Jump to content
WillFranklin

Republicans Trust Government For Defense SO Why Not Health Care?

Recommended Posts

Provide for the common defense and promote the general WELFARE. Right wing gun nuts takes the 2nd literally. Words matter to them. So why can't they take the preamble literally? Are they just words that have no meaning? They will tell you that's not what the word welfare means, but they will tell you that the militia means everyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, WillFranklin said:

 

The government is already in both businesses, health care, and defense.

 

We overspend on defense, yet leave seniors with no Medicaid at age 65 when Medicare doesn't cover jack and their income is low, bills are high, etc.

Wee, you have not given a reason why the govt. needs to be involved more in health care when "Medicare doesn't cover jack"......your words.....

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, jefftec said:

Wee, you have not given a reason why the govt. needs to be involved more in health care when "Medicare doesn't cover jack"......your words.....

 

 

We need more health coverage from the government, particularly for those who are most in need, like those over 65 who are disabled workers.

 

Why waste it on defense waste and leave those people to die?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, WillFranklin said:

Republicans Trust Government For Defense SO Why Not Health Care?

 

 

Republicans are usually "Christians" so because their religion is a fairy tale they get caught in lots of contradictions and double-standards.

 

Of course JEEEZUS wouldn't want them cutting Medicaid to give the money to the wealthy.

 

They say "trust JEEEEZUS to take care of the poor. We can't trust the government."

 

But when it comes to the military defending their ass, which is also life or death, they ain't waiting on JEEEEZUS! The want as much government spending as possible!

 

So the government is good at stuff.

 

It needs to do MORE with health care and most agree.

For one, it is specifically the job of the federal government. Secondly governments are great at killing people and destroying things and that is the purpose of the military, to defend us by killing people and destroying things. 

 

The government is good at some things. 

 

It needs to do less with healthcare and I don't care who agrees or disagrees. Healthcare is not the job of the federal government.

 

What does Jesus have to do with this? It isn't "Christianly" to have socialized healtcare. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Redoctober said:

For one, it is specifically the job of the federal government. Secondly governments are great at killing people and destroying things and that is the purpose of the military, to defend us by killing people and destroying things. 

 

The government is good at some things. 

 

It needs to do less with healthcare and I don't care who agrees or disagrees. Healthcare is not the job of the federal government.

 

What does Jesus have to do with this? It isn't "Christianly" to have socialized healtcare. 

 

I know the Republican plan for healthcare is that those that can't afford it will do without.

 

We found out that there are not enough psycopaths to go along with your health care plan.

 

Republican-Jesus-Medicaid.jpg
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, WillFranklin said:

 

We need more health coverage from the government, particularly for those who are most in need, like those over 65 who are disabled workers.

 

Why waste it on defense waste and leave those people to die?

 

We have Medicare for those that are in need.

.....defense waste?.....to a degree, you could find fault with any govt. institution.

....and then you said "leave those people to die?".........you tried the emotional hook.....

......and that's where you lost me.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, jefftec said:

 

We have Medicare for those that are in need.

 

 

Nowhere near enough. That's why there's Medicaid.

 

And we need more from both Medicaid and Medicare.

 

3 minutes ago, WillFranklin said:

 

I know the Republican plan for healthcare is that those that can't afford it will do without.

 

We found out that there are not enough psycopaths to go along with your health care plan.

 


 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, WillFranklin said:

 

Nowhere near enough. That's why there's Medicaid.

 

And we need more from both Medicaid and Medicare.

 

 

 

Typical liberal default move:.......dput the burden on the American taxpayer.....:-)😶

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, jefftec said:

 

Typical liberal default move:.......dput the burden on the American taxpayer.....:-)😶

 

 

So how else would a disabled worker pay their medical bills at age 65?

 

Right now their Medicaid runs out at age 65. Their Medicare stays but their medical bills are high and their wages are low.

 

You would punish disabled workers?

 

Same for those in the Medicaid expansion who turn 65.

 

You expect someone who makes 13,000 a year to pay for their medical bills.

 

You don't mind burdening the taxpayer for fossil fuel subsidies, trade war subsidies, and military waste, or aid to Israel.

 

12 minutes ago, WillFranklin said:

 

I know the Republican plan for healthcare is that those that can't afford it will do without.

 

We found out that there are not enough psycopaths to go along with your health care plan.

 


 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Excellent question, Will; reveals tremendous hypocrisy.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, jefftec said:

 

We have Medicare for those that are in need.

.....defense waste?.....to a degree, you could find fault with any govt. institution.

