Preamble to the Constitution of the United States of America

From the first link:
Another factor is that there are fewer places for the uninsured to get good care. Public hospitals and clinics are shuttering or scaling back across the country in cities like New Orleans, Detroit and others, he said.............................. With cuts in medical payments to doctors, expect more of that.

That 'secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity' should also include not leaving them a massive debt that will never be paid.

quote:

Originally posted by tcf531:
Preamble:

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Two parts of this stick out as relevant to the health care debate and its constitutionality.

PROMOTE THE GENERAL WELFARE

The federal government IS responsible for the general welfare of its citizens.
Having 45,000 citizens a year die due to lack of health insurance is very irresponsible.
link:
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE58G6W520090917

INSURE DOMESTIC TRANQUILITY

can families be tranquil when their insurance can be cancelled just because one of them becomes sick? NO.
link:
http://www.consumerwatchdog.or...oryId=28030&bIndex=0

Here let me fix it for you:

We the people of the SOCIALISTIC STATE OF AMERICA, in order to form a more perfect UTOPIA, establish justice FOR THE MAJORITY, FORCE domestic COMPLIANCE, provide for the common defense, PROVIDE WELFARE, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Sound more like the way you want it now?

Neither of these clauses make what Congress has done constitutionally legitimate.

First, the easy one. "Domestic Tranquility" essentially gives the federal government power to stop uprisings within the states. Under The Articles of Confederation, this was not allowed. Events like Shay's Rebellion convinced many government leaders that a stronger federal government was needed to prevent such things.

The general welfare clause is often misunderstood. That wasn't the case before FDR threatened to pack the SCOTUS, but that's another issue. This clause was intended to promote general welfare amongst the states, not for every man, woman, and child in the Union. I believe much of this can be traced back to the fact that there was a large amount of inequality between the states with regard to the amount of war debt they had paid off after the Revolution. "Welfare" could be defined as "freedom from want." Some states needed more than others to pay off these debts, and felt that a stronger federal government was necessary to provide welfare to the states. The states were still responsible, if responsible at all, for providing for the welfare of the people.

Cliff Notes: These clauses do not provide constitutional legitimacy to Obama's health care reform.

quote:

Originally posted by Jon:

quote:

Originally posted by tcf531:
Preamble:

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Two parts of this stick out as relevant to the health care debate and its constitutionality.

PROMOTE THE GENERAL WELFARE

The federal government IS responsible for the general welfare of its citizens.
Having 45,000 citizens a year die due to lack of health insurance is very irresponsible.
link:
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE58G6W520090917

INSURE DOMESTIC TRANQUILITY

can families be tranquil when their insurance can be cancelled just because one of them becomes sick? NO.
link:
http://www.consumerwatchdog.or...oryId=28030&bIndex=0

Here let me fix it for you:

We the people of the SOCIALISTIC STATE OF AMERICA, in order to form a more perfect UTOPIA, establish justice FOR THE MAJORITY, FORCE domestic COMPLIANCE, provide for the common defense, PROVIDE WELFARE, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Sound more like the way you want it now?

no, i like it just the way it was written. In the spirit of equality for all people, not to condemn the poor for circumstances beyond their control.

quote:

Originally posted by tcf531:
no, i like it just the way it was written. In the spirit of equality for all people, not to condemn the poor for circumstances beyond their control.

You do realize that when it was written it wasn't written to bring equality to all people right?

No one is condeming the poor. Why condemn the "Rich" to support the poor? Join the military if you are hopelessly poor.It's a decent wage, 100%paid insurance, housing, food, an education, money for a college degree, and a heck of a boost into the workforce.

quote:

Originally posted by tcf531:

quote:

Originally posted by Jon:

quote:

Originally posted by tcf531:
Preamble:

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Two parts of this stick out as relevant to the health care debate and its constitutionality.

PROMOTE THE GENERAL WELFARE

The federal government IS responsible for the general welfare of its citizens.
Having 45,000 citizens a year die due to lack of health insurance is very irresponsible.
link:
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE58G6W520090917

INSURE DOMESTIC TRANQUILITY

can families be tranquil when their insurance can be cancelled just because one of them becomes sick? NO.
link:
http://www.consumerwatchdog.or...oryId=28030&bIndex=0

Here let me fix it for you:

We the people of the SOCIALISTIC STATE OF AMERICA, in order to form a more perfect UTOPIA, establish justice FOR THE MAJORITY, FORCE domestic COMPLIANCE, provide for the common defense, PROVIDE WELFARE, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Sound more like the way you want it now?

no, i like it just the way it was written. In the spirit of equality for all people, not to condemn the poor for circumstances beyond their control.

