Trump Healthcare Vote Withdrawn

a reply to: gortex

Why not make it so everyone in the USA can buy the same Health Care package as the politicians are getting?

No need to reinvent the wheel give us what they have, just make it affordable for everyone.

originally posted by: Flatfish

originally posted by: SBMcG

originally posted by: Flatfish


I seriously doubt we'll miss you at all. I know that I won't.

The bottom line is that there is no Constitutional right to government-paid healthcare.

If that's what you want, you should petition your state government. They are completely within their rights under the Constitution to provide universal healthcare free of charge.

While we may not currently enjoy a constitutional right to healthcare, we also don't have any constitutional stipulations prohibiting it, except for those that exist within the confines of your imagination.

White that in mind and knowing that the larger the pool of beneficiaries, the lower the per capita cost to cover them, I think I'll just continue to petition for universal healthcare at the federal level.

Yeah, that's not the way it works.

If the right is not specified in the Constitution, it doesn't exist as a right extended -- not to be confused with a personal right.

If we did it your way, where just because a right wasn't in the Constitution it could be magically conjured up, can you imagine the mess that would make? Everything from free food to free Cadillacs would be a "right" all of a sudden.

Again, under the 10th Amendment states are perfectly empowered to enact any healthcare plan their citizens choose.

I live in Washington. I am a conservative. I am not a pot smoker. However, I voted for the legalization of weed because that was something I knew would be good for my state. That might not be good for another state. Washington is a very rich state with a fairly homogeneous and educated demographic.

If a reasonable single-payer healthcare system were presented by out idiot communist governor, I would consider it.

a reply to: SBMcG

In other words, if a state wants to make a "right" healthcare, marriage, or anything else not specified in the Constitution as a right, they can do that as long as it does not conflict with the Constitution.

That's what I said:

It says that the US Government cannot intefere in states laws unless those laws conflict with the Constitution.

Case in point, Hawaii has been working on making state law, provisions of the ACA. In anticipation of the elimination of the ACA. That's perfectly fine because it does not conflict with the Constitution. Nor does it have anything to do with creating any "rights". It tells insurance companies what coverages they are required to provide.

Just because health care is not defined as a right in the Constitution, it does not mean that Congress cannot create a law which provides it. Your argument about whether or not it is a Constitutional right, is specious.

originally posted by: BubbaJoe

originally posted by: SBMcG

originally posted by: BubbaJoe

So you are one that are willing to let people get sick and die, see my previous comments. Cash out and quit, who really cares, you are one that gets on and spouts crap about how bad you have it, I have one of my clients writing a 1 mil + check to the IRS tomorrow.

I have no control over who gets sick, why they get sick, and certainly have no responsibility for them when they do. If they die from that sickness I hope they RIP, but everyone is going to die. Regardless of what I do or how much of my wherewithal leftists try to confiscate from me, that person was going to die anyway.

Can you cite ANY Constitutional requirement that mandates the Federal government provide healthcare free of charge to US citizens?

Again, who's going to pay?

Nothing in the Constitution either about abortion or gay marriage, but every one of you right wingers want to end that. Our Constitution is a great document, but not perfect, given the Bill of Rights, and all of the amendments. A piece of hemp will not protect your freedoms, if you have no common sense, and our founding fathers knew that.

I don't want to "end" homosexual "marriage" at all. I would prefer the social contract be something that didn't change the meaning and definition of something tens of millions of heterosexual Americans entered into before there was such a thing as homosexual "marriage", but whatever. i really don't care...

I am a constitutional conservative and do not believe I have the right under the Constitution to tell anyone else what to do. I don't care for the practice of abortion, but it is what it is. I oppose Roe v. Wade because the regulation of abortion should be left up to the states. The federal government has no business meddling in a woman's private life.

As for hemp. I live in Washington state and voted to legalize marijuana. That is a state's rights issue and has proven to be a good decision for this state.

originally posted by: SBMcG

originally posted by: Flatfish

originally posted by: SBMcG

originally posted by: Flatfish


I seriously doubt we'll miss you at all. I know that I won't.

The bottom line is that there is no Constitutional right to government-paid healthcare.