....and then you said "leave those people to die?".........you tried the emotional hook.....

......and that's where you lost me.....

 

We have Medicare for people over 65 years of age, not those in need.

 

There are FAR MORE in need of healthcare than the very few that Medicaid helps.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Scout said:

 

We have Medicare for people over 65 years of age, not those in need.

 

There are FAR MORE in need of healthcare than the very few that Medicaid helps.

 

 

Someone wake up the right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, JeanMoulin said:

Provide for the common defense and promote the general WELFARE. Right wing gun nuts takes the 2nd literally. Words matter to them. So why can't they take the preamble literally? Are they just words that have no meaning? They will tell you that's not what the word welfare means, but they will tell you that the militia means everyone.

Because the "general welfare" does not mean what you apparently think it means. Yes indeed we should take it literally as it was written/intended. Madison put it best:

 

https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2018/07/18/james-madison-refutes-expansive-reading-of-the-general-welfare-clause/

 

"

In the conflict I feel between my disposition, on one hand, to afford every constitutional encouragement to the fisheries, and my dislike, on the other, of the consequences apprehended from some clauses in the bill, I should have forborne to enter into this discussion, if I had not found, that, over and above such arguments as appear to be natural and pertinent to the subject, others have been introduced, which are, in my judgment, contrary to the true meaning, and even strike at the characteristic principles of the constitution. Let me premise, however, to the remarks which I shall briefly offer, on the doctrine maintained by these gentlemen, that I make a material distinction in the present case, between an allowance as a mere commutation and modification of a drawback, and an allowance in the nature of a real and positive bounty. I make a distinction also, as a subject of fair consideration at least, between a bounty granted under the particular terms in the constitution, “a power to regulate trade,” and one granted under the indefinite terms which have been cited as authority on this occasion. I think, however, that the term “bounty” is in every point of view improper as it is here applied, not only because it may be offensive to some, and, in the opinion of others, carries a dangerous implication; but also because it does not express the true intention of the bill as avowed and advocated by its patrons themselves. For if, in the allowance, nothing more is proposed, than a mere reimbursement of a sum advanced, it is only paying a debt; and when we pay a debt, we ought not to claim the merit of granting a bounty.

It is supposed by some gentlemen, that Congress have authority not only to grant bounties in the sense here used, merely as a commutation for drawbacks, but even to grant them under a power by virtue of which they may do anything which they may think conducive to the “general welfare.” This, sir, in my mind, raises the important and fundamental question, whether the general terms which had been cited, are to be considered as a sort of caption or general description of the specified powers, and as having no further meaning, and giving no further power, than what is found in that specification, or as an abstract and indefinite delegation of power extending to all cases whatever; to all such at least, as will admit the application of money, which is giving as much latitude as any government could well desire.

 

I, sir, have always conceived—I believe those who proposed the constitution conceived; it is still more fully known, and more material to observe, those who ratified the constitution conceived, that this is not an indefinite government deriving its powers from the general terms prefixed to the specified powers—but, a limited government tied down to the specified powers, which explain and define the general terms.

The gentlemen who contend for a contrary doctrine are surely not aware of the consequences which flow from it, and which they must either admit, or give up their doctrine.

 

It will follow, in the first place, that if the terms be taken in the broad sense they maintain, the particular powers, afterwards so carefully and distinctly enumerated, would be without meaning, and must go for nothing. It would be absurd to say, first, that Congress may do what they please; and then, that they may do this or that particular thing. After giving Congress power to raise money, and apply it to all purposes which they may pronounce necessary to the general welfare, it would be absurd, to say the least, to superadd a power to raise armies, to provide fleets, &c. In fact, the meaning of the general terms in question must either be sought in the subsequent enumerations which limits and details them, or they convert the government from one limited as hitherto supposed, to the enumerated powers, into a government without any limits at all.

 

It is to be recollected, that the terms “common defence and general welfare,” as here used, are not novel terms first introduced into this constitution. They are terms familiar in their construction, and well known to the people of America. They are repeatedly found in the old articles of confederation, where, although they are susceptible of as great latitude as can be given them by the context here, it was never supposed or pretended that they conveyed any such powers as is now assigned to them. On the Contrary, it was always considered as clear and certain, that the old Congress was limited to the enumerated powers; and that the enumeration limited and explained the general terms. I ask the gentlemen themselves, whether it ever was supposed or suspected, that the old Congress could give away the money of the states in bounties to encourage agriculture or for any other purpose they pleased. If such a power had been possessed by that body, it would have been much less impotent, or have borne a very different character from that universally ascribed to it.

