Profit Based Health?

[Accountable]

I hate to defend him in this thread but what's right is right.
He did answer it. He said " no ". :24:

Thank you.

Unfortunately he has the " constitution " drilled into his brain so deep he'll never change his mind... unless of course some day he and his family are caught in a medical crisis without coverage.

Our Constitution is the law of our land, so in effect you've said. "Unfortunately he has the law drilled into his brain." Should I ignore the law? I already explained that it can be changed. Should I break it simply because it is inconvenient to go through the process?

 

[Minor Axis]

I hate to defend him in this thread but what's right is right.
He did answer it. He said " no ". :24:

He just said no. Does that mean he does not have insurance negotiated as being part of a union, or it's not great insurance (as you asked), or he is using his wife's insurance because she has better coverage. It remains a mystery. :ninja

Thank you.
Our Constitution is the law of our land, so in effect you've said. "Unfortunately he has the law drilled into his brain." Should I ignore the law? I already explained that it can be changed. Should I break it simply because it is inconvenient to go through the process?

The general welfare clause is debatable, but you ignored me the last time I brought it up so that's ok. I really don't want to argue.

 

[Guyzerr]

Thank you.

You are welcome even though it really stung to defend you.

Our Constitution is the law of our land, so in effect you've said. "Unfortunately he has the law drilled into his brain." Should I ignore the law? I already explained that it can be changed. Should I break it simply because it is inconvenient to go through the process?

Remember what I said about interpreting the Bible. It still applies. In other words... I don't think that's what it meant when you quoted your constitution but hey... you're the teacher.

 

[Guyzerr]

He just said no. Does that mean he does not have insurance negotiated as being part of a union, or it's not great insurance (as you asked), or he is using his wife's insurance because she has better coverage. It remains a mystery. :ninja

Hence the laughing smiley.

 

[edgray]

Axis as far as I'm concerned the words " health care & politics " don't belong in the same sentence.

I think that's pretty much the best answer I've ever heard. Agree 100%.

 

[Accountable]

The general welfare clause is debatable, but you ignored me the last time I brought it up so that's ok. I really don't want to argue.

I'll just drop in What James Madison wrote about the general welfare clause. He doesn't mention medicine, but it clearly fits with these other ideas.

If Congress can employ 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 appoint teachers in every State, county and parish
and pay them out of their 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 of 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.... Were the power
of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for,
it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature
of the limited Government established by the people of America.
​

 

[Minor Axis]

I'll just drop in What James Madison wrote about the general welfare clause. He doesn't mention medicine, but it clearly fits with these other ideas...

Then why include a general welfare clause at all? Apparently enough members of the assembly felt it was important. You seem to think the founding founders were all on the same page. From what I've read, that is hardly the case.

 

[Accountable]

Then why include a general welfare clause at all? Apparently enough members of the assembly felt it was important. You seem to think the founding founders were all on the same page. From what I've read, that is hardly the case.

I don't know. We have to figure out what "general welfare" meant back then. Since this was the second try at writing the rules for the federal gov't, and the first time had even tighter controls, I find it hard to believe that any of them considered "general welfare" to mean anything remotely resembling specific individuals' daily life care.

The question can all be solved through an amendment, though. I wonder if those trying to force gov't control on us are willing to trust the system and live with the result. Somehow I doubt it.