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

As long as the state has more control over your life and can take more of your money to exercise it, they don't care.

.

 

You pretty much nailed it!

 

Why send a dollar to Washington and feel lucky if you even get 50 cents back. They use it to pay under worked over paid b'crats to do basically nothing.

 

We also don't want to talk about pink Unicorns. We're too rational to talk of things that only exist in your imagination?

As I said: we don't like to talk about pink unicorns.

I have already provided an example of how that happens in nations with Universal Healthcare.

I agree. But what can you do? As I said, a long time ago: all rights produce the burden of having to respect other people's rights. It's the price of living in communities of human beings (as opposed to 500 miles away) If you can think of a way to make them go to the doctor without violating their right to not go to the doctor, I'm all ears.

You're the only one obsessed with Marxism. I guess because you don't know what it is.

Well, I couldn't find the part where they say that being uninsured means that you have no access to healthcare, but that's not the problem. The problem is that it's pointless. a.k.a. BS

Nope. I'm speaking of equal expectations.

I underlined the keywords for you. I know reading comprehension is not your thing but it is important to read all the words in a sentence. Not just the words you want to read.

In any case, this conversation is getting ridiculous. You're not only not addressing my arguments. You're not even making arguments of your own. Just this idiotic fixation on semantics as related to a vocabulary that you made up yourself.

 

The Red States get back $5 for every 50 cents they send to Washington D.C.

 

The same place it talks about controlling education, regulating immigration, food, the stuff you put in your body, and thousands of other things that the Federal government assumes control over. Once you go down the road of demanding that the state do something for you, you must agree that everyone else has the right to demand other benefits for themselves.

 

What you are saying might be true. The procedures would get done in most cases.However there's a Limit to that " Free " Healthcare .

Medical Bankruptcies are much Lower under the ACA.

Most Bankruptcies are resulting from unpaid medical bills will affect nearly 2 million people this year—making health care the No. 1 cause of such filings, and outpacing bankruptcies due to credit-card bills or unpaid mortgages, according to new data. And even having health insurance doesn't buffer consumers against financial hardship.

Estimates that households containing 1.7 million people will file for bankruptcy protection this year.

Even outside of bankruptcy, about 56 million adults—more than 20 percent of the population between the ages of 19 and 64—will still struggle with health-care-related bills this year.

 

Link????

 

You are correct.

But in the 1930's the USA left the Constitution far behind.

 

Not ao fast
"
A study published in the journal Health Affairs reviewed Justice Department data and discovered that among Americans who cited medical debt as a
contributing factor in their bankruptcy filing, only 12 to 13 percent of their total debts were medical.


It's difficult to conclude that bankrupt folks are awash in healthcare debt when nearly 90 percent of their obligations are unrelated to health care.

The study also reviewed Warren's early research on medical bankruptcies and found that medical spending was a factor in no more than 17 percent of U.S. bankruptcies.

A detailed analysis by The Atlantic's Megan McArdle further discredited the link between bankruptcy and medical expense. She found that Warren's team
classified a filing as a medical bankruptcy whenever unpaid medical bills were resolved through bankruptcy proceedings -- even if other debts were far
bigger contributors to insolvency"
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/economy-a-budget/263547-the-myth-of-medical-bankruptcy

 

Well... yeah! That's the reason why they are going bankrupt: because they used the money that would be used for other things to pay for their health care. How much longer do you think a doctor continues seeing you after you stop paying them?

It would make absolute sense that people with a life-threatening disease would stop paying mortgage, Credit Cards and Car loans.... before they stop paying their doctor.

 

You think the Constitution has to be specific for questions like Where in the Constitution does it say the Fed gov should provide health care.

You need to explain why.

 

B.S.

The red states pay most of the federal budget.

The blue states are allowed to deduct what they pay in local income taxes from their federal income tax bill. If you live in Connecticut or New Jersey and work in NYC, you can deduct your home state income tax, your New York State income tax, and your New York City income tax from the amount you owe on your federal income taxes. So you'll owe basically no federal income tax. $0.00.

But if you live in a red state with no income tax, you have no local income tax to deduct, and you're stuck paying the full amount (100%) of your federal income tax.

 

A lot of numbers and talking but no proof on your part, TR.

 

No its not they go bankrupt because of all their other debts.
"Most reputable studies are based on the Survey of Consumer Finances, published by the Federal Reserve, which lists different types of consumer debt. Medical debt rose slightly from 5.5% of all debt in 2001 to 5.8% of all debt in 2007, according to the Fed.

A study by the Department of Justice examined more than 5,000 bankruptcy cases between 2000 and 2002. It found that 54% of bankruptcies involve no medical debt, and more than 90% have medical debt of less than $5,000. Even among the minority of bankruptcies that report medical debt, only a few have enough to cause personal bankruptcy."
http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2009/07/30/the_medical_bankruptcy_myth_97335.html
Its a myth put forth by the left to try and get support for a government takeover of healthcare.

 

Read the 10th Amendment.

 

Where in the Second Amendment is the word "Musket" mentioned?

 

And that should end!

 

The worlds moved on a bit since 1787 when you could tell a mans worth by inspecting his teeth and Scrofula Syrup claimed to treat "Cancer, Tumours, Erysipelas, Abscesses, Ulcers, Fever Sores, Goitre, Catarrh, Salt Rheum, Scald Head, Piles, Rheumatism, and ALL BLOOD DISEASES, while you don’t appear to have shifted an inch.

 

It is not rocket science. The constitution lists (enumerates) the things that are the responsibility of the federal government with the purpose of limiting what they can do. Health care for the populace is not listed. Exceptions can be valid but those are not throw away idle transient ideas. Plus the fact that the feds have run roughshod over their constitutional restrictions for decades does not change the law.

 

You cannot end something that doesn't exist.

 

You mean where are Arms, of which a musket is? Have you never read the Second Amendment?

 

A musket is a specific firearm. "Arms" includes much more than just muskets. The sets of each are not congruent. The set of "Arms" is far larger.

 

Congress and SCOTUS disagree with you, RodB.

 

If you are referring to enumerated powers, you are correct. Like progressives, congress wants to do and control everything and SCOTUS is more than happy to play along. They don't let quaint things like the Constitution get in their way, but it doesn't mean they are constitutionally legal.