applies to Congress but also state and local governments. Heck I've even been accused on here for violating someones free speech rights (diesel) for having a disagreement with them. On the other hand the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed doesn't apply to modern weapons because our founders could not have imagined how deadly they could become.
Why can I not have an interpretation that says that the general welfare part protects me from an overly intrusive government? Why can't general welfare mean that I get to keep my money to provide for myself?
Why is it an invasion of privacy for the government to listen to the sat phone conversation of Osama Bin laden but not an invasion of privacy to store all my medical records with the federal government. I do not think the constitution provides us with a guarantee to privacy but since most on here and some of the courts do. Why?
I feel you have falsely accused me of supporting the expansion of government under a republican. All I remember is that I opposed the expansion of Medicare, opposed the expansion of the Dept. of Education, opposed sending troops to the border, opposed the mandatory drug sentencing, and opposed government giving money to charities. I did however support the expansion of the military during a time of war as I feel the Constitution clearly gives the government that right.
I do not think or state or post that this health care plan will be ruled unconstitutional. I do however feel that the constitution was intended to protect our freedoms from a big government not to protect us from ourselves. My question about what part of the constitution do you think applies was intended to bring up the common defense and general welfare part.
It is amazing that it takes five pages of posts for someone to bring this up. I am no attorney. I did not want to work 14 hours a day seven days a week when I was younger now as a feeder driver and small business owner it seem that is exactly what I ended up with.
I just want to clarify what the constitution really means. You guys are saying the when they put in common welfare that means that our government is obligated to insure, feed, cloth, buy cars for it's citizens. Common defense on the other hand means that you cannot raise an army to fight in a foreign country. Not really making sense to me so help a brother out.
We have Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech and this applies to Congress but also state and local governments. Heck I've even been accused on here for violating someones free speech rights (diesel) for having a disagreement with them. On the other hand the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed doesn't apply to modern weapons because our founders could not have imagined how deadly they could become.
Why can I not have an interpretation that says that the general welfare part protects me from an overly intrusive government? Why can't general welfare mean that I get to keep my money to provide for myself?
Why is it an invasion of privacy for the government to listen to the sat phone conversation of Osama Bin laden but not an invasion of privacy to store all my medical records with the federal government. I do not think the constitution provides us with a guarantee to privacy but since most on here and some of the courts do. Why?
I feel you have falsely accused me of supporting the expansion of government under a republican. All I remember is that I opposed the expansion of Medicare, opposed the expansion of the Dept. of Education, opposed sending troops to the border, opposed the mandatory drug sentencing, and opposed government giving money to charities. I did however support the expansion of the military during a time of war as I feel the Constitution clearly gives the government that right.
wkmac
Well-Known Member
We have Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech and this applies to Congress but also state and local governments. Heck I've even been accused on here for violating someones free speech rights (diesel) for having a disagreement with them. On the other hand the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed doesn't apply to modern weapons because our founders could not have imagined how deadly they could become.
OK, first off, we have no Freedom of Speech here. NONE! Not me, not you, not Diesel! We voice our opinions here only at the pleasure and priviledge of the site owners and at any time they can revoke that priviledge either individually or they can close down and entire forum such as the Current Events for example and if any of us invoked the first amendment we'd be laughed out of the courts, especially if they actually read the absolute BS we all post here. I'm not familar with you having voilated Diesel's first amendment right and unless you work for gov't of in some gov't granted monopoly capacity, I don't see how you could have. Again, I'm not familar at all with the event of which you speak so there you go. As much as I've poked my finger at Diesel, I'm having a hard time understanding him even suggesting that but "it is what it is!"
In the organic Constitution, the only entity bound to respect free speech was the Congress and therefore extension Federal gov't. No State of local entity was so bound but you'd find the several States themselves having copied that language in the own State Constitutions. Were they bound by the US Cont. then why the need for local language. Those amendments didn't transfer down to the States until the 14th amendment came into play because the freed slaves found themselves trapped on an island with no standing. Our founding fathers negation to ignore the Declaration of Independence and declare slavery illegal from the get go came back to haunt their grand dream into a political nightmare for their pogeny. Damn them to hell for it too!
