Affordable Health Care is passed.

[eodx9000]

"To promote the general welfare.." can be made to define anything anyone wants it to mean (which has been done for decades now), which is why I'm fairly distrusting of the constitution itself more often than not (that and the constitution grants the government the power to tax with deadly force) - the framers had to have known how it could be misconstrued one day. Though, on the other hand, even if the constitution hadn't given such authority, that'd have made it powerless to stop what has happened as Lysander Spooler has explained (as warned about when Benjamin Franklin said, "a Republic... if you can keep it", that the revolution for liberty didn't succeed when the war was won, but it's been going on ever since and will never be something that can simply be won).

 

Though, the idea people aren't standing for the weak because they're against being forced to pay at the barrel of a gun is quite hysterical. If you want to support the homeless, no one is preventing you from doing so (well in reality, people are often being prevented by the government). If you want to pay more taxes, you can always do so.

Edited July 2, 2012 by eodx9000

[Dazaster]

As a UK resident, I've never understood why one of the most developed countries in the world never had a general healthcare system in place long ago. Here's a FACT to chew over: the NHS(National Health Service) is Britains biggest employer, by far See Here. With more people seeking care means more staff will be needed. Which means NEW jobs. Surely that can only be a good thing.

[Aurielius]

I havent read any of the posts before this so please forgive my ignorance, but just to clear somethings up what was passed was not a bill nor a tax, it was a mandate that enacts a tax with no penalty. meaning that it is an optional tax, really meant for those who cannot buy healthcare from an insurance company. just my two cents.

The majority opinion of the Supreme Court disagrees with you. It was found Constitutional under the basis that it was a TAX and if you think it's optional then guess again. Just who do think is going to pay for all those newly insured people.....the taxpayer....willing or not.

Edited July 2, 2012 by Aurielius

[marharth]

Was it really that hard to miss "general welfare" in bold?

That gives power to nothing. It has to be mentioned as a power of congress. If its not, its not a power of congress. Otherwise all the 14 powers would be meaningless because the first line of section 8 would give Government all the power to do whats mentioned there. You are not to dumb to get that, you don't wanna get that.

 

 

Damn libs, standing up for the weak!

Standing up for the weak? They don't stand up for the weak. They take from others by force to give it to those who they declair as "weak". People which live the life of kings compared to the rest of the world.

What have you done lately to "stand up for the weak"? Gave them food and blankets? Social behavior comes not by force.

"The Congress shall have Power To"

 

You have to forcefully take from others if they are not actually willing to help. Charity only goes so far. That is reality.

[MajKrAzAm]

As a UK resident, I've never understood why one of the most developed countries in the world never had a general healthcare system in place long ago. Here's a FACT to chew over: the NHS(National Health Service) is Britains biggest employer, by far See Here. With more people seeking care means more staff will be needed. Which means NEW jobs. Surely that can only be a good thing.

In the UK and across Europe government spending generally accounts for 50% of GDP. In the US it is 40%; 10 years ago it was 34%. Looking at the UK, government spending in Wales accounts for around 72% of the economy. In Northern Ireland it is 77%. When the public sector makes up that much of your GDP then you pretty much don’t have an economy. Instead it is more comparable to a Soviet client state.

 

The NHS is the biggest employer not just in the UK but in Europe. Can you imagine what a nationalized healthcare system for the United States, a nation of 310 million people would look like?

[Moveing]

You have to forcefully take from others if they are not actually willing to help. Charity only goes so far. That is reality.

if they are not actually willing to help.

 

And that is what he calls the reality. Yeah, that was the reality in Soviet Russia and many other hellholes on this planet. If someone is not "willing to help", what gives?

You have the right to ,,don't give a crap". If you wanna help the "weak", do it on voluntary base. But you also choose that it is more comfortable to play videogames and hung around internet forums, debating about how the world should be runned. So let someone else to pay for the lazy, the poor, the lucky-less and low lifes to calm down your conscience. Take from this person by force, don't care about him and his needs and what he wants, just calm down the conscience.

Hey, if you wanna stand up for the poor just do it. Give them food and blankets. Churches and Charities do such things without forceing anyone.

 

 

Dazaster

Here's a FACT to chew over: the NHS(National Health Service) is Britains biggest employer, by far See Here. With more people seeking care means more staff will be needed. Which means NEW jobs. Surely that can only be a good thing.

You destroy free market Jobs with that. No privat company can compete with a state-run company which has endless supply of money because their supply was taken by force.

A free market company must compete every day for peoples money which people give them on a complete voluntary base.

It destroys jobs, it leads to the rationing of care, it will lower the quality because the competition dies out. And many times i think you deserve it. You deserve the bankruptcy. You deserve federal debt which you can't pay for and lose your privat proberty for. You deserve the buerocrat which will tell you one day "we have to let your father die because in his age medical resources would be wasted". You deserve waiting 4 hourse to see a doctor. Why you deserve it? Because you choosed it. You choosed it and you could have know it better. But you didn't, because it looks the more easy, the comfortable way to follow.. Free stuff. Whouldn't been the first dumbed population their leaders would buy off which such steps and promisses of "free stuff".

