Article I, Section 8, Line 1

[BigRob]

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..

Article I Section 8 also states "but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States."

Therefore, excluding some states (like Nebraska) seems like it would be unconstitutional going by the language in the article you are citing.

Putting all of that aside, if people can successfully make the 10th amendment argument, it will be a toss up where the courts will come down in my opinion... especially if state governments pass legislation barring the implementation of the legislation.

 

[GenSeneca]

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

Wouldn't that be the opposite of providing for the general welfare?

Perhaps that is a tact they could take, pointing out that the constitution doesn't bar government from destroying the general welfare.

 

[Sihouette]

Yes exactly BigRob, the Nebraska agreement is unconstitutional and will be struck down.

The thing that is crushing our country financially is THE EXISTING UNIVERSAL CARE SYSTEM NOW IN PLACE. We have universal care. It's ER [eightfold cost] guarantee and medicaid. We are seeking to save taxpayers money by making a system that relies on supportive and preventative care instead of way expensive triage and fragmented health care bureaucracies like the VA medicaid and ER all employing different clerks, managers, auditors and so on. The Bill now proposed is an idea of equal waste. It seeks to provide insurers with millions of new customers that taxpayers will subsidize! So not only will it cost us for the actual real care these people get, we will be paying CEO bonuses and advertising too at God-knows what skyrocketing rates over time?!

The current system is too costly. Universal single payer will streamline and save money for taxpayers. Why on earth would anyone oppose it? The only cheaper alternative is to completely abolish the ER guarantee and take away medicaid or even the VA care. I dare you to try that politically. So saving money and providing life and limb saving care passes the "general Welfare" test in spades. We have a right to enact it on our behalf. Please explain why you want taxpayers to pay more for the existing setup or worse, the MedMob-subsidy Bill?

If you're here bloggin on behalf of MedMob masters under the ruse of being a "good conservative merely concerned for taxpayers", I have one thing to say to your masters: You should've seen the trends coming and invested all the money you spent hiring professional bloggers, media advertising and bribing Congresspeople and instead invested it in new budding technologies. We won't keep taking the hit for gross mismanagement of prospectus-blindness. You either follow the trends and invest wisely or you don't and lose. We aren't going to wet-nur$e you at our expense any longer.

 

[BigRob]

Yes exactly BigRob, the Nebraska agreement is unconstitutional and will be struck down.

The thing that is crushing our country financially is THE EXISTING UNIVERSAL CARE SYSTEM NOW IN PLACE. We have universal care. It's ER [eightfold cost] guarantee and medicaid. We are seeking to save taxpayers money by making a system that relies on supportive and preventative care instead of way expensive triage and fragmented health care bureaucracies like the VA medicaid and ER all employing different clerks, managers, auditors and so on. The Bill now proposed is an idea of equal waste. It seeks to provide insurers with millions of new customers that taxpayers will subsidize! So not only will it cost us for the actual real care these people get, we will be paying CEO bonuses and advertising too at God-knows what skyrocketing rates over time?!

The current system is too costly. Universal single payer will streamline and save money for taxpayers. Why on earth would anyone oppose it? The only cheaper alternative is to completely abolish the ER guarantee and take away medicaid or even the VA care. I dare you to try that politically. So saving money and providing life and limb saving care passes the "general Welfare" test in spades. We have a right to enact it on our behalf. Please explain why you want taxpayers to pay more for the existing setup or worse, the MedMob-subsidy Bill?

If you're here bloggin on behalf of MedMob masters under the ruse of being a "good conservative merely concerned for taxpayers", I have one thing to say to your masters: You should've seen the trends coming and invested all the money you spent hiring professional bloggers, media advertising and bribing Congresspeople and instead invested it in new budding technologies. We won't keep taking the hit for gross mismanagement of prospectus-blindness. You either follow the trends and invest wisely or you don't and lose. We aren't going to wet-nur$e you at our expense any longer.

Well.. I am not here "blogging" on behalf of anyone other than myself. Putting that aside, the bills currently available have a lot of assumptions that I feel will not be met, and without meeting them, will not lower the deficit.

I have no problem with some form of health care reform, but it is a strawman argument to say "it is this bill or the status quo." There are alternatives to both that we can pursue.

