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

health is very much a general issue, which is why the clause covers it.[/QUOTE]

Health may be a general *ISSUE* but health care is not. Health care is individual!

 

healthcare is general welfare. Having a healthy population is a national issue, and governmental interest. You can not like that all you want, but healthcare is general welfare.

 

which makes it general welfare. Sorry.

 

Actually, it doesn't. Have you read the 1st Amendment? It doesn't say that Congresspeople and the President can't let their morals inform their decisions. I think what you are trying to say is that the 1st Amendment says the government can't control our religious beliefs -- a far different thing!

 

Wrong.

"With respect to the two words 'general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators."
-- James Madison

 

No, sorry, INDIVIDUAL makes in INDIVIDUAL!

 

The 1st amendment says both. Of course anyone can and should be free to believe whatever they want, but in NO way does it allow for religion to influence outcome of public policy. That was banned under *separation* of church and state. The state cannot interfere in the church, and vice versa.

 

Nope. *HEALTH* may be of general concern. HEALTHCARE is individual.

 

Who has been asserting that?

The federal government hasn't had single payer health care for its entire existsence! What planet do you live on, anyway?

 

Ah - you seek to avoid my questions. Fair enough.

You;re wrong. I'll prove it.
As you know, that to secure their rights, governments are instituted among Men,
Thus, laws against murder, assault, robbery, arson, etc, are not because these acts are immoral, but because they violate the rights of the people.
There you go.

Now then:
Why do you believe the state should force your morality on others?
And to follow up:
Why do you believe the state should not for the morality of others on you?

 

Since when does healthcare have to be in the Constitution? Before Obama care, insurance companies regularly refused to insure people due to pre-existing conditions. Even high blood pressure was an excuse not to insure. Costs skyrocketed as the insurance
companies had free reign. You don't remember because statistics were not kept. It was private insurance.The government had to involve itself because the uninsured were increasing dramatically, and were ending up in the emergency rooms across the country.
The ACA was an excellent way to alleviate this, and still is, with fixes. Has nothing to do with the left or the right. The ACA is the law
and can be fixed, according to the Congressional Budget Office, rather than going through all these gyrations that are costing the
taxpayer millions of dollars. But Trump doesn't care, because he is jealous and does not want Obama to get credit for anything.
And who suffers? You and me, that's who.

 

This screedish insanity and hatred is why the red states are more than happy for the blue states to secede, and wish they'd stop their petulant whining and get on with it.

 

For 200 years this nation grew and prospered under the limted powers of the federal government as delegated to them in our Constitution.

The only ones that are bankrupt morally and socially are those that want to abrogate the Constitution and our founding principles for personal gain.

 

It doesn't matter. The General Welfare Clause argument is bunk:

"With respect to the two words 'general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators."
-- James Madison

 

healthcare is a national governmental interest. Healthcare is general welfare. Sorry

 

Are you lost in the thread forest?

Go read the 10th Amendment! What has happened to the civil education of the populace today?

Amend. 10: "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."

The federal government has the powers delegated to it in Article 1, Section 8 and that is all. Everything else is reserved to the States or to the people themselves.

Nothing in Article 1, Section 8 says anything about the federal government getting involved in the health care of individuals.

Can you go look up Article 1, Section 8 or do I need to post it here for you?

 

Since 1791, upon the ratification of the 19th Amendment.
If the power is not granted to the federal government, it lays with the states.

Fore perfectly sound reasons.

Why would the insurance companies drive up costs when hihger costs mean bigger payouts?

What drives up costs more -- companies trying to make a profit by limiting their payouts, or the insulation of the consumer from the true costs of the goods and services he receives?

 

Now you are changing your tag line.

HEALTH is a general interest for the national government. Individual healthcare is not. Individual healthcare is just that, INDIVIUDUAL healthcare.

Health care is not mentioned in Article 1, Section 8. Therefore it devolves to the States or to the people under the 10th Amendment.

 

That's not what I am referring to. Do you think we should have a military? That is a moral choice you're making. Do you think we should have a post office, or an IRS, or our congressional reps at all? These are all moral decisions. You are trying to disassociate any morality from government action, when both are inexplicably intertwined. To use your example, protecting the rights of people is a moral activity.

 

So what? Please don't Constitution me. If that were the case, then the Government would pass it off. I am sure that it is a matter of
interpretation, and the Supreme Court would have ruled.

 

Never the less, it disproves your statement.

Now then...
Why do you believe the state should force your morality on others?
And to follow up:
Why do you believe the state should not for the morality of others on you?

 

Personal gain masquerading as "altruism", of course...

 

Um, no it doesn't, not at all haha. Defending someones rights is a moral action, period.

 

No, the 1st Amendment says *exactly* what I posted.

1st Amend: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.....

The government can't tell us what our religion must be and we are free to exercise our religion -- including in making decisions as a Congressperson or President.

There is *NO* such thing as "separation of church and state" in the Constitution. You just proved that you've never bothered to read the US Constitution. Stop listening to all the Marxist Democrat talking point lies.

No one is saying the church can interfere with the state (although sanctuary churches for illegal aliens *do* just that) but that is a totally different issue than someone's individual religious beliefs informing their policy decisions!

 

You said it wasn't in the European Union constitution; I simply pointed out the EU has no constitution.
You cannot have a monopolistic national single payer medical system without rationing. It is logically not possible.