As to the weapons, agreed! No argument. If the same logic works for speech, religion, etc. it should work there as well and this provides a good entry point for the last section. However the 2nd amendment arguement is being killed in many respect by our own hand in defending the Federal State and it's standing empire army and police powers. I'll answer that next!
wkmac
Well-Known Member
Wkmac
I do not think or state or post that this health care plan will be ruled unconstitutional. I do however feel that the constitution was intended to protect our freedoms from a big government not to protect us from ourselves. My question about what part of the constitution do you think applies was intended to bring up the common defense and general welfare part.
I am no attorney. I did not want to work 14 hours a day seven days a week when I was younger now as a feeder driver and small business owner it seem that is exactly what I ended up with.
I just want to clarify what the constitution really means. You guys are saying the when they put in common welfare that means that our government is obligated to insure, feed, cloth, buy cars for it's citizens. Common defense on the other hand means that you cannot raise an army to fight in a foreign country. Not really making sense to me so help a brother out.
I've never said this to mean that this is how I believe it to be but rather after reading the legislative histories and some legal opinions, it is the position of both political parties in varying degrees that this meaning of the "general welfare" clause does mean in this manner. It's the old Jeffersonian verses Hamiltonian ideal again and even in the case of Jefferson, once he entered the oval office, even he couldn't resist the Hamiltonian way.
As to the General Welfare clause nobody reads the Articles of Confederation anymore and it was in Article 3 of that document that we got the idea of the General Welfare clause and IMHO reading that clause I believe the same clause in the original Constitution was to have the same meaning and intent. And in reading the Art. of Confederation you and I completely agree that the intent of that clause was a ton more limited than what it is being used for today.
Articles of Confederation
Now take Art 3 above and for starters re-read the Preamble and now apply that same standing to the Preamble meaning. I don't see anywhere that you "steal" otherwise called taxes from one person and give it to another whether is be public welfare, corporate welfare or any kind of welfare. That's how I see it and let's set the historical record here, what became the Constitutional Convention was in truth illegal as the delgated purpose was to modify the Articles, not draft a new document. My opinion, it's another reason the proceedings were kept secret but that's for another day and time. We can get Pickup to give us the Conspiracy angle.
I'm going to assume at least at this point that my position is clear and that in fact we agree. My only point earlier was in making what the powers that be believe they can do and it's both parties doing it and I think there also we agree.
wkmac
Well-Known Member
I'll get to the falsely accused part latter but let's address the common defense part of this equation. The US Constitution also lists a "general welfare" clause along with a "common defense" clause in Article 1, Sec. 8. It reads:
So in giving the power to Congress to lay and collect taxes, it's also suppose to provide for the common defense and general welfare but since both terms have origin in the Articles of Confederation, let's refer there. Now if you read Art. 4 of the Articles of Confederation, what is described at least IMHO sure does sound a lot like what someone would do if they wanted to promote general welfare among a group of people without intervening into their personal lives and making choices that benefit one person over another. Granted Indians and African Slaves got a totally, morally raw deal but we're looking at intent here and it was for a bunch of white guys. Now IMO there's the beginning of the means to defending your "correct" understanding of the General Welfare clause but what about common defense?
Look, I'm gonna warn ya again, you probably won't like this but as the old saying goes, it is what it is. I'm really starting to like that little ditty!
Go back to the Articles of Confederation again and this time look down at Article 6. I'll quote it.