You, my boy, are a fool.

quote:

Originally posted by tcf531:
Having 45,000 citizens a year die due to lack of health insurance is very irresponsible.

I'm a little dumber than I was before. I actually read your first reference. Never more.

"The Harvard researchers analyzed data on about 9,000 patients tracked by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Center for Health Statistics through the year 2000. "

Somebody correct me if I'm wrong but don't you have to be pretty well on the way out the door and usually on medicade to be "tracked by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Center for Health Statistics "

They took 9000 of the sickest people in the country, Counted up how many died that didn't have private insurance and used that percentage against the total number of deaths in the US.

**Snicker** Have you figured out yet that the constitution didn't have the original intent of equality for all people?

quote:

Originally posted by Jon:

quote:

Originally posted by tcf531:
no, i like it just the way it was written. In the spirit of equality for all people, not to condemn the poor for circumstances beyond their control.

You do realize that when it was written it wasn't written to bring equality to all people right?

No one is condeming the poor. Why condemn the "Rich" to support the poor? Join the military if you are hopelessly poor.It's a decent wage, 100%paid insurance, housing, food, an education, money for a college degree, and a heck of a boost into the workforce.

Jon, I had lots of friends in HS that did just that, join the military for insurance and a decent wage. I tried, but could not get in for a bad knee I had. The free education was just a great bonus. And yes, u might have to risk your life in war, but freedom isnt free.

Where the heck does the CAPITALISM come into the picture. Capitalism isn't mentioned anywhere in the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence.

quote:

Originally posted by True-Blue:
Where the heck does the CAPITALISM come into the picture. Capitalism isn't mentioned anywhere in the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence.

Uh little grasshopper, capitalism comes under "freedom." It's what made this the greatest nation in world history. But don't despair. osama is doing everything in his power to change that.

quote:

Originally posted by kperk014:

quote:

Originally posted by True-Blue:
Where the heck does the CAPITALISM come into the picture. Capitalism isn't mentioned anywhere in the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence.

Uh little grasshopper, capitalism comes under "freedom." It's what made this the greatest nation in world history. But don't despair. osama is doing everything in his power to change that.

Capitalism comes under FREEDOM? Well...I guess you really are as much of a ******* as you seem. Exactly how is CAPITALISM FREEDOM? And tell me where you find reference of this in ANY of our founding documents. Or perhaps this is just another Republican revision.

quote:

Originally posted by True-Blue:

quote:

Originally posted by kperk014:

quote:

Originally posted by True-Blue:
Where the heck does the CAPITALISM come into the picture. Capitalism isn't mentioned anywhere in the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence.

Uh little grasshopper, capitalism comes under "freedom." It's what made this the greatest nation in world history. But don't despair. osama is doing everything in his power to change that.

Capitalism comes under FREEDOM? Well...I guess you really are as much of a ******* as you seem. Exactly how is CAPITALISM FREEDOM? And tell me where you find reference of this in ANY of our founding documents. Or perhaps this is just another Republican revision.

As Dan Aykroyd once said, "You ignorant, misguided sl ut." Freedom gives Americans the right to pursue business opportunities. It also gives you and your comrades the right to do nothing. However, it never intended for the industrious citizens to have to pay YOUR way in life.
obama cash
.

quote:

Capitalism comes under FREEDOM? Well...I guess you really are as much of a ******* as you seem. Exactly how is CAPITALISM FREEDOM? And tell me where you find reference of this in ANY of our founding documents. Or perhaps this is just another Republican revision.

The brand of "capitalism" practiced by the majority of today's conservatives has very little to do with freedom. True capitalism is the epitome of freedom, economic freedom that is. True, it is not mentioned is any of the writings of the founders, but they didn't outright endorse any specific economic system. Instead, they described the proper role of government, and that description did not involve meddling in the economy.

Anybody happen to catch CNN's Sanja Gupta's(sorry for the spelling) opinion this morning.

No health care 'magic wand'
hide details
CNN's Dr. Sanjay Gupta breaks down the health care bill and how it will affect patients. FULL VIDEO

Also ran across another way they are paying for this wonderful calamity. They are imposing a 10% tax on using a tanning bed. LOL

I guess since the prez doesn't need a tan, the rest of us don't either.

