[phlanx]

Well there you have it, America in a nut shell! It is not consititutional right to help your fellow american! Thank God it is God Save the Queen

[paraclete]

Then don't vote. If you feel that way, don't participate in the system. Nobody is forcing you to be involved.

I prefer to excersize my rights and my controls over the government.

Elliot

That's the illusion, Elliot, you don't have any control over government!

We used to talk about the faceless men in politics, the behind the scenes powerbrokers. I'm sure you have them just as we do. These are the decision makers, the ones who have control, not you, unless you are one of them, but if your were you wouldn't be spending your time here.

What I vote for as I'm sure you do is a party platform and a leader who will carry it out. There is a basket of policies the majority of which I agree with and that's what is voted for. We call it a mandate these days, but should a party try to implement something not in the mandate we get upset and that's when governments change and the democratic process works. At other times it happens by default

[paraclete]

Well there you have it, America in a nut shell! It is not consititutional right to help your fellow american! Thank God it is God Save the Queen

No it is only constitutional to help yourself, or so the Americans believe, but I don't actually see that in their constitution either

[tomder55]

There is a simple solution to the Constitutional issue which the Dems always seem to overlook . If they really believe that government provided health care is an inalienable right then there are ways the founders put in to amend the constitution.

Phalanx in jolly old England do you have the same inalienable right to government provided food and shelter or do you mostly have to feed yourself by your own means. Now I'm not talking about a safety net. Despite your comment above ,we do have those for the truly needy. I'm talking about government provided food for everyone. And if not why not ? Surely you think eating equally important to going for a physical if not more so.

[phlanx]

Eveing Tomder

Now you asking the simple question, should there be charities or not

If it wasn't for charities the Government would have to deal with such issues, but as there are charities they don't have to

Besides, Constitutional (we don't exactly have one as it is approx 800 years old and clouded with a lot of history) we have the right to feed off certain parts of the land, and therefore food is always available

And if you really want to get picky :) then yes, I can have 24/7 shelter, food, medical care, entertainment items, TVS etc, and all I have to do is to be thrown in jail, and I will be completely suported by the government

Odd isn't it, Law abiding citizens get nothing while the ones who break the law get the entitlements

[excon]

There is a simple solution to the Constitutional issue which the Dems always seem to overlook . If they truely believe that health care is an inalienable right then there are ways the founders put in to amend the constitution.

Hello again, tom:

Not really. We don't have to amend it. It's already there.

You DO remember that pesky Ninth Amendment, don't you? If not, I'll reprint it here for you:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

That's pretty clear. Seems to me, if the people have an inalienable right to health care, it can be found there. In fact, that's WHY the Ninth Amendment was written. The founders realized that they couldn't list ALL of our rights, but they knew that by listing SOME, people like you would say, "well, it's not LISTED, so it's not a right" Knowing that the people's inalienable rights went far beyond those listed, they wrote the Ninth Amendment to take care of the rest.

Weren't our Founders brilliant?

excon

[tomder55]

If it wasn't for charities the Government would have to deal with such issues, but as there are charities they don't have to

Yes sir... I have said this more than once here in one form or another . There is no virtue in charity or benevolence that is compelled. If the gvt. Is taxing me to provide for all but the neediest then they are picking my pockets .

D*ckens had it right in 'A Christmas Carol' .The men soliciting charity were the good guys . Scrooge's retort to them was that the poor should rely on the gvt services that he supports through his taxes for their welfare. Scrooge was a typical liberal socialist.

[tomder55]

Ex the true measure of a right is that its exercise cannot place an undue burden on someone else i.e. the cost of that right is paid by someone else . An entitlement on the other hand transfers an undue cost to someone other than the one receiving that benefit.
For that reason, government provided health care can never be a right, only an entitlement.
The founders never intended to 9th amnedment to be a vehicle to pick someone's pocket or for the government to act as Robin Hood.

[excon]

Ex the true measure of a right is that its exercise cannot place an undue burden on someone else ie the cost of that right is paid by someone else

Hello again, tom:

We have a right to a gun. Somebody gets paid for making 'em. Besides, ain't nobody saying universal health care is going to be free - especially you folks.

excon

[tomder55]

That's right.. I have a right to a gun so long as I pay for it . If I had a guaranteed right to a government provided gun then it would be an entitlement and not a right. A right is something the government can never take away. An entitlement they can change the rules of the game any time they choose to do so.