If that's what you want, you should petition your state government. They are completely within their rights under the Constitution to provide universal healthcare free of charge.

While we may not currently enjoy a constitutional right to healthcare, we also don't have any constitutional stipulations prohibiting it, except for those that exist within the confines of your imagination.

White that in mind and knowing that the larger the pool of beneficiaries, the lower the per capita cost to cover them, I think I'll just continue to petition for universal healthcare at the federal level.

Yeah, that's not the way it works.

If the right is not specified in the Constitution, it doesn't exist as a right extended -- not to be confused with a personal right.

If we did it your way, where just because a right wasn't in the Constitution it could be magically conjured up, can you imagine the mess that would make? Everything from free food to free Cadillacs would be a "right" all of a sudden.

Again, under the 10th Amendment states are perfectly empowered to enact any healthcare plan their citizens choose.

I live in Washington. I am a conservative. I am not a pot smoker. However, I voted for the legalization of weed because that was something I knew would be good for my state. That might not be good for another state. Washington is a very rich state with a fairly homogeneous and educated demographic.

If a reasonable single-payer healthcare system were presented by out idiot communist governor, I would consider it.

You do realize no one here is buying your right wing BS, you haven't changed a single mind.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: SBMcG

In other words, if a state wants to make a "right" healthcare, marriage, or anything else not specified in the Constitution as a right, they can do that as long as it does not conflict with the Constitution.

That's what I said:

It says that the US Government cannot intefere in states laws unless those laws conflict with the Constitution.

Case in point, Hawaii has been working on making state law, provisions of the ACA. In anticipation of the elimination of the ACA. That's perfectly fine because it does not conflict with the Constitution. Nor does it have anything to do with creating any "rights". It tells insurance companies what coverages they are required to provide.

Just because health care is not defined as a right in the Constitution, it does not mean that Congress cannot create a law which provides it. Your argument about whether or not it is a Constitutional right, is specious.

I agree with everything you said except for "[y]our argument about whether or not it is a Constitutional right, is specious."

I can prove it.

If healthcare were a right granted by the Constitution, why did Obama have to continually lie about it NOT being a tax to get it passed, and then admit that it WAS A TAX when it went to the Supreme Court?

Because Congress has absolute authority to tax, zero authority to force people to buy healthcare.

That's why I am one of the rare conservatives who agreed with the SCOTUS Obamacare decision.

The Constitution grants Congress the power to tax. Obamacare was a tax.

originally posted by: BubbaJoe

You do realize no one here is buying your right wing BS, you haven't changed a single mind.

OK...

originally posted by: NthOther
Just repeal it. That's it. No replacement.

We want our old doctors back. We want our old premiums and deductibles back.

Stop figuring out how to repay your donors and just repeal Obamacare, replacing it with nothing.

That''s why the bill was turned off. The Republicans wanted their expensive doctors to be included in the TrumpCare Bill. ObamaCare performed a review of the success rates of hospitals vs. how much they charged. A good many in California were banned. Medical schools justify the high cost of their free dues to how much a doctor can earn. A doctor justified his high fees due to how much he had to pay to get through Medical school.

a reply to: SBMcG

If healthcare were a right granted by the Constitution, why did Obama have to continually lie about it NOT being a tax to get it passed, and then admit that it WAS A TAX when it went to the Supreme Court?

The Court decided that the mandate is a de facto tax, yes. What does that have to do with health care being a Constitutional right?

originally posted by: SBMcG

originally posted by: BubbaJoe

You do realize no one here is buying your right wing BS, you haven't changed a single mind.

OK...

Straight up, your arguments have no merit. You can argue for the constitution all you want, but everything is not covered. You have chosen a bad argument, accept defeat, and regroup.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: SBMcG

If healthcare were a right granted by the Constitution, why did Obama have to continually lie about it NOT being a tax to get it passed, and then admit that it WAS A TAX when it went to the Supreme Court?

The Court decided that the mandate is a de facto tax, yes. What does that have to do with health care being a Constitutional right?

Everything.

Congress has the Constitutional authority to pass any tax.

