Drew Bloodsd asked:
You ask a liberal to point out in the bill of rights where it says that Americans are entitled to medical insurance (among other things) and they refer you to the preamble of the US constitution where is says “to promote the general welfare”.
Okay……..since when did “promoting the general welfare” go beyond roads, infrastructure, and basic public services, and start including social security retirement? Unemployment compensation? And now nationalized medical insurance?
Are you ignorantly implying that Health Care is NOT a fundamental necessity? People should just curl up and die? Wow…talk about the extent of GOP ignorance…
It doesn’t.
Welfare was mentioned in the constitution and libs have been in love with it ever since.
I agree with you, ***** everybody but me.
Because the interpret it as “providing the general welfare” not “promoting the general welfare”.
You could twist that to include food and shelter too.
I don’t know, but I suspect that the libs will now try to say that justifies anything they want.
When they realized that it is yet another way to gain control over each and every aspect of every one of our lives.
Obviously, its not. But you’re going to find a lot of laws and edicts that aren’t in the constitution.
Like it or not, There is a growing global trend towards socialized medicine.
The bill of rights says whatever the supreme court says it does.
since they’re spending your money, not theirs..what a bunch of lunatics, BEWARE!!
It came with Hope and Change.
we have social security insurance.
since that’s doing so good, why not give health insurance a whirl!
Where does it say in the bill of rights that the private utility sector should be regulated by the government? Or food? Or drugs? Or education? Or labor? Or television? Or cars? Or fuel? Or mail? Or banks? Or security?
etc.
does the bill of rights cover, internet, air, cars, air transport, or any of the million+ things that have been invented or discovered since it was written?
To liberals….”promoting the general welfare” means “providing general welfare”….they stupidly believe that it is the governments job to provide for the people….in all areas of their lives….
As far as health care, in those days they didn’t have any and anyone could apply a leech, so it was never given any thought, but had it been, it would have been put into the same category as food and housing.
Leftists can’t even grasp that the “promote the general welfare” clause in the preamble applies only to those government duties specifically enumerated in the Constitution. And those duties are strictly limited.
Now, leftists use that clause to justify every piece of pork that government spends. Can they get any more intellectually bankrupt?
The “general welfare” is a vague concept–true. Some people think it should include health care. Others do not. That is the whole argument. You can’t win the argument by appealing to the language of the Constitution itself. You need to make an argument that the plan is not (or is) a good way to promote the general welfare. That’s what the debate is about.
This is not a debate about whether something is Constitutional or not. It’s a debate about what policies are best to have within the broad framework of the Constitution.
We have hundreds of government programs that are not specifically contemplated by the Constitution. So what? It was designed to be a flexible document.
and don’t forget that little bit about all men being created equally, that’s important to.
Using your logic, breathing is unconstitutional since it isn’t mentioned ANYWHERE in the constitution.
Please, show me where it says we are allowed to breathe?
You ask a conservative a question, and you just get a blank stare. So, it is better to ask liberals questions because they are smart enough to put two coherent words together.
Why don’t you start again and try to make some sense? If roads and infrastructure are valid ways to promote the general welfare, then why can’t nationalized healthcare do the same thing? It could.
BTW, if we are looking at the documents of the US, please show me where it states that the US is a Christian nation. Right wing politicians spout this claim all the time. But, if you look, we have the freedom of religion. There is no national religion. The US is NOT a Christian nation. It has Christian people.
I would have thought that health and welfare were inseparable, but then I’m not a conservative American so what do I know eh!?
Social Security and unemployment compensation have been around for decades so it really isn’t a new idea. We tried to get nationalized health care at the same time back in the ’40s but the usual suspects of AMA, pharmaceuticals and insurance companies then as now, spent big bucks to lobby against it.
I bet if you tried to get rid of Social Security and unemployment benefits there would be rioting in the streets. Why don’t you get the few Republicans left in the Congress or Senate to suggest it? Dems would have a super dooper majority, instead of just a majority.
The Supreme Court seems to go along with the notion that social security and medicare are basic public services which promote the general welfare.
Probably ever since health costs in this country have went up so high it hurts the general welfare of the countries citizens
something we know
Republicans could care less about
It’s Orwellian, when you take a word, make it mean something else, and apply that new meaning to an old text. Calling government handouts “welfare” was a tactic… it wasn’t an accident.
Promote the general welfare is to pass good laws that allow citizens and businesses to prosper, not to take more from the people in order to take care of them.
But like you say, where in the Constitution does it give the federal government the authority or the ability or the right to give us “freebies” that have to first be taken from someone else? It doesn’t. This is tyranny.
It’s interesting to hear Republicans ask about the constitution now that Bush is out of office. I was wondering if they even cared about it at all anymore while he was off running his agenda and stomping all over it.
Next we should supply everybody with food since that is a necessity. They forgot to look up promote. Promote and provide are not the same. They’re supposed to be super educated and super intelligent but don’t know the difference between provide and promote.
And since when did “promote” become “tax and confiscate to in order to control?”