(I just quoted part but read and consider it all)
My understanding here on this is that first, a state has to be invaded but then there's an "or shall" and it speaks of having "received certain advice of a resolution being formed" in this case by the Indian Nations. From my reading, this means if a State having be informed by an Indian Nation through some means of Declaration of War of intent to invade, the States have the right to defend themselves and repell such until as such time as Congress can be consulted and act accordingly and then bring other State militias into play to join the "common defense." Back in them days, representatives spent most of their time at home, not doing face time on C-Span or on Corp. junkits and there were no phones, faxes or internet so to assemble Congress took a bit. They granted an individual State to act accordingly to repell an attack but they couldn't claim the Indians had WMD and launch a full scale offensive invasion either although that did come later which just proves they didn't take what they were saying anymore serious than the clowns we have today.
IMHO you can read this frontwards, backwards, slideways, what have you but the fact is 2 fold, the primary being of military power resided in the States themselves with the State militia under State control made up of able bodied persons, armed accordingly and that those milita's could not be called out unless the State(s) were "ATTACKED". Not that you think they are gonna be attacked because some Washington sthink tank twisting false data saying you are gonna be attacked but that an actual attack has taken place.
Setting aside 9/11 for the moment, one positive of this approach is that if the law required you to take the first punch before you could punch back, it would be in your best interest to not "get yourself into foreign entanglements" or go out and stick your nose into things that might provoke someone to lash out. Art. 6 was all about creating the idea of mutualism if you will in that peace through honest trade, economics (free market for everyone including the foreigner you traded with), commerce and just plain western judeo-christian values of not stealing, not murdering, not lying and not coveting would hopefully sway the day of how we acted as a nation. Understanding their property as persons and independent nations are not for the benefit and pleasure of multi-national corporations by hook or crook to do as the like but that the rule of honest law would be observed even more so by our nation and citizens in order to be that beacon on a hill to others. If others didn't want to trade that way, then we wouldn't and to those Americans who choose to do so, Buyer Beware!
To insure the means of this and the idea of miltia, in the US Constitution we have the 2nd amendment along with lots of other Art. of Confederation language that IMO are much rooted in the origin concepts. Now if you contend however that it was the intent to have a Federal level maintained army at the beck and call of the President at any moment to go forth as he sees fit, then IMO you just negated the entire purpose of the 2nd amendment and give to the so-called anti-gunner the very arguement as to way the 2nd amendment in meaningless and useless in this day and time. The purpose of the 2nd amendment had nothing to do with shooting targets or killing bambie, it was all about shooting despots, tyrants and violators of natural (unalienable) rights. If you open the door to abusing the original intent of the common defense, then the open the door for other abuse as well including the general welfare clause and the even worse offender IMO, the commerce clause. The despotism of that one is unreal IMO. Expansion of police and military powers to the
State negates the need for the 2nd amendment as it pertains to it's original purpose. To de-volve the state means to strenghten all the unalienable rights we do have IMO.
As to 9/11, Up til about 5 years ago, it was a no brainer for me and Afghanistan was justified and in that intial outset of the allegations against Saddam I was willing to forgot Vietnam in the hopes that maybe this was different but facts quickly eroded that belief. The lies IMO are even worse than Gulf of Tonkin and I do believe just as the Johnson adminstration was criminally wrong, so was the Bush adminstration even more so. I'd not leave Clinton out here either but Bush took it full tilt. I also believe Obama and company are knowingly following the Bush Comstruct and therefore bringing the same upon themselves in the end.
I don't expect any change here other than we'll just agree to disagree. I would suggest you do 2 things, take it or leave it, it's up to you. First off, take a deeper look at the whole Caspian Sea basin as it relates to energy, what it means to control that energy and what areas are going to be important when it comes to getting that energy out. Also consider all of the 20th century in relation to energy and how it has effected our govt's policy. The other suggestion will take about 3 hours and it doesn't have to be in one stretch but consider going to Google video and watching the 3 part BBC program entitled "The Power of Nightmares".
Do I believe you are supporting the expansion of gov't? Yes in the very same way I did up until a few short years ago. Been there, done that, got a draw full of T-Shirts. Bill Clinton tired to argue that a blowjob in not sex. I stopped making the same rediculous arguement when it comes to gov't!