Also still wondering, how many of you really think the Pre-amble and the original Constitution was written for equality of all people?

So here is your logic at work...
According to you, 45,000 people die per year without insuraance.
According to the CDC, in 2009 in the US, 2,426, 264 died.
Therefore, 2,381,264 people died with insurance. Meaning you are 52 times more likely to die in the US if you have insurance than if not.
It is reiduclous, people in this country do not die from lack of insurance. They die predominantly from heart disease and cancer, the two biggest killers, both of which can be directly attributed to personal habits, accidental exposures with subsequent risk factors, and familial traits.
Although there are parts of this new Medical program I can agree with, increasing taxes on the middle class and increasing the deficit will DO NOTHING to lower the death rate in the U.S.

So your logic is, eventually we all die. If you are fortunate enough to afford insurance and get medical attention than you deserve to have your suffering eliviated and your life is worth extending through medical attention. If your not fortunate and cannnot afford medical attention you deserve to suffer and your life is not worth extending.

Like I've said, such good Christians here in Alabama!

true blue, I hate to be the bearer of bad news but regardless of anything the onointed one in the White house can do we are all going to die. The study in this post goes in the category of you can make numbers state any position you want it to. The preamble says the government shall "promote" general welfare not guarantee it. The fact that we have uninsured people in this country is unfortunate. Turning our country into a nanny state is not the answer. A strong economy with job growth is the answer. Unfortunately that is not a priority with the Obama administration. When all is said and done this healthcare bill will do more to promote welfare and discourage job growth than anything in our countrys history.

Big difference between the truly needy and those who spend their money for non-necessities and want the tax payer to provide their food, housing, MEDICAL CARE.
It's more fun and we can keep up with the Jones' if we take the kids to Disney World and expect the taxpayer to pay for their medical care. Slugs, all of them.
The "good Christians here in Alabma" are many. They pay power/gas bills, they provide food, clothing, a place to stay for the TRULY needy.
They are fooled some of the time (eg:the professional slugs post-Katrina.)They never complain. You could learn from these charitable people, Blue.

TrueBlue,
Currently in the US, according to he previous poster, there are about 45000 people who are dying because they do not have insurance. Insurance will not save your life. Yes, someone with coverage and who uses that coverage can detect symptoms and problems long before they die with the disease. However, the same people who will continue to smoke, eat unhealthy, and fail to exercise, will be the same ones who will need prolonged, exhaustive, and expensive therapy which in the long run will neither save their life nor contribute to the quality of it.
This is a mindset problem we have here. It is an issue of priorites. I have ssen numerous people who have come to the ER without insurance after wrecking their Harley while out riding and drinking on the weekend. I have seen folks come in to the ER with a hook in their hands, with no inusurance, that they got while out in the river in their $25000 bass boat. Children hurt on ATVs (unisured). People with COPD and asthma, who continue to smoke two packs of cigarettes aday (uninsured). People with liver disease who drink two or three six packs a day (uninsured). Those are the ones who you cannot feel pity for. This has nothing to do with the "good christians" of Alabama. This has to do with a portion of the community who will be taken advantage of, and taxed into poverty, by those who refuse to responsibility for their own actions.

KPUKE, I think you are confusing free market with freedom. If I were to follow your argument, it could make the point that Capitalism can actually suppress freedom.

You have to read the Preamble and the Constitution to understand what is being meant. First of all the Preamble is a synopsis of the fundamental reason and guiding principles of the Constitution. It is an outline of the rights of ALL PEOPLE IN THE USA (even non-citizens on US soil are protected by the Constitution) and evidence of the founding fathers intentions. It doesn't speak of Capitalism. Nor does it speak of Capitalism anywhere in the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence.

We the People of the United States,(The Constitution derives its sovereignty from the people and that the government under the Constitution was intended to protect "the people" directly, as one society.) in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility (One of the main goals of the Convention, then, was to ensure the federal government had powers to squash rebellion and to smooth tensions between states.), provide for the common defence,[1] promote the general Welfare (welfare n. 1. health, happiness, or prosperity; well-being), and secure the Blessings of Liberty(the liberties OR FREEDOMS are listed in the Constitution and the Declaration: speech; assembly; innocent until proven guilty; speedy trial by jury; own and freely use property; travel at will; worship at will; justice; patents and copyright; representative government; governed with the consent of the governed; free press; keep and bear arms; secure in person, house, papers, and effects; no double jeopardy; due process; freely elect representatives to ourselves and our Posterity (n. 1. Future generations. 2. All of a person's descendants), do ordain (ordain v. 2. To order by or as if by decree)and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

You should read these documents, they are truely beautiful.

