alphieb said:You missed my point entirely or pretended to.
Goobieman said:No. I didn't.
You think its OK for the government to ignore the fact it doesnt have the power to do something when its something YOU think is a good idea, but then complain when it ignores thate fact that it doesnt have the power to do something when YOu think is NOT a good idea.
I ask again:
The government does not have the power granted to it by the Constitution to enact anything regarding health care. Do you or do you not want the government to do things it doesnt have the power to do just because you/it thinks it's a good idea?
What makes a "good" idea is subjective.alphieb said:What did I state that was not a good idea?
You havent said a thing about amending the Constitution until now.There is a provision in the constitution that allows amending
Including eavesdrop on international phone calls when one or both parties might be a terrorist?The government has the power to do what they want
alphieb said:You are merely speculating.........
Goobieman said:What makes a "good" idea is subjective.
If you argue that the gvmnt should be able to do things that it doesnt have the power to do because you think its a good idea, then you have absoilutly NO leg to stand on to disagree when someone else makes the same argument.
And you havent answered the question:
Do you or do you not want the government to do things it doesnt have the power to do just because you/it thinks it's a good idea?
You havent said a thing about amending the Constitution until now.
Including eavesdrop on international phone calls when one or both parties might be a terrorist?
I think that they do is is a good idea. I guess that's a good enough argument for you.
alphieb said:I did not state if I thought the wiretappings were a positive thing or not. I simply stated it was done. Futhermore, why do you think the bill of rights was created?
Calm2Chaos said:Well everyone is.. so are you. Since we have no UH system in this country it is all speculation. Although I don't have to look far for support of my argument. Canada seems to suffer from much of what I stated in one form or another. And this is a country of 32,000,000 people in it as compared to the US with 290,000,000. This is also a country that does not have the internation demands on its government or it's economy that ours does. And yet with that they still are having problems. I have read that some say the system may fail. There are provinces in Canada paying as high as 47% on taxable income, I pay 30%.. Thats a pretty big jump for healthcare.. it doesn't cost me that much now.....
Goobieman said:You are avoiding the question.
Do you or do you not want the government to do things it doesnt have the power to do just because you/it thinks it's a good idea?
If you do, then the bill of rights is irrelevant.
alphieb said:No that has been the track record of the Bush Admin., remember Clinton had our budget balanced and he by the way, was for NHC.
alphieb said:I have answered the question, but I will say it again, YES, if it will benefit the American people......absolutely. That is why the bill of rights was created.
alphieb said:Our population is larger, hence the taxes would probably be smaller. It is a numbers game. If there system is failing then they need to figure out a way to make it work and not by Private HC.
Goobieman said:You don't seem to understand that if the limits placed on what governement can/can't do dont matter as long as whatever under contemplation is a "good idea" that will "benifit the American people", then the bill of rights - indeed, the constitution as a whole -- is meaningless.
alphieb said:"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution
Goobieman said:Ok... whats your point? We all know the Constitution can be amended.
But...your posts thus far have only tangentally referred to amending the Constitution, and amending the Constitution was certainly not part of your orignal post.
Maybe you should re-ask the question:
"Should the Constitution be amended to allow Congress to create a national Health Care System?"
taxedout said:Originally Posted by alphieb
Our population is larger, hence the taxes would probably be smaller. It is a numbers game. If there system is failing then they need to figure out a way to make it work and not by Private HC.
Where did you ever get the idea that the government can figure out ways to make everything work ?
How about stop taking all of our money, then we can pay our own bills.
But then we wouldn't be dependent on them, would we?
Calm2Chaos said:Um.... NO...LOL
Sorry but one does not equal the other. All of the other demands on our system are not going to just dissapear. Sorry but unless you can prove to me that my taxes won't go up more then I pay now, and my service and or access to doctors and specialist will not decrease. That the medical research and drug research won't severely suffer. If they are possibilities then I see no reason for UH
Right... and one of my several question sregarding the idea referenced the Constitution, directly - that is, how you plan to create such a thing when the Constitution does not allow it.alphieb said:What difference does that make? I asked if it was needed and I believe it is. You brought up the constitution and I simply referred to it.
Goobieman said:Right... and one of my several question sregarding the idea referenced the Constitution, directly - that is, how you plan to create such a thing when the Constitution does not allow it.
Your first response: Who cares - its a good idea!
Your second response: Amend the Constitution.
Fair enough. Good luck with that, by the way.
There are other questions that you haven't addressed:
Why do people think that the government should take care of everyone, all the time, regarding everything?
Why do people think that I, personally, am responsible for providing health care to complete strangers?
How do complete strangers have a right to MY money?
alphieb said:First of all, if the Democrats take over the house (highly probable) NC is inevitable. And Secondly, I have answered every single one of those questions.
This isnt an answer to my question.alphieb said:First reply::::::
Oh OK, I guess we shall eliminate medicaid and medicare and the food stamp program etc, because that is not specified in the constitution either.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?