[paraclete]

There is a simple solution to the Constitutional issue which the Dems always seem to overlook . If they really believe that government provided health care is an inalienable right then there are ways the founders put in to amend the constitution.

phalanx in jolly old England do you have the same inalienable right to government provided food and shelter or do you mostly have to feed yourself by your own means. Now I'm not talking about a safety net. Despite your comment above ,we do have those for the truely needy. I'm talking about government provided food for everyone. And if not why not ? Surely you think eating equally important to going for a physical if not more so.

Now come on Tom you know that's not a fair question, Britain is a welfare state and no one need go hungary there.

And Tom it is very hard to get the majority necessary to amend the American constitution. In today's reality it would require bipartisan support not really a reality and in any case if it is an inalienable right there is a Supreme Court to test it in. Given the Supreme Court leanings and propensity for left leaning judgements they should have no difficulty, after all, if criminals have rights so do the sick

[paraclete]

phlanx that would require an understanding of what the founders meant by general welfare. Without getting into it ;they did not consider it the duty of a massive central nanny state to administer what the gvt. thinks is good for the masses. They truely believed the role of the central government limited and they specifically enumerated what was permitted by the central government in the articles of the Constitution.

Yes they were all for states rights and that idea ultimately fostered the idea that a state could resist invasion which the Constitution required the central government to protect against not perpetrate. What the founding fathers wanted and what the population wanted has sometimes been at odds but who should decide; some long dead liberatians with a different agenda in mind or those people alive today. The reality is that care for welfare of the individual didn't exist beyond individual charity in the day of the founding fathers and so you take a narrow view of what they meant by welfare based on your knowledge of their society which you do not live in. Their concern for welfare was not focused on poverty because that was something that happened in a different place and among people they subjected. The founding fathers thought slavery a good idea but today that idea is anathema so not all of their ideas are sacrosanct

[Synnen]

Honestly, I don't give a DAMN whether UHC is Constitutional. I don't care that I'm coming across as a selfish b!tch that is only looking out for myself.

The main 2 reasons I am against UHC are as follows:

1. I don't trust out government to implement a health care system that actually WORKS. I look at OTHER decisions our government has made with money, and think I'd be an IDIOT to think they could do this less expensively than the private sector, in a manner that was fair treatment to ALL U.S citizens.

2. I don't want to pay for it. No one has YET refuted that the people who don't have health insurance don't have it because of decisions that they themselves have made, except those currently considered "uninsurable". Make a law that forces insurance companies to treat those people fairly, and voilà! You have a system that works again! EVERY OTHER PERSON who does not have health care of some sort has put THEMSELVES in that position. I am NOT going to pay for someone else's bad choices.

[phlanx]

Morning Synnen

Do you not accept the possibility that someone is having difficulties through nothing more than making a mistake

A bad choice at some point is made by all of us, hopefully if you live your life more than once!

[tomder55]

And Tom it is very hard to get the majority necessary to amend the American constitution. In today's reality it would require bipartisan support not really a reality and in any case if it is an inalienable right there is a Supreme Court to test it in. Given the Supreme Court leanings and propensity for left leaning judgements they should have no difficulty, after all, if criminals have rights so do the sick

So there's democracy... it comes down to a handful (5) of unelected for life oligarchs in black robes. I don't think so. They don't get to decide what is a right even though often they have overstepped their mandate and have done so.Hint... they have even used Excon's very broad interpretation of the 9th amendment or in one bizarre ruling the court found that there were rights hidden deep in the "penumbras" and "emanations" of other constitutional protections.(whatever that means) .

