Where in the Constitution does it say the Fed gov should provide health care.

No where in the Constitution does it say the Fed gov should provide healthcare.

The radical left only wants the Fed gov involved in health care so the government has more control over everyones life. Beyond that, if you have to pay tens of thousands of fed b'crats to be involved in health care, it means that much money that is NOT going to pay for health care.

BTW before obamacare, I dont remember of 20 million people laying dead in the streets because they did have fed health care.

 

Health care is INDIVIDUAL welfare, not general welfare. If the government was to give everyone a low-dose aspirin every morning that *might* be considered general welfare but that isn't what the government does.

Every year I become more and more convinced that as the left loses its faith in a God that they get more and more afraid of dying. That fear comes out in wanting government to provide the same health care to all that the very rich can buy so as to extend their life just as far as it can possibly go!

The truly sad fact is that they are going to die anyway. And when government is administering to everyone, health care will get driven to the bottom, not to the top!

 

Fed healthcare is all about a huge government being able to control you.

 

Heslthcare is a human right, and I'm quite frankly surprised the Constitution doesnt address healthcare, since it addresses human rights. No one should have to earn good health, what have we become as a society if staying in good health becomes a privilege, not a right. Countries all around the world utilize single-payer, including Australia.

Time for the US to get on the bandwagon, and stop pandering to fat cats at insurance and pharma companies.

And by the way, before Obamacare, insurance companies were able to turn you down for pre-existing conditions.

 

Rights are those things that you can exercise without putting a burden on anyone else. Free speech, self-defense, religion, etc.

Entitlements are those things that you have to put a burden on someone else in order to exercise.

Yes, healthcare is a human right but ONLY insofar as to that healthcare you can provide for yourself.

Anything else is an entitlement. It requires you to make slaves of others in order to meet your *wants*.

It may be a sad fact for you to learn but no one owes you anything merely for you being born. Anything you *want* you have to *earn*. Nothing in this life is free, not even healthcare.

Even in Australia SOMEONE pays for that universal healthcare and they pay dearly. Australia pays a 35% (up to 45%) income tax plus a 2% Medicare tax plus a 2% "extra" tax.

 

The answer is the general welfare clause.

 

As I said earlier, if it requires someone else to fulfill it, it is not possible to be an individual right.
Before ACA, group insured (85% of the private market) were hardly ever rejected for per-existring conditions, and the 60 million or so on Medicaid or Medicare were not turned down.

 

Why is the OP so intent upon people suffering and/or dying needlessly? Why is the OP so intent upon people losing loved ones when they might have had the chance to be cured or treated and therefore saved? It is sociopath trait to not have the ability to relate to the suffering and losses of others and to obsess over this issue as to why folks should not have something that is available but made unaffordable by mostly by greed, so I guess I just answered my own question.

 

True, but nowhere in the Constitution does it say it can’t either. The Constitution generally doesn’t say what government should do at all, only what it can and can’t. National healthcare is typically considered to fall under the “general welfare” concept and disagreements on the matter are pretty much entirely around the hows, whens and wheres. The idea that federal government shouldn’t be involved at all is very much a minority view so you’d have a lot of work to do to convince the people that is the way to go.

The radical anythings are pretty much by definition insignificant extremes and are generally not worth worrying about. In fact it’s usually only their radical opposites who taken any notice of them at all.

 

General welfare and individual welfare are two entirely different things.

 

You have made some very inane posts, but this one may win the prize.
You are implying the government should only do something if it is spelled out in the constitution? I could argue that "provide for the general welfare" should cover it, but I prefer to point out how silly it is to expect a document well over 200 years old to be our sole guide.
Your comment about dead people in the streets is beyond dumb.

 

Have you ever read the Bill of Rights? Try the 10th Amendment.

Article 1, Section 8 describes in detail the responsibilities of the federal government. The Constitution is a document delegating certain responsibilities to the federal government and the powers necessary to carry out those responsibilities.

According to the 10th Amendment everything else is reserved to the States or the people themselves.

And, again, individual health care is just that - INDIVIDUAL. And it is not *general* welfare.

For the first 200 years of this country the difference between individual welfare and general welfare was well understood. It wasn't until Woodrow Wilson and the Marxist Democrats that followed him that the "collective" began to take precedence over the "individual" by the federal government.

When the federal government pays for *your* wants individually that is INDIVIDUAL welfare, not general welfare.

 

The general ****ing welfare is comprised of the welfare of the total of individuals.

And the above, in this instance, would pertain to the people that make up the population of the USA.

 

The left doesn't care. Anything that allows the state to further control our lives, they support.
If their interpretation of the "general welfare" clause was sound, Article I sec 8 would have exactly 2 clauses - the first and the last - not 16.

 

When the government is paying for *YOUR* individual wants then it is INDIVIDUAL welfare, not the general welfare.

And *I* can't believe that you are advocating the abrogation of the Constitution because it is old. That is the argumentative fallacy of Argument by Age.

The 10th Amendment says; "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Individual welfare is *NOT* in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution anywhere. So it is reserved to the States or the people themselves.

 

Individual welfare is individual welfare, period. There is no such thing as a "total of individuals" that can receive healthcare.

 

The case now in England is a good example. There the Government decided to kill the baby. The parents are not fighting the doctors, they are fighting government.

Government to be useful must be there for to promote the general welfare, not create a welfare state.

The founders defined welfare far different than Democrats do.

 

I want to join your commentary since I approve.

We need shelter, autos, clothing, food and more to survive. But to call these rights is Democrats talking out their tail pipes.

Next they will claim a right to hundreds of thousands of dollars income per week.

 

a healthy nation is general

 

The Constitution says the federal government cannot do anything that is not explicitly listed. Individual health care is not listed so the feds cannot constitutionally provide it, though they probably can legally do things like the NIH activities. The General Welfare clause means the government is to assure an environment that allows the populace to excel and succeed; it definitely does not mean it should actually give individuals success.

 

But a healthy nation is accomplished on an *individual* by *individual* basis. There *is* no such thing as "general" health. You can calculate an "average" health or can accumulate actuarial tables but health is *still* by individual. Health is *not* a highway or post road or national defense!

 

We have the right, per the constitution, to keep and bear arms. But you never see Democrats calling this a right nor ask the Feds to supply us with the guns we want.

 

And yet the Founding Fathers said in Federalist Paper 29: "Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; "

While this doesn't specifically say the government should see the people are directly armed and equipped by the government, it certainly says that the government should see that the task is done.

 

Sigh....

There is a fundamental disconnect in the Democrats minds as to what the Constitution declares vs what they want to tell us it contains.

The clause spoke above is to promote the general welfare, not pay for your doctor's bills.

 

There *is* no such thing as "general" health. You can calculate an "average" health or can accumulate actuarial tables but health is *still* by individual. Health is *not* a highway or post road or national defense![/QUOTE]
health is very much a general issue, which is why the clause covers it.