[marharth]

You have to forcefully take from others if they are not actually willing to help. Charity only goes so far. That is reality.

if they are not actually willing to help.

 

And that is what he calls the reality. Yeah, that was the reality in Soviet Russia and many other hellholes on this planet. If someone is not "willing to help", what gives?

You have the right to ,,don't give a crap". If you wanna help the "weak", do it on voluntary base. But you also choose that it is more comfortable to play videogames and hung around internet forums, debating about how the world should be runned. So let someone else to pay for the lazy, the poor, the lucky-less and low lifes to calm down your conscience. Take from this person by force, don't care about him and his needs and what he wants, just calm down the conscience.

Hey, if you wanna stand up for the poor just do it. Give them food and blankets. Churches and Charities do such things without forceing anyone.

I use the internet so I am instantly lazy a person who never helps anyone. Nice logic.

 

Churches and charities are not enough obviously. Society is founded on the idea of everyone getting together and making sacrifices for the greater good. That is what taxation is, and if you really think society can run without taxation you know nothing about history or economics.

[Moveing]

I use the internet so I am instantly lazy a person who never helps anyone. Nice logic.

This isn't what i said but if you show that kind of reflex it tells me some kind of story.

 

No. You not lazy because you use the internet, but you have over 3000 Posts and on nearly every topic i click her you make this clear leftwing statements about how money should be redistributed to "stand up for the weak".

But what do you do? If you would be this care taking person, i bet this person would spend his time a more usefull way for the "weak" by raising money or work at the soup kitchen or give blankets than making 3000 Posts about how other peoples money should be spend.

 

Churches and charities are not enough obviously.

Than grap a broom.

 

Do something. Why do you don't help them?

 

Society is founded on the idea of everyone getting together and making sacrifices for the greater good.

Ahahahaha.... Dafuq? Seriosly? Chairman Mao would be delighted.

This is completely wrong. No, we don't hung together as a society because we "sacrifices for the greater good", but because we voluntare to. No one stays in such a society where you have "sacrifices" for a long time. They run off cuba in masses and they runned off east germany in masses.

 

I bet you never helped one of the "weak" you bother about yourself, i bet you never had a real job in your life and could experienced how hard money is earned, i bet you don't ever experienced how a community works in neighborhood or company. I bet all you do is spending your life in schools, maybee collage now, and debating on the internet how other peoples money should be spend. And this one sentence, the greater good, that could be from Chairman Maos little Red book and it was written in Chairman Maos little Red book also. This is collectivism, this is pure force and pure tyranny. If you wanna live in such a society, in such a sate, feel free to move to china. Goodbye

Edited July 2, 2012 by Moveing

[marharth]

I use the internet so I am instantly lazy a person who never helps anyone. Nice logic.

This isn't what i said but if you show that kind of reflex it tells me some kind of story.

 

No. You not lazy because you use the internet, but you have over 3000 Posts and on nearly every topic i click her you make this clear leftwing statements about how money should be redistributed to "stand up for the weak".

But what do you do? If you would be this care taking person, i bet this person would spend his time a more usefull way for the "weak" by raising money or work at the soup kitchen or give blankets than making 3000 Posts about how other peoples money should be spend.

 

Churches and charities are not enough obviously.

Than grap a broom.

 

Do something. Why do you don't help them?

 

Society is founded on the idea of everyone getting together and making sacrifices for the greater good.

Ahahahaha.... Dafuq? Seriosly? Chairman Mao would be delighted.

This is completely wrong. No, we don't hung together as a society because we "sacrifices for the greater good", but because we voluntare to. No one stays in such a society where you have "sacrifices" for a long time. They run off cuba in masses and they runned off east germany in masses.

 

I bet you never helped one of the "weak" you bother about yourself, i bet you never had a real job in your life and could experienced how hard money is earned, i bet you don't ever experienced how a community works in neighborhood or company. I bet all you do is spending your life in schools, maybee collage now, and debating on the internet how other peoples money should be spend. And this one sentence, the greater good, that could be from Chairman Maos little Red book and it was written in Chairman Maos little Red book also. This is collectivism, this is pure force and pure tyranny. If you wanna live in such a society, in such a sate, feel free to move to china. Goodbye

How do you know I don't help people? Not really interested in telling you my personal life, but I highly doubt you have done anything close to what I do.

 

What do people do in government systems and society? They work together, they have leadership that makes sure everyone is okay. They tax people in order to make society better. Taxation is taking money from someone and using it for others even if they are not willing. Did I really have to put that together for you?

[kvnchrist]

I've never understood this term. "The Weak" It seems to be a generic image of a victim that one side or the other throws out to justify their partisan agendas. Both the left and the right use this term, but I've never seen any of them step up to a single person and identify them as the weak individual that needs their help. Possibly, because the person would, most likely hit them if they did.

 

I don't think anybody is weak, but there are those that are in a situation of vulnerability that requires the assistance of others. What they don't need is to become dependent on that help. particularly because the assistance given needs to be replaced so that future needs can be met. This is why, I think that government programs have their purpose, but should not be used to provide a lifestyle for people.