 

[Sihouette]

I didn't direct that at you BigRob, I meant the obvious clone-bots. Sorry I didn't make that more clear.

Well there is really only one alternative that covers everyone who needs it and takes away the expense of advertising and paying CEOs and that is of course our right to establish a system funded by equal taxation that we ourselves run. ie: "single payer". Like I said, we're done wet-nursing investors' inability to ferret public trends and invest wisely. That's what this boils down to is either MedMob CEOs/boardmembers or their stockholders crying "we had it soooo good for sooo long and now you want to take my nipple away!!' WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHH!!! Poor dumb investors! Poor spoiled CEOs!!

That LITERALLY is what this entire debate is about, the inability of a monopoly to continue existing at the expense of the People. No, really, it is.

I'll never forget weaning my kids, my son especially threw a FIT! He cried and cried and beat his fists on my chest and pulled on my shirt, alternating with pouting and snivelling and refusing to eat other food unless I nursed him first. It was my fault for nursing him too long [a year and a half] It SO reminds me of what MedMob is doing it would be utterly laughable if tens of thousands of dear people weren't dying every year from the outfall of their tantrums working....We need to get MedMob a binky...lol..maybe invest what's left of the collosal wasted sum of tantrum-funds into green energy?

 

[Sihouette]

Well I think today we're going to hear the public option announced. The dems cannot survive this Fall without passing it. And this is the sweetest form of democracy wherein voters like in Massachusettes can apply the pressure until their representatives take into account their 80% majority wishes.

Any dem who doesn't support the public option is either trying to commit political suicide or has written off their job in favor of bribe money.

 

[rationalist]

Yes, they really should take lectures on democracy from republicans after the fiasco of 2000

 

[Helicitor]

Yes, they really should take lectures on democracy from republicans after the fiasco of 2000

Ah yes, I remember 2000. I didn't give a rat's sit upon for either candidate, and would've been happy if they'd just flipped a coin, with the victor president, and the looser vice (as you'll recall, the senate was 50/50, so the VP would've had appreciable power). UNTIL, the dems started to systematically disenfranchise military voters who'd sent in absentee ballots. For those involved, I'll never forgive that betrayal.

 

[Sihouette]

But you will forget the betrayal of lying about WOMDs to Congress by Bushco won't you?


Just like you'll also forget how costly the current ER-public system is now as separate from Medicaid and the VA system. How we tried to rein in costs but were told by medical insurance companies [under the ruse of "we're too big to fail" ] that we needed instead to pay their CEOs and advertising costs with taxpayer subsidies to take on the uninsured. Creating yet another wasteful and unfair corporate-welfare recipient scheme. How the cheapest form of healthcare is the Public Option after all: a streamlined ER/medicaid/VA system that serves everyone else but the well-to-do who can afford cadillac care that should be the new competing norm with private insurers.

I'm for the taxpayer's ability to retool the system they're now paying way too much for. I'm for saving money by covering everyone instead of losing it by covering everyone like we do now.

 

[dogtowner]

But you will forget the betrayal of lying about WOMDs to Congress by Bushco won't you?


Just like you'll also forget how costly the current ER-public system is now as separate from Medicaid and the VA system. How we tried to rein in costs but were told by medical insurance companies [under the ruse of "we're too big to fail" ] that we needed instead to pay their CEOs and advertising costs with taxpayer subsidies to take on the uninsured. Creating yet another wasteful and unfair corporate-welfare recipient scheme. How the cheapest form of healthcare is the Public Option after all: a streamlined ER/medicaid/VA system that serves everyone else but the well-to-do who can afford cadillac care that should be the new competing norm with private insurers.

I'm for the taxpayer's ability to retool the system they're now paying way too much for. I'm for saving money by covering everyone instead of losing it by covering everyone like we do now.

And you do not even realize that it was government that has driven medical costs up and up. Government is not the solution, its the problem.

 

[GenSeneca]

I'll just let this shining example of Progressive intellectual brilliance speak for itself:

I'm for saving money by covering everyone instead of losing it by covering everyone

 

[dogtowner]

I'll just let this shining example of Progressive intellectual brilliance speak for itself:

the funny part is, they believe it

 

[Sihouette]

Dancing around the truth of that statement is harming your two's credibility.