A further note: The Preamble of the Constitution of the United States lists six ends to which the Constitution is addressed: union, justice, domestic tranquility, defense, general welfare, and liberty. The last is presented most fully, to whit, "secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity." Taken together, those six define the ends of republican government. To best achieve those ends the American founders recognized that simple republicanism was not enough, that what was required was a compound republic, what we today call a federal system.

quote:

Originally posted by ferrellj:
true blue, I hate to be the bearer of bad news but regardless of anything the onointed one in the White house can do we are all going to die. The study in this post goes in the category of you can make numbers state any position you want it to. The preamble says the government shall "promote" general welfare not guarantee it. The fact that we have uninsured people in this country is unfortunate. Turning our country into a nanny state is not the answer. A strong economy with job growth is the answer. Unfortunately that is not a priority with the Obama administration. When all is said and done this healthcare bill will do more to promote welfare and discourage job growth than anything in our countrys history.

Why do you assume there can be one or the other. Why can't there be both a strong economy and job growth as well as a country that takes care of its own? We already provide welfare for the poor. What about the middle class? The working class? Are there worthless good for nothing lazy people in the USA? YES. Are there also people who work hard for hardly nothing? YES.

quote:

Originally posted by True-Blue:
ALL PEOPLE IN THE USA (even non-citizens on US soil are protected by the Constitution) .

Ok, I thought it was a little humorous the first time someone said it. Now I am ROFLMAO.

Do you really think the founding father's meant " ALL PEOPLE IN THE USA " in the pre-amble?

Here's a hint since you apparently have not read the constitution past the pre-amble, look at the Ammendments and get back to us. If you can't find it heres another hint, lucky numbers 13, 15 and 19.

A good read is also number 14 for your "(even non-citizens on US soil are protected by the Constitution).

I haven't found yet where they've increased the sin taxes other than for those blasphemus tanners. I'm betting he didn't hit smokers again though. You do know it is tax payer dollars buying his smokes and government employees going to get them for him right?

When's the last time CNN showed the prez hitting the local convience store casue he was Jonesin for a drag?

quote:

Originally posted by lilyredrose:
Big difference between the truly needy and those who spend their money for non-necessities and want the tax payer to provide their food, housing, MEDICAL CARE.
It's more fun and we can keep up with the Jones' if we take the kids to Disney World and expect the taxpayer to pay for their medical care. Slugs, all of them.
The "good Christians here in Alabma" are many. They pay power/gas bills, they provide food, clothing, a place to stay for the TRULY needy.
They are fooled some of the time (eg:the professional slugs post-Katrina.)They never complain. You could learn from these charitable people, Blue.

Then why would you deny the good Christian people of Alabama the right to not be denied health care when they have pre-existing conditions? To keep their kids on their insurance until they are done with college? To ensure that the insurance company they are paying monthly to help them with medical bills, doesn't leave them high and dry when they actually need help with those bills? You already pay for those who cannot afford medical attention whenever they go to the hospital. Why do you want to prevent the good natured, Christian people of Alabama, who are paying for their insurance, the right to actually get what they are paying for. It seems to me that your resentment towards having to provide for those without is ruling your judgement. You are already providing medical services for them. Your taxes have always paid their hospital bills. If one of these people can see a doctor when they have bronchitis rather then be admitted to the hospital for a week after the bronchitis turns into pneumonia, it costs us all a lot less.

The problem true blue is where are the lines? Do you insure the woman with 3 kids whose husband has died and she is unemployable? Do you insure the family on welfare because the dad is a dead beat alcoholic that won't keep a job? Do you insure the illegal alien family? I believe in helping those in need "get back on their feet". There are a few that will need permanent help. For the most part any welfare should be temporary. Continous welfare only promotes the poor to remain on welfare. Why get a job for $1,000 a month when you can stay home and get $750? You may think you are doing a noble thing by taking care of the poor. But if you are actually encouraging the poor to stay that way what is noble about that?

quote:

Originally posted by Jon:

quote:

Originally posted by True-Blue:
ALL PEOPLE IN THE USA (even non-citizens on US soil are protected by the Constitution) .