The Constitution was not meant to be easily changed. Still ;if there was overwhelming support for the proposition that government provided health care was an inalienable right ,then there would be no issue ;the amendment would get done.
See my other posting about the Constitutionality of UHC to see how leftists have gotten unconstitutional "entitlements" through the system when they know they have no mandate and authority to do so.
https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/curren...re-405829.html

[tomder55]

Yes they were all for states rights and that idea ultimately fostered the idea that a state could resist invasion which the Constitution required the central government to protect against not perpetrate. What the founding fathers wanted and what the population wanted has sometimes been at odds but who should decide; some long dead liberatians with a different agenda in mind or those people alive today. The reality is that care for welfare of the individual didn't exist beyond individual charity in the day of the founding fathers and so you take a narrow view of what they meant by welfare based on your knowledge of their society which you do not live in. Their concern for welfare was not focused on poverty because that was something that happened in a different place and among people they subjected. The founding fathers thought slavery a good idea but today that idea is anathema so not all of their ideas are sacrosanct

There are many things in your response that is refutable. But I'll simply say that the founders knew that there would be changes needed over time ,and that is why they provided an instrument to change the Constitution... the amendment process. Beyond a new constitutional convention that is the only legitimate way for the changing . Anything else is a usurpation of power.

[ETWolverine]

Well there you have it, America in a nut shell! It is not consititutional right to help your fellow american! Thank God it is God Save the Queen

There you DON'T have it.

It is UnConstitutional for the GOVERNMENT to distribute goods and services.

It is VERY AMERICAN for man to help his fellow man.

Which is why Americans do it more than twice as much as you Brits do.

God Bless the USA.

But you STILL haven't answered my questions. I'm not going to let you avoid them... and you clearly ARE trying to avoid them, because you can't answer them, and not being able to do so destroys your entire point.

1) Who defines "general welfare"?
2) What about the alternatives to health care reform that I posted?

Elliot

[ETWolverine]

That's the illusion, Elliot, you don't have any control over government!

We used to talk about the faceless men in politics, the behind the scenes powerbrokers. I'm sure you have them just as we do. These are the decision makers, the ones who have control, not you, unless you are one of them, but if your were you wouldn't be spending your time here.

What I vote for as I'm sure you do is a party platform and a leader who will carry it out. There is a basket of policies the majority of which I agree with and that's what is voted for. We call it a mandate these days, but should a party try to implement something not in the mandate we get upset and that's when governments change and the democratic process works. At other times it happens by default

Of course it happens by default unless we get involved. And generally it is true that we only get involved when we are upset. But when we DO get involved, we can indeed control the system.

That beats the hell out of most of the methods of governance throughout history... most of which have been tyrannies, or at least monarchies. In those systems, it didn't matter how upset you got. You could get upset all you wanted, there was STILL no method by which the people could control or change the policies of the govermment.

What you are describing of Democracy is a "negative feedback control loop", in which we only react to negative data. Something that we don't like happens, and so we react to it... and that reaction causes change. A negative feedback control loop is STILL a control loop. There is still control, even if you only excersize it because of negative input. And it isn't an illusion... the control is real and has real effect.

In tyrannies, monarchies, and other oppressive forms of government, there is no control loop of any sort.

I choose Democracy and its negative feedback control loop over no control whatsoever.

As for your argument that what people generally vote for is a party leader and a platform... that is often true. But when people voted for Barack Obama, it seems to me that they were voting less for a party leader and a platform than they were voting AGAINST Bush. It was the same negative feedback control loop that I am describing. They didn't like BUSH, so they voted against anything remotely related to Bush. And they got change... they controlled the outcome.

Now, I believe that we are seeing the people rejecting what Obama represents in terms of "platform" and "leadership", and I think that the people will again vote with that negative feedback loop... and we will see a change in Congress in 2010 and a change in President in 2012, with corresponding changes in policy.

Clearly the people DO have control of the direction of the country and the makeup of the government if such changes are possible.

If the people can control who is in the government via the vote, and they can change the decisions of the members of the government via their phone campaigns, in what way is such control illusory? In what way is it not real? If it has real results, and can cause real changes in both the makeup of government and the policies of that government, why do you say that it isn't real?

Elliot

[ETWolverine]

Now come on Tom you know that's not a fair question, Britain is a welfare state and no one need go hungary there.

So is the USA... we have health care programs that account for up to 20% of every state's budget, and we have both government-run and charitable health care for the poor. And no hospital can turn a patient away, regardless of ability to pay. So why is it an issue?

As has been said before, nobody in the USA (whether they are a citizen or not) needs to go without health care.

So why do we need to reform the system to provide health care that is already provided to the poor?

And Tom it is very hard to get the majority necessary to amend the American constitution.

