They are not delegated powers given the federal.
Amend the Constitution, ye scurvy dogs of Arbitrary government!
Oh come on John. Congress delegates itself new powers all the time. Everybody knows this. Why don’t you?
So, if you get sick, I mean REALLY SICK, where you need to be hospitalized for a few weeks after an operation, you can just write a check to cover ALL costs?
But you don’t understand. It’s not really stealing if they don’t consider it your money to begin with. Ask any of them, they’ll be more than happy to tell you how it’s really the government’s money. That’s how they justify it.
How is it any of your business one way or the other? It’s his money, not yours.
When people don’t have insurance, they usually end up going to the ER. Who pays? We pay. It’s just like car insurance. We pay for everyone else.
Uh huh. Show me a recipt. You pay for the ER just like you pay the salary of police. Pennies maybe. Either way, still doesn’t make his business yours or vice versa. The ER used to have the right to refuse treatment for anything that wasn’t life threatening, guess who did away with that? It wasn’t Republicans.
Now you are nitpicking.
You’ve almost got it. In the case of, say, welfare they would maintain it is the welfare recipient’s money according to their own idea of distributive justice. Another crucial point is that anyone who opposes welfare does not reject distributive justice, but has their own idea of it.
Yes it is!
And I remember how Obamacare was going to save so much money. What a lie that was. They can pay a company to come up with the numbers they want. Then they publish it and you buy it hook line and sinker.
Horrible idea.
As long as the insurance industry and Big Pharma are still the top two lobbyists it’s also a pipe dream.
Sounds like you want government to fix a “problem” that government created. What could possibly go wrong with that?
The “problem” or poor people not being able to afford healthcare wasn’t caused by the government. Would you prefer the “solution” be that they simply do without the healthcare they can’t afford?
I’d just like people to stop running to the emergency room every time they get a cough or a runny nose. Not sure what’s so hard to understand about that.
Why did government need to force ERs to treat everyone? Did free clinics not exist in 1986?
Nah, I’ll go with Hamilton’s—you know, the dude most responsible for being about the Constitution’s ratification—opinion on the matter. General welfare clause covers it quite well.
The ole “taxation is stealing” angle. Yawn. Go live outside of society.
That’s not nitpicking. It not being a proper power given the federal is why it should be cast aside. Period. No other reason needed.
But at any rate I posted why we’ve reached this point, because people are abusing insurance, carrying too much of it and relying on it as a component of the health care rather than their finances (which is only what it is truly fit for). Obamaharm was just more progressive stuck on stupid, it tried to enshrine and advance the very abuses and misuses that caused our problems.
Undo Obamaharm, repeal without replacement, and then begin dismantling the previous acts of government, federal and state, that led to the abuse of insurance as if assurance in the first place.
Boy, you’ve stepped in it now!
So which Hamilton do you mean?
The guy who was giving advise to those with the power to ratify the Constitution before Ratification or the guy who flatly contradicted what he and others had said/written AFTER Ratification?
Who was the Sovereign to make Law? Was it the several States that Ratified the Constitution based on the advice offered to their consent (which logically could only be lawfully offered before that consent was given) or was Alexander Hamilton the Sovereign able to completely change the character of the Law at any time?
John Marshall, in Marbury, was clear. The exercise of the original right to make Law happened in Ratification.
When Hamilton, writing as merely an official in a government authorized by the Constitution and expressly contradicting what he and the rest had said about the language before Ratification: he wrote SPURIOUSLY.
And lawlessly.
It’s little wonder the progressives love his lawlessness so.