Win, lose or draw, I think we agree on more than we disgree but I want to pull back gov't on both domestic and foreign fronts and I don't see how you can get one without doing the other. JMO and given in all respect!
av8torntn
Well-Known Member
Now if you contend however that it was the intent to have a Federal level maintained army at the beck and call of the President at any moment to go forth as he sees fit, then IMO you just negated the entire purpose of the 2nd amendment and give to the so-called anti-gunner the very arguement as to way the 2nd amendment in meaningless and useless in this day and time.
Actually here I know for a fact that I never did. My opinion has always been there is no shame in voting out your current representative every two years if he refuses to follow the Constitution. I feel it is my responsibility. I have always felt that the two year part was not just some random number. I do however contend that the Constitution gives the Federal Government the right to raise an Army and to fight a war. The Constitution also gives the Government the right to "subcontract" this role. It is the responsibility of the legislative branch to not only fund a war but to authorize a war. A great deal of the Constitution deals with the limits on the military yet nothing on the limits of welfare. I have a hard time accepting the argument that every other part of the Constitution limits the role of Government but that welfare is supposed to be unlimited and unchecked. Like I said just my opinion and not worth anything since I will never be allowed to argue before the Supreme Court.
I was thinking about the free speech thing today and it may not have been diesel. My apologies if I was wrong.
I also have no problem pulling back from the foreign fronts( think that was how you put it). How about we start with the places that we are not at war? To me that is a very important distinction.
wkmac
Well-Known Member
It would be a start and it would also save money so I'd be for it. Why not start with western Europe and Japan? And let's cut Puerto Rico loose for Christ's sakes. Now I could think of a ton more but let's start IMO the obvious places first.
As for the rest, seems to me the best way to describe this would the difference between an anti-federalist and a federalist or confederationist to a federationist. We're just gonna disagree and that's that.
You look up and see a big gov't you want to make smaller and from your POV it fits a construct that works for ya. I see a much smaller gov't, therefore from my POV, my construct suggests although your gov't is smaller, it's still to big.
As the ole saying goes, it is what it is!
Yet another example of government healthcare:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/h...efuses-to-pay-for-painkilling-injections.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/h...efuses-to-pay-for-painkilling-injections.html
av8torntn
Well-Known Member
Thanks Wkmac
The expansion of Government equals the limiting of the rights of the individual has been what I was trying to say. I like that thanks for the link. I still believe the Constitution was put in place to protect us from this expansion of Government. I also believe this health care bill will not pass in any thing close to it's current form. It may pass the House but I think that is a coin flip and will likely be quite different even just to get through the House. In the end we will likely lose more of our liberty to the cheers of the masses.
The expansion of Government equals the limiting of the rights of the individual has been what I was trying to say. I like that thanks for the link. I still believe the Constitution was put in place to protect us from this expansion of Government. I also believe this health care bill will not pass in any thing close to it's current form. It may pass the House but I think that is a coin flip and will likely be quite different even just to get through the House. In the end we will likely lose more of our liberty to the cheers of the masses.
wkmac
Well-Known Member
Your most welcome.
Take care.
A man is no less a slave because he is allowed to choose a new master once in a term of years.
Lysander Spooner
But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist.
Lysander Spooner
wkmac
Well-Known Member
AV,
You might find this interesting from the LRC blogs today.
August 3, 2009
The real goal of the Federal Government’s more “affordable” health care reform
Posted by David Kramer on August 3, 2009 06:28 AM
Although in some countries that have Universal Health Care there are a few private insurers to pick up the slack for people who can afford private insurance (in order to actually have excellent health care on demand rather than waiting for government-paid services), this video obviously shows that the ultimate goal of our gunvernment is to establish a Single-Payer/Universal Health Care system.
You might find this interesting from the LRC blogs today.
August 3, 2009
The real goal of the Federal Government’s more “affordable” health care reform
Posted by David Kramer on August 3, 2009 06:28 AM
Although in some countries that have Universal Health Care there are a few private insurers to pick up the slack for people who can afford private insurance (in order to actually have excellent health care on demand rather than waiting for government-paid services), this video obviously shows that the ultimate goal of our gunvernment is to establish a Single-Payer/Universal Health Care system.
