what you are telling us is that it is inconvenient for you to accept what the preamble says, that we the people promote those things which are for the general welfare of the people
and single payer health coverage falls in that category.
just as the supreme court recently told us that Obamacare should be found Constitutional
yet another reality that you pretend to ignore, because to acknowledge it would upend your ideology
ok, arbo
here is the preamble to the Constitution:
i have emphasized the salient portion which gives basis for a national single payer system
Or people could just pay for their own healthcare.
Btw, do you know what the preamble of the constitution is actually for? Hint: It doesn't grant power.
this is a stupid way to get to single payer; we should have done that from the start. if it does get us there, that will be one of the few good things the PPACA accomplishes.
Good, they should have started with a single payer system to begin with.
You woul think people would see this as bad governance. You would think people would see this as a reason you don't want more government control. Then you realize that people are stupid as hell.
what a stupid presentationLol! No, what you bolded has nothing to do with the definition of welfare in 1787.
let's ignore the tripe you intoduce and instead read something informative; like the preamble:Btw, do you know what the preamble of the constitution is actually for? Hint: It doesn't grant power.
notice how it both establishes the Constitution and asserts (among other things) the Peoples' expectation to promote the general welfareWe the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Baby steps. Even if it means making everything worse so people love your ideas. There is nothing wrong with that approach. Nope.
what a stupid presentation
as if the Constitution was intended only to serve our purposes as they were in 1787
using your "logic" the right to bear arms only extends to the black powder muskets and pistols of that era
let's ignore the tripe you intoduce and instead read something informative; like the preamble:
notice how it both establishes the Constitution and asserts (among other things) the Peoples' expectation to promote the general welfare
again, that completely upends the backwardness which is your ideology, thus causing you to ignore the very expectations as expressed by our founders
nah, there's a lot wrong with it. would be better just to solve the problem in one step, but half of the country still believes that an essential service with inelastic demand can be efficiently delivered via three levels of for-profit companies, and that business owners should be health care providers. it's ridiculous, and it's why we're paying more than anyone else for poorer outcomes.
Everyone else thinks that's a great idea, but that we also have to live in the real world where things are not that simple.I don't know what everyone else thinks, but what I think is that's your duty to provide for your own needs and not take from me to help you on your way.
Everyone else thinks that's a great idea, but that we also have to live in the real world where things are not that simple.
Oh my little friend I wish it was. How easy it would be then, everyone just looking out for number one.It is that simple, sorry.
Oh my little friend I wish it was. How easy it would be then, everyone just looking out for number one.
Your involvement is probably limited to paying your taxes. In the modern world, where societies and governments are necessary evils, that's as uninvolved as it gets.Like I said, if you want to help others you're perfectly capable of doing it without involving me.
Your involvement is probably limited to paying your taxes. In the modern world, where societies and governments are necessary evils, that's as uninvolved as it gets.
I don't like paying for weapons. Life sucks eh?Which is involvement I don't desire to take part in to help provide for other peoples healthcare.
I don't like paying for weapons. Life sucks eh?
I mean weapons, those things used by our military, notice the collective there, to kill other people we call enemies.Paying for weapons? You mean the military?
I don't know what everyone else thinks, but what I think is that's your duty to provide for your own needs and not take from me to help you on your way.
I mean weapons, those things used by our military, notice the collective there, to kill other people we call enemies.
yes, because you certainly don't benefit from societal structure and stability. take away guaranteed access to health care, and see what happens when the kids of people who can't afford care get sick.
The Military provides for the international security of the nation. Security is a societal function. Public health provides for the health of the nation. The health of the nation is a societal function. I realize that you don't agree with the last one but as long as the society you live in does, part of that bill will be yours and the system will include you.So? The military is a legitimate function of government. What does it have in common with healthcare of individual citizens?
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?