Ok, I thought it was a little humorous the first time someone said it. Now I am ROFLMAO.

Do you really think the founding father's meant " ALL PEOPLE IN THE USA " in the pre-amble?

Here's a hint since you apparently have not read the constitution past the pre-amble, look at the Ammendments and get back to us. If you can't find it heres another hint, lucky numbers 13, 15 and 19.

A good read is also number 14 for your "(even non-citizens on US soil are protected by the Constitution).

I haven't found yet where they've increased the sin taxes other than for those blasphemus tanners. I'm betting he didn't hit smokers again though. You do know it is tax payer dollars buying his smokes and government employees going to get them for him right?

When's the last time CNN showed the prez hitting the local convience store casue he was Jonesin for a drag?

Bachelors Business Admin Major, Political Science Minor USSF. Perhaps you should read these documents. When the Constitution was wrote their was no formal form of citizenship.

This is the basis of the issue of trials of Gitmo prisoners on US soil. Once they are in the USA, they are entitled to the protections of the Constitution.

quote:

Originally posted by Jon:

quote:

Originally posted by True-Blue:
ALL PEOPLE IN THE USA (even non-citizens on US soil are protected by the Constitution) .

Ok, I thought it was a little humorous the first time someone said it. Now I am ROFLMAO.

Do you really think the founding father's meant " ALL PEOPLE IN THE USA " in the pre-amble?

Here's a hint since you apparently have not read the constitution past the pre-amble, look at the Ammendments and get back to us. If you can't find it heres another hint, lucky numbers 13, 15 and 19.

A good read is also number 14 for your "(even non-citizens on US soil are protected by the Constitution).

I haven't found yet where they've increased the sin taxes other than for those blasphemus tanners. I'm betting he didn't hit smokers again though. You do know it is tax payer dollars buying his smokes and government employees going to get them for him right?

When's the last time CNN showed the prez hitting the local convience store casue he was Jonesin for a drag?

THERE ARE SOME RIGHTS "SPECIFICALLY RESERVED" FOR CITIZENS SUCH AS THE RIGHT TO A FEDERAL JOB OR THE RIGHT TO VOTE. THE CONSTITUTION SPELLS OUT WHICH RIGHTS ARE "ASSIGNED" SPECIFICALLY TO US CITIZENS. THE CONSTITUTION (AS A WHOLE - WHEREEVER IT IS NOT SPECIFICALLY SPELLED OUT) PROTECTS THE RIGHTS OF CITIZENS AND NON-CITIZENS ALIKE.

True, there are some good points peppered into the bill. I whole heartedly agree that an insurance company should not be able to cancel someone because they get too sick to work and can't continue to pay premiums. Of course there's the duck that provides insurance for lost wages too. So much for them and however many employees they have that are now out of a job. Anyway, they can draw welfare and obomacare now.

As to pre-existing conditions, if you switch jobs/insurance, they already could not bar pre-existing conditions from coverage. This provision just begs for people to take advantage of it and pay the fine rather than take insurance until they get sick. I'm just waiting for when the penalty is raised and jail time gets added for not buying insurance, there goes the banishment of debtors prisons. Anyway...

You know as CNN gets deeper into this 2300+ page "Law" even their commentators and contributors are beginning to change their minds.

As to the deal for the "Executive Order" barring federal funds from being used for abortions, last I checked the Supreme Court still supports abortions. I just hope they nix both the Executive order and this whole bill at the same time.

And the more I think about it, shame on those blasphemus tanners, I think they ought to have been volutarily paying for an unemployed friend to tan with them. Everyone should have the right not to be pasty white. (I'm thinking about copyrighting that one)

quote:

Originally posted by ferrellj:
The problem true blue is where are the lines? Do you insure the woman with 3 kids whose husband has died and she is unemployable? Do you insure the family on welfare because the dad is a dead beat alcoholic that won't keep a job? Do you insure the illegal alien family? I believe in helping those in need "get back on their feet". There are a few that will need permanent help. For the most part any welfare should be temporary. Continous welfare only promotes the poor to remain on welfare. Why get a job for $1,000 a month when you can stay home and get $750? You may think you are doing a noble thing by taking care of the poor. But if you are actually encouraging the poor to stay that way what is noble about that?