Obama IN HIS OWN WORDS saying His Health Care Plan will [eventually] ELIMINATE private insurance
SHOCK UNCOVERED: Obama IN HIS OWN WORDS saying His Health Care Plan will ELIMINATE private insurance
av8torntn
Well-Known Member
Wow that Fedex, UPS, post office thing is pretty funny. Didn't even know we delivered mail. 17 years and somehow I managed to miss all those letters we must be delivering. I suppose I need to start paying more attention. I guess we could just ignore that the post office is predicting something in the range of an 8 billion dollar loss this year and an almost three billion dollar loss last year.
av8torntn
Well-Known Member
Just in case I was not clear I believe the Government still has a monopoly on the delivery of non urgent mail. Kind of one of the main reasons when someone tells you the checks in the mail you really don't expect to see it any time soon. You can also make a very good argument the reason mail delivery is so poor and inefficient is due to the government involvement.
klein
Für Meno :)
Here's a thought :
In our State (Province Alberta), we have public automobile insurance.
In the neighboring provinces (BC to the west, Saskatawan to the east), they have goverment Auto-insurance.
We pay up to 50% more in premiums then our neighbors do.
3 years ago, the Alberta goverment threatened insurance companies here, to either lower rates, or face the concequences of a newly, would be founded, Goverment Insurance in the province too, and face tough competition.
This all happened because Albertans were getting fed up paying so much more then our counterparts.
It worked a little bit, premiums were lowered somewhat, but we still pay much more then our neighbors.
Face it, Insurance companies want huge profits. They will raise rates, to even get larger profits.
Goverment in the other hand, it's our money, it's basically a non per profit organisation.
I admit, citizens in BC (British Columbia), cannot shop around for auotinsurance.
But, it's still much cheaper there, then here.
How can someone really compete with non-per-profit ?
In Saskatawan, I believe they have the option of either goverment or private.
But, believe, private insurance is very little used there.
And most insurance companies won't even step foot into it (not enough profit to be made).
In our State (Province Alberta), we have public automobile insurance.
In the neighboring provinces (BC to the west, Saskatawan to the east), they have goverment Auto-insurance.
We pay up to 50% more in premiums then our neighbors do.
3 years ago, the Alberta goverment threatened insurance companies here, to either lower rates, or face the concequences of a newly, would be founded, Goverment Insurance in the province too, and face tough competition.
This all happened because Albertans were getting fed up paying so much more then our counterparts.
It worked a little bit, premiums were lowered somewhat, but we still pay much more then our neighbors.
Face it, Insurance companies want huge profits. They will raise rates, to even get larger profits.
Goverment in the other hand, it's our money, it's basically a non per profit organisation.
I admit, citizens in BC (British Columbia), cannot shop around for auotinsurance.
But, it's still much cheaper there, then here.
How can someone really compete with non-per-profit ?
In Saskatawan, I believe they have the option of either goverment or private.
But, believe, private insurance is very little used there.
And most insurance companies won't even step foot into it (not enough profit to be made).
klein
Für Meno :)
DS, was just proving a point that goverment insurance isn't a bad thing.
As most of us already know healthcare in Canada is half the price then it is in the states. But, it's Goverment Insurance.
Some on here, think goverments can't run a business. So, I pointed out how well it works in atleast 2 Provinces (States), with automobile insurance.
They have cheaper rates there, with same service.
Actually even better service, because autobody shops only need to deal with 1 single form for one single insurance provider at most times.
No hassles, easy and fast.
DS
Fenderbender
I have no way to varify this,but on a local talk show,a few people questioned if it was cheaper or not.One lady with a proclaimed clean driving record said it cost $2200 to insure her '06 cavalier in BC ,in Ont she is paying $1400...and if you have gov ins ,you can't sue because its all considered no fault...correct me if I'm wrong
Similar threads