You know full well we taxpayers already foot a universal-care expenditure that covers everyone: Eightfold expensive guaranteed ER visits. Then we also pay separately for Medicaid and the VA programs with different clerical systems that serve to do essentially the same thing.

So either you're in favor of eliminating those segments of existing universal care and instead providing corporate welfare to private insurers via subsidies, or you're for combining them into one clerical system without CEO bonuses and advertising costs? Private insurance subsidies [welfare] will only take some off the rolls of that ER-situation, still leaving millions to lean on it anyway in addition, and also those subsidies would go to CEO bonuses and advertising. And no...don't say it...I'll say it for you.. "the private medical insurers are too big to fail". Did I get it right?

You feel the less-expensive and more fiscally-responsible route would be to pay more and get less? Let me just say that I won't be hiring you to do my financial advising or brokering anytime in the near future...

And our creditors over in China are probably wanting their lendees to be fiscally-responsible lest they decide to raise interest rates in response to our inability to say no to irresponsible private entities who throw their tantrum-money at suppression of saving taxpayer costs and instead have the gall to ask for more subsidies [welfare] for their already uberrich CEOs. If America was a client looking for a loan with their present portfolio, I'd laugh them right out of my bank.

 

[dogtowner]

Dancing around the truth of that statement is harming your two's credibility.

You know full well we taxpayers already foot a universal-care expenditure that covers everyone: Eightfold expensive guaranteed ER visits. Then we also pay separately for Medicaid and the VA programs with different clerical systems that serve to do essentially the same thing.

Just curious, how many years of experience do you have writing claims software ? I did it for about 10 years.

So either you're in favor of eliminating those segments of existing universal care and instead providing corporate welfare to private insurers via subsidies, or you're for combining them into one clerical system without CEO bonuses and advertising costs? Private insurance subsidies [welfare] will only take some off the rolls of that ER-situation, still leaving millions to lean on it anyway in addition, and also those subsidies would go to CEO bonuses and advertising. And no...don't say it...I'll say it for you.. "the private medical insurers are too big to fail". Did I get it right?

I'm still trying to see these subsides that private insurers are getting. never heard that claim except from you. Perhaps you could point to a link ?

You feel the less-expensive and more fiscally-responsible route would be to pay more and get less? Let me just say that I won't be hiring you to do my financial advising or brokering anytime in the near future...

Even the president disagrees with this notion though he does not realize it

Obama clearly understands how this, saying “Those of us with health insurance are also paying a hidden and growing tax for those without it—about $1,000 per year that pays for somebody else’s emergency room and charitable care”

Do you honestly believe free healthcare would be less that $1000 a year ?

And our creditors over in China are probably wanting their lendees to be fiscally-responsible lest they decide to raise interest rates in response to our inability to say no to irresponsible private entities who throw their tantrum-money at suppression of saving taxpayer costs and instead have the gall to ask for more subsidies [welfare] for their already uberrich CEOs. If America was a client looking for a loan with their present portfolio, I'd laugh them right out of my bank.

If this is the case I doubt they want us adding more bureaucracy to an already bloated federal government.

 

[Sihouette]

Just curious, how many years of experience do you have writing claims software ? I did it for about 10 years

So you found a red apple therefore all apples are red? Your point?

I'm still trying to see these subsides that private insurers are getting. never heard that claim except from you. Perhaps you could point to a link ?

Yes, they're in the tags attached by the GOP to the current flawed Bill that was sent to the House O' Representin'.

Even the president disagrees with this notion though he does not realize it

Fortunately I'm not beholden to what the President, via poitical posturing, professes currently to believe or not believe. I like facts and numbers. When you can use that 10 years experience to show us here how paying CEO bonuses and advertising via corporate welfare [susidies to take on the uninsured as currently proposed] let us know!

Do you honestly believe free healthcare would be less that $1000 a year ?

That question doesn't address a quote from me nor does it cite a reference so I won't bother answering it.

If this is the case I doubt they want us adding more bureaucracy to an already bloated federal government.

.lol.. you're funny at spinning. I don't think adding to government will be a deal-killer to China. They like math too.