 

The novel idea now annexed to those terms, and never before entertained by the friends or enemies of the government, will have a further consequence which cannot have been taken into the view of the gentlemen. Their construction would not only give Congress the complete legislative power I have stated; it would do more; it would supercede all the restrictions understood at present to lie on their power with respect to a judiciary. It would put it in the power of Congress to establish Courts throughout the United States, with cognizance of suits between citizen and citizen, and in all cases whatsoever. This sir, seems to be demonstrable: For if the clause in question really authorizes Congress to do whatever they think fit, provided it be for the general welfare, of which they are to judge, and money can be applied to it, Congress must have power to create and support a judiciary establishment, with a jurisdiction extending to all cases, favorable, in their opinion, to the general welfare, in the same manner as they have power to pass laws and apply money providing in any other way for the general welfare. I shall be reminded, perhaps, that according to the terms of the constitution, the judicial power is to extend to certain cases only, not to all cases. But this circumstance can have no effect in the argument, it being presupposed by the gentlemen, that the specification of certain objects does not limit the import of the general terms. Taking these terms as an abstract and indefinite grant of power, they comprise all the objects of legislative regulation, as well such as fall under the judiciary article in the constitution, as those falling immediately under the legislative article; and if the partial enumeration of objects in the legislative article does not, as these gentlemen contend, limit the general power, neither will it be limited by the partial enumeration of objects in the judiciary article.

There are consequences, sir, still more extensive which as they follow clearly from the doctrine combated, must either be admitted, or the doctrine must be given up. If Congress can apply money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may establish teachers in every state, county, and parish, and pay them out of the public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the union; they may assume the provision for the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation, down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress; for every object I have mentioned would admit the application of money, and might be called, if Congress pleased, provisions for the general welfare.

 

The language held in various discussions of this house, is a proof that the doctrine in question was never entertained by this body. Arguments, wherever the subject would permit, have constantly been drawn from the peculiar nature of this government as limited to certain enumerated powers, instead of extending, like other governments to all cases not particularly excepted. In a very late instance, I mean the debate on the representation bill, it must be remembered that an argument much used, particularly by a gentleman from Massachusetts, against the ratio of one for 30,000, was that this government was unlike the state governments, which had an indefinite variety of objects within their power, that it had a small number of objects only to attend to, & therefore that a smaller number of representatives would be sufficient to administer it.

 

Arguments have been advanced, to shew, that because, in the regulation of trade, indirect and eventual encouragement is given to manufactures, therefore congress have power to give money in direct bounties, or to grant it in any other way that would answer the same purpose. But surely, Sir, there is a great and obvious difference, which it cannot be necessary to enlarge upon; a duty laid on imported implements of husbandry, would in its operation be an indirect tax on exported produce: but will any one say that by virtue of a mere power to lay duties on imports, Congress might go directly to the produce or implements of agriculture, or to the articles exported? It is true, duties on exports are expressly prohibited; but if there were no article forbidding them, a power directly to tax exports could never be deduced from a power to tax imports, although such a power might indirectly and incidentally affect exports.

 

In short, sir, without going further into the subject, which I should not have here touched on at all, but for the reasons already mentioned, I venture to declare it as my opinion, that were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundation, and transmute the very nature of the limited government established by the people of America: and what inferences might be drawn or what consequences ensue from such a step, it is incumbent on us all well to consider.

 

With respect to the question before the house for striking out the clause, it is immaterial whether it be struck out, or so amended as to rest on the avowed principle of a commutation for the drawback, but as a clause has been drawn up by one of my colleagues, in order to be substituted, I shall concur in a vote for striking out, reserving to myself a freedom to be governed in my final vote by the modification which may prevail.

"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, superds77 said:

Because the "general welfare" does not mean what you apparently think it means. Yes indeed we should take it literally as it was written/intended. Madison put it best:

 

https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2018/07/18/james-madison-refutes-expansive-reading-of-the-general-welfare-clause/

 

 

 

The Tenth Amendment argument never took off during Obamacare passage.

 

It's past ever mattering.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Madison is dead. If General welfare doesn't mean the welfare of the country and everyone of it's people, then the word militia doesn't mean everyone either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, WillFranklin said:

 

Then why does it belong in the defense business?

 

GOVERNMENT has a CONSTITUTIONAL MANDATE to "Provide for the COMMON DEFENSE".

 

There is NOTHING in the CONSTITUTION about government providing HEALTH CARE for anyone.

 

Damn, now shillywilly can take his little SCHITSTAIN self and whimper like a little cowed puppy.