Yep. Deliberately so. It has only happened 18 times in our history (the first 10 Amendments all happened at the same time, the rest happened individually). But it has happened. The most recent was in May of 1992.

In today's reality it would require bipartisan support not really a reality

If it doesn't have bipartisan support, it shouldn't be amended. If the vast majority of federal legislators AND state governments cannot agree to the change, why should it be changed? Just because someone thinks it's going to be good for the people? Again we get back to the question of who determines what "general welfare" means. If the overwhelming majority of people can't agree to it, it isn't promoting the "general welfare" is it?

[quite]and in any case if it is an inalienable right there is a Supreme Court to test it in. Given the Supreme Court leanings and propensity for left leaning judgements they should have no difficulty, after all, if criminals have rights so do the sick[/quote]

So you are suggesting MORE legislation from the bench.

Clete, there is a specific separation of powers between the branches of government in the USA. The Legislative branch (Congress) writes laws. The Executive branch (the President) implements laws. The Judicial branch (the Supreme Court) interprets laws and determines the Constitutionality of laws.

The Supreme Court and lower courts are not supposed to be writing law... they are not supposed to be creating new sets of laws to determine who has what rights. They are supposed to simply interpret laws that are already on the books.

What you are proposing... having the SCOTUS determine whether there is a "right to health care"... is simply an attempt to have the court write new law. That is a violation of the separation of powers. As such it would be unconstitutional.

Not that that has stopped them in the past.

Elliot

[phlanx]

Salvo Elliot,

Firstly, apologies for missing anything you asked

Lets look at the charity and the facts and not stats - don't make me quote Disraeli to you :)

300m Americans vs. 60m Brits
15tn US GDP vs. 3tn UK GDP
The US is 3.719 million square miles. England is 94,526 square miles.

Therefore, to simplify for you :) You could fit 39 England's into the US and still have room left over

We have the 6th largest economy in the world vs. your first and yet we give the second largest amount to charity

Imagine what the brits could do if we had the land mass that you have - remember 39 times the room to play

By the way, I'm English, as opposed to British, complicated story of history :)

So to answer your questions,

1. Who defines General Welfare? In democracy the people do - obviously

However your question is a little vague, the preamble stated promote the general welfare

So I ask you back, how can a "I'm all right jack" attitude be promoting the general welfare?

Please correct me here if I don't understand it but the founders wrote the constitution to end the elitism of English rule

It was designed so that all men could be equal and be appointed to power by merit and not hereditary

What the main reason for the self rule was back then, is certainly not the situation today

So any argument by what the founders meant is never going to be settled, especially as even you guys can't agree on it by what I have been forced to read up J

It is surely a document which allows you to change according to what the feelings of people are today and certainly not what was thought of way back when which is exactly the reason why it was written in the first place

2nd

I am sure you can appreciate, there is so much news in the world and most of the time it is sensationalised so not really worth listening to, so please correct be if I am wrong

I thought the whole point of the Obamas' plan was to reform a section of the healthcare which provided health insurance to all at a basic level, to clean up certain aspects of the insurance companies to stop their uneven handed approach when dealing with the poor.

SO PLEASE TELL ME - The Constitution was written to make all men equal, no more elitism, and yet I find myself discussing elitism with an American who thinks it is a good idea - Have I got this wrong here or have you guys come full circle

Not having seen it for myself I can only read into third party evidence which by itself is usually tainted to one side, but it does come across as a very harsh system

Don't get me wrong at all, I am all for standing up on your own two feet and getting what you want (within the law of course) but in an economic structure of basic and luxury goods there will always be the ones who have and the ones who don't

True there are the ones who sit back and collect welfare all day long and do nothing for it, but even the tight so and so you are mate, I am sure you can recognise there are those who cannot get good basic health care even though they work hard to try to do everything for themselves in the American way

And so a whole generation of a family must suffer so the next can get the American Dream

In today's age how can that be classed as fair and equal on such basic needs as healthcare

Let me ask you a fair question,

The Founders wrote the document to address some fundamental problems they saw with their present system of rule

This also included a section so that when and where the attitudes of the people changed, the constitution could be changed as well

And yet anytime change is required for a basic level, there is an outcry it is unconstitutional

So my question is this, why do you think elitism rule is what the founders would have wanted?