Article I, Section 8, Line 1

[dogtowner]

From DCG News: "The DC Group is a management advisory firm focused on making business better in America."

So inside industry we see they admit that employee [I presume they are citizens] health is directly related to the bottom line. The bottom line is the GDP. So our nation's health relies on the health of each individual citizen [potential worker].

Ergo: "general Welfare" includes providing guaranteed adequate and accessible helathcare for all citizens.

So a management advisory group tells corporations that healthier employees are more productive and you want that to morph to Uncle Sam has to provide insurance to all (whether they work or not) ?

Try corps should promote helthier employees in many ways (which they have been doing for decades).

The issue is that health care costs too much, a problem that impacts everyone and which was caused by government.

It would be lovely to do something productive about this but its the last thing the democrat legislation attempted to do. Worse still, it need not cost the government anything to work on this.

Perhaps now that the donkeys are forced to work WITH the conservatives (if they chose to work at all) we may see some positive ideas emerge.

 

[Sihouette]

Actually your spin is as usual 100% off the mark of what reality reflects. We now already have several public healthcare entities. The VA, Medicare and ER visits. Having three separate entities is wasteful and combining them in one super single-payer will reduce waste by combining clerical costs of the three, reduce taxpayer waste further on focusing on cheaper prevention instead of triage as in the 40 million now leaning on overburdened ERs.

You want, essentially, to keep the already universal care more expensive to favor your employers who pay you to blog at sites like this. We want to make universal care accountable, visible and streamlined. Your insurance execs have had their day in the sun. Hope they invested well. If they were smart and saw this day coming, they would've taken all the money they're using to sway Congress, buy advertising and pay professional internet bloggers salaries and invested in green energy or something that also is inevitable.

Their stupidity in the financial world can no longer be our liability to bear.

 

[Little-Acorn]

I didn't realize this thread was about the use of the "Welfare Clause" yet again to justify government intrusion and takeover of Health Care. The idea has been debunked repeatedly on this forum. Apparently the usual leftists feel that enough time has gone by since they last lost the argument on the subject, that they could now bring it up again and pretend that they hadn't been proven wrong.

The purpose of the Welfare Clause, as affirmed by the Supreme Court, is to grant to the Fed Govt the power to spend tax money on things that will benefit ALL Americans equally. The govt takeover of the Health Care industry doesn't do that, of course: Most Americans are fine with their Health Care and its costs, while a minority are not. It is a situation which should be corrected, of course... but a Fed Govt takeover will make the situation worse, not better.

And since the takeover attempted every 15 years or so by the Democrats won't help everybody equally, it is not allowed under the Welfare Clause, or any other part of the Constitution. It is, in fact, unconstitutional.

See https://www.houseofpolitics.com/forum/showthread.php?t=9707&highlight=Welfare+Clause for the last time this was drummed into the heads of our leftists. And https://www.houseofpolitics.com/forum/showthread.php?t=8949 for the time before that.

Looks like they want to keep swinging after getting their third strike. Sigh....

 

[dogtowner]

Actually your spin is as usual 100% off the mark of what reality reflects. We now already have several public healthcare entities. The VA, Medicare and ER visits. Having three separate entities is wasteful and combining them in one super single-payer will reduce waste by combining clerical costs of the three, reduce taxpayer waste further on focusing on cheaper prevention instead of triage as in the 40 million now leaning on overburdened ERs.

You want, essentially, to keep the already universal care more expensive to favor your employers who pay you to blog at sites like this. We want to make universal care accountable, visible and streamlined. Your insurance execs have had their day in the sun. Hope they invested well. If they were smart and saw this day coming, they would've taken all the money they're using to sway Congress, buy advertising and pay professional internet bloggers salaries and invested in green energy or something that also is inevitable.

Their stupidity in the financial world can no longer be our liability to bear.

I'm being paid to explain reality to you ? Then I guess I'm being paid in air molecules.

The VA ? A hybrid off the DoD, almost makes sense as we dont tell the military how to manage their own.. The MEDIs ? Unconstitutional like so much else. The ERs ? I suppose you mean Medicaid otherwise its charity.

Its quite amusing that you think whatever admin costs that might be saved (and thats highly suspect) would not be more than made up with in fraud. Ask Medicare about its fraud issues. Even they admit its wildly out of control.

So you go ahead and ignore the problem (health care costs too much) and focus on symptoms and government enlargement scams.

 

[Sihouette]

The idea has been debunked repeatedly on this forum

You know, spindoctors have this funny idea about reality. They believe that if they repeat something 11 times it becomes truth, regardless of whether or not it actually is.

Sorry, it hasn't been debunked. The constitution provides for citizens to act in regards to their own general Welfare. Health concerns are the poster child of that intent. Try another angle.

 

[Revere]

Again, please explain why we cannot call our citizens inability to avoid premature death a "general Welfare" issue?

Government can stop premature death?

 

[dogtowner]

Government can stop premature death?

how do you know its premature ?

 

[Little-Acorn]

Sorry, it hasn't been debunked. The constitution provides for citizens to act in regards to their own general Welfare.

Ah, that 20-minute memory span. It must be an invaluable asset for the liberal among us.

Look, we can see that you're determined to ignore what you've been told, especially the parts you couldn't refute (which is pretty much all of it). That's your privilege, if you don't mind coming across as a complete epsilon-minus.

But are you actually expecting the rest of us to forget it too?