 

BITCH SLAPPING these SCHISTAINS is just getting WAY TOO EASY!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, WillFranklin said:

 

So how else would a disabled worker pay their medical bills at age 65?

 

Right now their Medicaid runs out at age 65. Their Medicare stays but their medical bills are high and their wages are low.

 

You would punish disabled workers?

 

Same for those in the Medicaid expansion who turn 65.

 

You expect someone who makes 13,000 a year to pay for their medical bills.

 

You don't mind burdening the taxpayer for fossil fuel subsidies, trade war subsidies, and military waste, or aid to Israel.

 

 

 

 

.....well now, bet you don't mind illegal immigrants coming in and taking advantage of benefits naturalized citizens would normally have available to use..........and I mean a world of illegals.....

.........you have no argument.....

The democrat party really doesn't care about what resources are used up by illegals, just as long as they will vote for them.

.....you have no argument......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, MidnightMax said:

 

GOVERNMENT has a CONSTITUTIONAL MANDATE to "Provide for the COMMON DEFENSE".

 

There is NOTHING in the CONSTITUTION about government providing HEALTH CARE for anyone.

 

Damn, now shillywilly can take his little SCHITSTAIN self and whimper like a little cowed puppy.

 

BITCH SLAPPING these SCHISTAINS is just getting WAY TOO EASY!!!

 

Does it say that you can't shit in the streets?

 

They provided for every citizen the best they could back then.

 

There is no excuse for not doing so now, as was their intention.

 

Where does it say to give Israel 142.3 Billion dollars, or oil subsidies, farm tariff bailouts...?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, jefftec said:

 

.....well now, bet you don't mind illegal immigrants coming in and taking advantage of benefits naturalized citizens would normally have available to use..........and I mean a world of illegals.....

.........you have no argument.....

The democrat party really doesn't care about what resources are used up by illegals, just as long as they will vote for them.

.....you have no argument......

 

They should pay what they can afford towards their care. The rest they owe. We need to work out plans for them.

 

You don't mind taking their tax money to pay for your entitlements. They never receive those.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Make no mistake about it all in this country are paying taxes somehow maybe it is sales taxes, social security taxes and Medicare taxes etc etc etc. 

 

I want my tax dollars paying for health care for everyone who needs healthcare just as other countries do ......... leads to a more productive lifestyle.

 

Absolutely = I want my tax dollars being spent more efficiently and effectively for my health care. Tax dollar supported health insurance = everyone is paying because everyone pays taxes somehow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I want my tax dollars being spent more efficiently and effectively for my health care. Tax dollar supported health insurance = everyone is paying because everyone pays taxes somehow.

 

There is a lot of reference to Canada however we are not in Canada therefore our system will not be a Canadian system. People who reference Canada have not done their homework thus

find themselves grasping for straws. 

 

Throughout the years the Medicare system has proved fiscally solid yet Medicare Insurance for ALL will not be exactly the same as Medicare. The medicare template will be applied because it saves money. Yes there are many countries that provide medical care and do it well. America will be among those who do it well. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FYI:

According to HR 676 Universal Single Payer Insurance for ALL would cover every person for all necessary medical care 24/7 to include:

     

Wellness /prescription drugs / hospital / surgical / outpatient services /  primary and preventive care / emergency services / dental / mental health / home health / physical therapy / rehabilitation (including for substance abuse) / vision care /  hearing services including hearing aids / chiropractic / medical equipment / palliative care / long term care

 

No deductibles / No Co-pays

 

The above is not free medical care just merely using our tax dollars more efficiently and effectively aka bringing OUR tax dollars home.

 

Consider that the federal government spends more than $3.5 trillion tax dollars annually on healthcare which would likely cover all in the USA under a Universal Single Payer Health Care program. Administrative costs drop 30% under Medicare for ALL.

 

=== Cost of care drops considerably when:

 

1,000 CEO's and their gold parachutes are eliminated 

 

8 lobbyists per elected official are eliminated

 

Special Interest campaign contributions are eliminated

 

Health Care is eliminated from Wall Street Gambling Casino's 

 

When all that are receiving care will be paying for their services instead of health care getting billed to those who enjoy being able to afford the price gouging by the industry.

 

Immediately when  Medicare Care Insurance For ALL becomes effective all involved in whatever health care service is provided get paid = no more bill collectors and no more bankruptcies due to medical bills.

 

=== One result:

 

All will have more expendable income the day Medicare For All Insurance becomes reality ----- anything wrong with that?  Of course not.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...