We already define those lines. It isn't the childrens fault that the father is an alcholic. And like I said, what about the people who work hard every day for hardly nothing. Many, many, many people find a sense of self worth in employment. They struggle to pay their bills and take care of their families everyday. Many of them pay for insurance monthly, but are left out in the cold when they actually need medical treatment. I agree, our welfare system needs to be refined AND IT SHOULD BE TEMPORARY. They piss me off too. AND THINGS NEED TO BE CHANGED, but protesting you desire for change by punishing the people who are doing right is not the way. The fact is that we ARE already paying for them. This bill doesn't change that. But we cannot deny hard working members of society the right to get what they pay for just out of protest against paying the slackers. One way or another we're going to pay for them. Isn't it better to have to pay less for the losers of this country and invest in the hard working people?

quote:

Originally posted by Jon:
True, there are some good points peppered into the bill. I whole heartedly agree that an insurance company should not be able to cancel someone because they get too sick to work and can't continue to pay premiums. Of course there's the duck that provides insurance for lost wages too. So much for them and however many employees they have that are now out of a job. Anyway, they can draw welfare and obomacare now.

As to pre-existing conditions, if you switch jobs/insurance, they already could not bar pre-existing conditions from coverage.sure, if you have an employer that offers insurance or are not self employeed. This is just the point. Under a company plan you are entitle to group rates and group protections. This is not true for the hard working laborer who has to buy private insurance. This provision just begs for people to take advantage of it and pay the fine rather than take insurance until they get sick.I agree that this is a problem, but the hope is that we can make insurance affordable enough to make it worth while for people to get the insurance. This is no different than auto insurance. You must have auto insurance or you pay a fine. Most people are insured drivers. I'm just waiting for when the penalty is raised and jail time gets added for not buying insurance, there goes the banishment of debtors prisons. Anyway...

You know as CNN gets deeper into this 2300+ page "Law" even their commentators and contributors are beginning to change their minds.

As to the deal for the "Executive Order" barring federal funds from being used for abortions, last I checked the Supreme Court still supports abortions. The intention was not to overturn Roe vs Wade but to exclude federal funding of abortion. Which always has been banned. The executive order just ensures that the same guidelines with apply to this bill. I just hope they nix both the Executive order and this whole bill at the same time.

And the more I think about it, shame on those blasphemus tanners, I think they ought to have been volutarily paying for an unemployed friend to tan with them.The tanning thing is stupid, but the cases of skin cancer from tanninng beds is extreamly high. This is really no different from the fact that you pay higher insurance rates if you are a smoker or obese. Everyone should have the right not to be pasty white. (I'm thinking about copyrighting that one)

True Blue-

You seem to have a decent grasp of the Constitution, but I'm not sure what you suggesting in some cases.

quote:

the right to not be denied health care when they have pre-existing conditions?

That is not a right. No aspect of health care is a right - other than the right to seek it and provide without interference from the government. See my first post in this thread. The general welfare clause is not a blanket license to do anything in the name of general welfare.

quote:

THERE ARE SOME RIGHTS "SPECIFICALLY RESERVED" FOR CITIZENS SUCH AS THE RIGHT TO A FEDERAL JOB OR THE RIGHT TO VOTE.

Neither of these rights exist either.

true blue, we agree on a few points and I know your heart is in the right place and so is mine. We just disagree on on the methods. In the end this bill will not do what either of us wants. As a young man I knew I needed to get an education to get a decent job. When I got a minimum wage job I knew i needed to work hard to move up to a higher paying job. It took a long time and a lot of hard work to just reach middle class. Where is my right to enjoy the fruits of my hard work? Why should I be forced to pay for those that chose not to do the hard work?

quote:

Originally posted by ferrellj:
true blue, we agree on a few points and I know your heart is in the right place and so is mine. We just disagree on on the methods. In the end this bill will not do what either of us wants. As a young man I knew I needed to get an education to get a decent job. When I got a minimum wage job I knew i needed to work hard to move up to a higher paying job. It took a long time and a lot of hard work to just reach middle class. Where is my right to enjoy the fruits of my hard work? Why should I be forced to pay for those that chose not to do the hard work?