Maybe you misunderstood me -- nowhere in the Constitution is the right of an individual to government-provided healthcare granted.

Maybe I made a typo above, I'll look. But I never said that healthcare was a Constitutional right.

originally posted by: BubbaJoe

originally posted by: SBMcG

originally posted by: BubbaJoe

You do realize no one here is buying your right wing BS, you haven't changed a single mind.

OK...

Straight up, your arguments have no merit. You can argue for the constitution all you want, but everything is not covered. You have chosen a bad argument, accept defeat, and regroup.

OK...

Most of the constitution is about limiting the government such as what rights (in their eyes already existed) the government can not infringe on. So every time I see someone claiming the constitution didn't grant some right or ability I can only think those people have very little knowledge about the very constitution they are referencing.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
Most of the constitution is about limiting the government such as what rights (in their eyes already existed) the government can not infringe on. So every time I see someone claiming the constitution didn't grant some right or ability I can only think those people have very little knowledge about the very constitution they are referencing.

Please show me where in the Constitution the right of an individual to government-provided healthcare is granted.

Thank you.

originally posted by: stormcell

originally posted by: NthOther
Just repeal it. That's it. No replacement.

We want our old doctors back. We want our old premiums and deductibles back.

Stop figuring out how to repay your donors and just repeal Obamacare, replacing it with nothing.

That''s why the bill was turned off. ObamaCare performed a review of the success rates of hospitals vs. how much they charged. A good many in California were banned. .

Do you have a link to this Obamacare review of hospital medical charges?

a reply to: SBMcG

Maybe you misunderstood me -- nowhere in the Constitution is the right of an individual to government-provided healthcare granted.

I understood you the first time. Are you again saying that unless a right is enumerated in the Constitution it does not exist? That is not what the 9th amendment says.
www.law.cornell.edu...

originally posted by: SBMcG

originally posted by: Grimpachi
Most of the constitution is about limiting the government such as what rights (in their eyes already existed) the government can not infringe on. So every time I see someone claiming the constitution didn't grant some right or ability I can only think those people have very little knowledge about the very constitution they are referencing.

Please show me where in the Constitution the right of an individual to government-provided healthcare is granted.

Thank you.

So long story short, you want poor people to die. Yeah not a constitutional protection, but for most right wingers should be biblical, but that too is not the case.

a reply to: SBMcG

Did you not understand what I wrote? It certainly looks that way.

To explain in a different way there are very few rights granted by the constitution such as the right to bear arms, vote, speedy trial. There may be a few more, but for the most part the constitution sets limits on what the government can do. If you can't show where it says they can not provide healthcare then you don't have an argument.

Edit: The right to bear arms isn't granted honestly because it is written in a way that it already exists. The second states that right shall not be infringed.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: SBMcG

Maybe you misunderstood me -- nowhere in the Constitution is the right of an individual to government-provided healthcare granted.

I understood you the first time. Are you again saying that unless a right is enumerated in the Constitution it does not exist? That is not what the 9th amendment says.
www.law.cornell.edu...

The 9th Amendment has nothing to do with this issue. That has to do with personal rights claimed by an individual not granted by or in conflict with the Constitution.

Are you arguing that based upon the 9th Amendment an individual can claim a right to government-funded healthcare?

Go ahead and give me a legal precedent to back that huckleberry up...

What other personal rights can I claim under the 9th?

Gee, I would like a new pair of shoes. Otherwise my feet get cold. Therefore, I invoke the 9th Amendment and compel the Federal government to buy me some nice new shoes.

There is NO RIGHT to government-paid healthcare, nor can the Federal government force anyone to buy something they don't want.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: SBMcG

Did you not understand what I wrote? It certainly looks that way.

To explain in a different way there are very few rights granted by the constitution such as the right to bear arms, vote, speedy trial. There may be a few more, but for the most part the constitution sets limits on what the government can do. If you can't show where it says they can not provide healthcare then you don't have an argument.

Edit: The right to bear arms isn't granted honestly because it is written in a way that it already exists. The second states that right shall not be infringed.

I can't show where in the Constitution it says I'm not due a nice new Escalade at government expense either.

I guess that means that YOU don't have an argument.