 

[Sihouette]

No substance, all ad hominems.

tell me again how general Welfare can include fire suppression to save lives but not health care to save lives?

I'd like to see the specifics in fine detail as how to separate the two. Really, it is irresponsible of people to let their houses catch on fire. According to your logic we should let them burn to the ground as a free-market strategy of survival of the fittest.

And on that subject, why do banks and auto companies get taxpayer bailouts? And why does the current healthcare "reform" include deals where insurance companies get millions of new customers paid for by taxpayer subsidies? If private corporations can't predict trends and stay up with the times, they should simply be allowed to fail. Survival of the fittest. I detect in the GOP trolls an unsettling hypocrisy that seems to waver in accordance to whatever benefits the rich and suppresses the poor. You can pretty much set your watch by this strange dichotomy..

 

[dogtowner]

No substance, all ad hominems.

tell me again how general Welfare can include fire suppression to save lives but not health care to save lives?

you do realize that the federal government does not run fire departments don't you ? that's a local matter and not always even a government function at all.

 

[Sihouette]

Yes but they subsidize local fire fighting efforts with relief money. According to you we shouldn't do that. FEMA shouldn't exist. What does FEMA help with? Disasters that affect life and limb. What is lack of affordable and adequate healthcare? Disaster of life and limb.

BTW, we are the government, or did you miss that part in Poli-Sci?

 

[dogtowner]

Yes but they subsidize local fire fighting efforts with relief money. According to you we shouldn't do that. FEMA shouldn't exist. What does FEMA help with? Disasters that affect life and limb. What is lack of affordable and adequate healthcare? Disaster of life and limb.

BTW, we are the government, or did you miss that part in Poli-Sci?

and we define it via the various constitutions.

FEMA is unconstitutional. FEMA does not subsidize local fire fighting.

I realize that you want what you want but there is no justification for it constitutionally.

 

[Sihouette]

Sure there is. If we [who determine the definition of "general Welfare"] decide that the poster-child for that phrase ie: univeral healthcare is what we want for ourselves, we have the power in Article I, Section 8, line 1 to enact legislation to provide universal healthcare as long as the distribution of tax collection for that service is collected equally among the States.

Here it is again for quick reference:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

The words "general Welfare' are not subject to a hard and fixed predetermined interpretation. They are up to us to interpret via our elected officials and their decision making. If there ever was a case besides protection of civilian life and limb in the military to fund a public entity also for protection of life and limb, it would be universal care.

I often wonder why the clone-army doesn't blog about eliminating medicaid, and the ER coverage we all now pay for anyway? They are equally offensive to their platform, so why the silence? Hmmm? Could it be that if the clone-army tried to reverse Medicaid they would run up against a screaming majority with torches in hand? All we want is to streamline what already exists, to save taxpayers money. Y'all are supposedly against taxpayer waste.

Conclusion: Y'all are talking out of both sides of your collective mouth. So which is it? Do you want to save the taxpayer money or do you want to cost them more via the current Bill as it panders to MedMob, subsidizing them getting 30 million new customers at elevated premiums we will pick up the tab for or are you for eliminating that gross expenditure, streamlining it and cutting clerical and advertising costs [a huge segment of overhead] out of our obligations to provide the same, or better level of care?

Personally I'd rather put the money we'll save not paying jacked premium subsidies for the uninsured to private sheisters and instead put that money into providing better care for the care already mandated to be provided by the taxpayers via the de facto [and most wasteful] universal care system now called "ER visits and Medicaid". We have a right to save ourselves money. Yes, we do..

 

[Revere]

How do entitlements that are already crashing the country financially provide for the general welfare?

 

[dogtowner]

Sure there is. If we [who determine the definition of "general Welfare"] decide that the poster-child for that phrase ie: univeral healthcare is what we want for ourselves, we have the power in Article I, Section 8, line 1 to enact legislation to provide universal healthcare as long as the distribution of tax collection for that service is collected equally among the States.

Here it is again for quick reference:


The words "general Welfare' are not subject to a hard and fixed predetermined interpretation. They are up to us to interpret via our elected officials and their decision making. If there ever was a case besides protection of civilian life and limb in the military to fund a public entity also for protection of life and limb, it would be universal care.

I often wonder why the clone-army doesn't blog about eliminating medicaid, and the ER coverage we all now pay for anyway? They are equally offensive to their platform, so why the silence? Hmmm? Could it be that if the clone-army tried to reverse Medicaid they would run up against a screaming majority with torches in hand? All we want is to streamline what already exists, to save taxpayers money. Y'all are supposedly against taxpayer waste.

Conclusion: Y'all are talking out of both sides of your collective mouth. So which is it? Do you want to save the taxpayer money or do you want to cost them more via the current Bill as it panders to MedMob, subsidizing them getting 30 million new customers at elevated premiums we will pick up the tab for or are you for eliminating that gross expenditure, streamlining it and cutting clerical and advertising costs [a huge segment of overhead] out of our obligations to provide the same, or better level of care?

Personally I'd rather put the money we'll save not paying jacked premium subsidies for the uninsured to private sheisters and instead put that money into providing better care for the care already mandated to be provided by the taxpayers via the de facto [and most wasteful] universal care system now called "ER visits and Medicaid". We have a right to save ourselves money. Yes, we do..

Much as you might want to, you cannot ignore all the other lines.

That being said, the Constitutio0n could be amended but since most Americans dont want that I doubt it will come to pass.