We agree on more than you know. This is just my point. You have worked hard, as have I. Why should either you or I be put in a position of potentially losing everything we have because of unforseen illness. You already pay for those who choose not to do hard work. These people have nothing to lose. You and I do. Shouldn't we be offered some protections for the fruits of of labor. God forbid, one of us should be diagnosed with lukemia. You've worked your whole life, you have paid for your insurance. And then you find yourself sick and in debt up to your eyeballs all because the 20% your insurance DID NOT COVER. Then after you have reached $750,000 in medical bills, suddenly you find you have reached your limits. Your insurer won't pay for more. Now you lose your home, you cannot work and cannot provide for your family. Basically, you have now became one of these people you have been supporting. Don't you and I deserve some protection from this sort of situation? We have done the right things: worked hard, pay our bills, etc... Why should the person who depended on us for their survival have less to fear than us?

quote:

Originally posted by True-Blue:
A further note: The Preamble of the Constitution of the United States lists six ends to which the Constitution is addressed: union, justice, domestic tranquility, defense, general welfare, and liberty.

I don't think the authors of the Constitution meant for us to do it on credit. We're twelve trillion dollars in debt that we'll never pay back, we've pretty much screwed the pooch when it comes to forming a more perfect union, insuring domestic tranquility, promoting general welfare, and securing the blessings of liberty for our posterity.

This debt is not something new. It's been rising for as long as I remember. You'd think we would have caught on after...oh, I don't know...the first couple of trillion. But, since we're not gonna pay it anyway, we may as well ride our creditors until they say "no more".

ferryl:

What is this, "The war has begun, Progressive prepare for battle". Is that really what you want? Do you really believe everyday working people in this country are so vastly different because of their political beliefs that you wish violence between them? Do you not realize that it is the balance that we get between the two political beleifs that make this such a great country. We just need to find middle ground.

Imagine a country explicitly ruled by republican beleif. There would be no equality and less humanity. We would have no civil rights, workers rights, there would be no social security or medicare.

Imagine a country ruled explicitly by progressive beliefs. There would be no competition, we would be taxed to oblivion and wouldn't have our military might.

Isn't it the balance between the political extreams that makes us such a dynamic country. Both parties contribute to the identity of this country. It shouldn't be you against me, but rather you and me.

TrueBlue,
You are right, those elements of the healthcare bill were necessary. I am all for this. Portions of this however are no good, and are added salt to an already infected wound, namely the deficit and the continued strain on the middle class in the form of increasing taxation.
Perhaps you are unaware that self employed people will now pay double their Medicare taxes. On top of this, all employers will now report on their employee's W2 what is paid for their health benefits....why????...becuase those employees will in all likelihood now be taxed for their healthcare benefits, much like they are taxed for their wages. You WILL pay more for this coverage, and you will see your insurance rates increase in the neighborhood of 25-30% according to some experts I have heard speak and talked to. On top of this there is a 21% in Medicare reimbursement to physicians. It is already difficult to find many primary care or internests who take new Medicare patients, now we may find it impossible to do so. What good is Medicare if you can find no doctor to treat you, or if you have to wait 6 months due to a long waiting list? Look for BC/BS to follow suit. There is talk in the medical profession of going to a cash only practice, and making the patient bill the insurance themselves. This may be the new order of things in the future. The physicians cannot operate their offices on what they will be paid by a government policy. This plan had some good points, but far too many bad ones to make it worthwhile. There should have been a more even handed approach to its development.

quote:

Originally posted by midknightrider:

quote:

Originally posted by True-Blue:
A further note: The Preamble of the Constitution of the United States lists six ends to which the Constitution is addressed: union, justice, domestic tranquility, defense, general welfare, and liberty.

I don't think the authors of the Constitution meant for us to do it on credit. We're twelve trillion dollars in debt that we'll never pay back, we've pretty much screwed the pooch when it comes to forming a more perfect union, insuring domestic tranquility, promoting general welfare, and securing the blessings of liberty for our posterity.

This debt is not something new. It's been rising for as long as I remember. When Clinton left office we had a budget surplus.) It was two wars and economic collapse which put us in this condition). You cannot expect Americans to keep footing the bill for something which didn't benefit any of us at all and expect them to keep paying. Eventually, they will get fed up. I'd rather see my tax dollars being spent in a way thats benefiting me. Plus you have to remember that you have to spend money to make money. There is just no way around that. You'd think we would have caught on after...oh, I don't know...the first couple of trillion. But, since we're not gonna pay it anyway, we may as well ride our creditors until they say "no more".

quote:

Originally posted by teyates:
TrueBlue,
You are right, those elements of the healthcare bill were necessary. I am all for this. Portions of this however are no good, and are added salt to an already infected wound, namely the deficit and the continued strain on the middle class in the form of increasing taxation.
Perhaps you are unaware that self employed people will now pay double their Medicare taxes.3.8% on investment income (dividens, interest, capital gains, annuities and rent - not self employed- and only those making $200,000 year single/$250,000 joint. On top of this, all employers will now report on their employee's W2 what is paid for their health benefits....why????...becuase those employees will in all likelihood now be taxed for their healthcare benefits, much like they are taxed for their wages.This is because there is a tax on cadillac plans. A cadillac plan would basically be a plan which offers preventative services ie: checkups, etc.. Because prevenative care is now mandatory in all policies, the only reason anyone would be paying for a cadillac plan would be to use it as a tax deduction. If you are self employed, medical insurance is a tax deduction. You WILL pay more for this coverage, and you will see your insurance rates increase in the neighborhood of 25-30% according to some experts I have heard speak and talked to The bill make it mandatory that insurance companies are spending 80 or 85% of your premiums on your medical care. I cannot see how that could cost me more. . On top of this there is a 21% in Medicare reimbursement to physicians. It is already difficult to find many primary care or internests who take new Medicare patients, now we may find it impossible to do so. What good is Medicare if you can find no doctor to treat you, or if you have to wait 6 months due to a long waiting list? Look for BC/BS to follow suit. There is talk in the medical profession of going to a cash only practice, and making the patient bill the insurance themselves. This may be the new order of things in the future. The physicians cannot operate their offices on what they will be paid by a government policy.What is the government plan? The medicare is offset by cost savings and pharma. I don't think your right here. In addition, the medicare advantage hole is closed making perscriptions much more affordable. I'm just curious if you are aware of the Republican plateform to obolish medicare and SS all together? Which is really quite irrelevant because for anyone under 50 it will most likely not even exist when you hit retirement. This plan had some good points, but far too many bad ones to make it worthwhile. There should have been a more even handed approach to its development.The bill is not perfect. We all agree to that, but the negatives can be fixed. I think the problems could have been resolved before the bill was put forth if the political tone in Washington and througout the country was more of a "you and I" rather than "you against me" sort of tone. Its pitifull and really only wastes our time and money.

quote:

Originally posted by True-Blue:
ferryl:

What is this, "The war has begun, Progressive prepare for battle". Is that really what you want? Do you really believe everyday working people in this country are so vastly different because of their political beliefs that you wish violence between them? Do you not realize that it is the balance that we get between the two political beleifs that make this such a great country. We just need to find middle ground.

Imagine a country explicitly ruled by republican beleif. There would be no equality and less humanity. We would have no civil rights, workers rights, there would be no social security or medicare.

Imagine a country ruled explicitly by progressive beliefs. There would be no competition, we would be taxed to oblivion and wouldn't have our military might.

Isn't it the balance between the political extreams that makes us such a dynamic country. Both parties contribute to the identity of this country. It shouldn't be you against me, but rather you and me.

It is an idealogic and political battle. I'm not insinuating violence. The progressives trying to take over this country are not interested in middle ground. Where was the middle ground in the healthcare debate? I agree that there should be a balance but the Obama/Pelosi/Reid administration has no interest at all in balance.

quote:

Imagine a country explicitly ruled by republican beleif. There would be no equality and less humanity. We would have no civil rights, workers rights, there would be no social security or medicare.

There are progressives in the republican party too. If you meant conservatives then you are wrong. Conservatives do believe in equality, humanity, civil rights, and workers rights. We just disagree with liberals on what those rights are. There is a difference in a right and a guarantee.

Blue,
The budget surplus you refer to was because money had been "borrowed" from Medicare. That is why it is broke today.
The "government plan" I am speaking of the the bastardized Medicare and Medicaid fee schedule which I utilize everyday. They pay less in most cases than the cost of performing the test or the material required to perform it. Offices cannot lose money on these tests, if so there is no need to offer it. there are plenty of programs out there that defraud the government (everyday I see those darn ScooterStore commercials).
The bill is not perfect, but there was no need to rush into this mess. Many things such as the 21% Medicare decrease could have been fixed, but if they had done this the numbers from CBO would have looked worse and there was no way to get it through. Now in order to subsidize this plan, they will have take money from Medicare, which in all likelihood will be the straw that breaks the camel's back. Your rates are going to go up, I gurantee it. I have been involved in meetings with BC/BS for the past few months and you can look for it to happen. Businesses are going to get hit hard, and many will likely close their doors, or work understaffed in order to get by. This plan had a few good ideals, but too much it was bogus liberal agendas in an effort to secure votes. Both parties suck, one just more than the other.