|
|
#61
09-11-2009, 07:51 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
 LOL! Both of them are too cold for me unfortunately. I'm a desert rat, so I need a more moderate clime. If we could plop Norway's people and government on the French Riviera I'd call it heaven and move there ASAP!
|
|
#62
09-11-2009, 07:53 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#63
09-11-2009, 08:24 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Hello,
come to germany mate. It would be nice change to have a highly qualified US American immigrating to our country instead of the usual flood agressive muslim Goatherders with zero qualification. And you will get medical treatment anywhere for free, even if you have NO health insurance whatsover. Whoever is realy ill, gets treated. No bills for that. Welcome anytime  Cheers Rob
|
|
#64
09-11-2009, 08:52 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
None of these clauses—or any others found in the Constitution—gives Congress the power to create a government healthcare system. The “General Welfare” clause gives Congress the power “To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States.” This clause is not a grant of power to Congress. It is a limit to a power given to Congress. It limits the purpose for which Congress can lay and collect taxes. During the founding, some Anti-Federalists were concerned that this clause “amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defence or general welfare.” But James Madison, the “Father of the Constitution,” explained very clearly that it granted no power to Congress. If the “General Welfare” clause gives Congress the power to promote the general welfare, then why specifically list the other powers in Article I, such as the power to establish post offices and post roads, or to coin money? Wouldn’t it be redundant to list them? In short, as Madison argued, Congress derives no power from the general welfare clause, which merely serves to limit Congress’s power to lay and collect taxes. Congress can only do so for purposes of common defense or general welfare, in the service of the powers granted to it elsewhere in Article I. Second, “Necessary and Proper” gives Congress the power “to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States.” Like the general welfare clause, this clause was not a stand-alone grant of power to Congress. Rather, it authorizes Congress to make laws that are necessary (and also proper) to make the other grants of authority in Article I effectual. In other words, the necessary and proper clause cannot itself authorize national public health insurance. One would have to show that national public health insurance is necessary and proper to execute some other power granted in the Constitution.This puts the proponents of nationalized healthcare back where they started. Lastly, proponents might argue that national health insurance is part of Congress power “to regulate commerce…among the several states.” While progressives have often used this clause to expand the federal government, it does not apply especially to the creation of a national health insurance, because to create and engage in commerce is not the same thing as regulating commerce among the several states. Nobody during the framing generation expected the commerce clause to expand the federal government’s authority to anything relating to or resembling commerce. James Madison wrote that it is a power “which few oppose, and from which no apprehensions are entertained.” The clause was designed to prevent some states from taxing goods that passed through their boundaries as those goods proceeded to market. In case, proponents of government healthcare latch on to another clause, the three clauses above and rest of Constitution are explained in depth in the Heritage Guide to the Constitution . Of course, most progressive advocates of national health insurance are unconcerned whether the Constitution authorizes such a law when a pseudo-constitutional reasoning to reach the desired result will suffice. I personally think we may see this go before the Supreme court. Who knows ? All I know is I don't want the Federal government in my health care, They have never done anything right, Everything they do here in america is messed up. Its always really bad, there is so much red tape and loop holes and one thing after another, its just a mess, and everything they do looses money !! EVERYTHING ! They have never ever made anything profitable. If America was small like Canada or some other countries , yes it may work and work well, But America is to large for it to ever work. Its to much for one government to control, and if they do it, then there is no way to stop them from taking even more control in the future. We are already sliding down a insane slippery hill with what has been done in the last 10 years, Example Look at Bush's Patriot act. Now that thats in place, it will eventualy be used for Bad purposes against the American people. Heck it already is being used in a horrible way. On top of it all , WE CAN'T AFFORD IT. Its to the point here in America that our dollar is almost worth nothing anymore, and every time the Government spends more money it drops even farther. Is the health care system so far gone that its worth bankrupting our country ? You got to take that into consideration. We could make heavy reforms and drop the cost of health care and not sacrifice our country. Why is that not even being considered ? Please someone tell me WHY !! If your from another country then you know how much the falling of our countries money and financial market effects the world markets. Yeah they say that it will make more competition and lower costs, but how do you compete with the government cost ? If you run a buisness and you pay health insurance on your workers ,,, and the Government starts taxing you to pay for National Government health care, Why would you keep paying your private insurance ? That would be stupid , your paying more taxes for the National health insurance so why pay twice for the same thing ? That would just be plain bad buisness. There is no way that it will create competition. It will end Private health care and private insurance. There is no way around it. America's last great job industry is health care based insurance. It makes up almost 30% of the jobs in america. Now America is lossing jobs like crazy. Right now we have the highest unemployment rate in decades and its getting worse by the week. What happens to that 30% when All the employers in America say " Well Shit I ain't going to pay All these taxes for national Health care and not use it ?" Say good bye to even more jobs in America. Because that 30% is going to get hammered with job loss. More job loss means less money put in the free market, That means higer prices on everything, And lets not forget the falling dollar. So now your paying more for everything and your money is worth less, How is this helping anything really ? We still aren't even taking into consideration the burden that National health care TAX is going to put on America's Small buisness's. How many people are they going to have to lay off or how many people are going to have to close their buisness because of this Tax ? Plus How is national health care going to create competition to make leaps in medicine. If the government takes over the health care system then where is all the money going to come from for medical research ? Is the Government then going to tax us all to pay for that ? Constitutional law aside. People just don't understand all the problems it will create else where in America and not just here but in the entire world financial system. Have you ever stopped to think what country makes the most ground breaking developments in medicine ? Look it up some time. Who is the world leader in medical advancement ? Just my opinion , Desode DESODE
|
|
#65
09-11-2009, 09:51 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#66
09-11-2009, 10:30 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#68
09-11-2009, 02:34 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
And your idea that the US Military cannot be beat is sorta being an airhead, sorry to put it like that, but it's true. Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan have shown that the military style we still used today, is no longer fitting for fighting the type of enemies we have. Vietnam showed us that with enough determination and courage, the US Military could be beat with guerilla warfare, where in the opposite case, we were still doing things like we had in WW2 etc. So I think that the US Military, can HIGHLY be defeated without being threatened from the inside. And where did you get this idea that the EU would want to help and support the US, and allow us, Mexico, and Canada into the EU. The only nation in North America that I could think would ever be accepted was CANADA! Mexico would probably continue doing what it's doing, and probably fall into some drug cartel, police battle etc.
|
|
#69
09-11-2009, 03:02 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#70
09-11-2009, 03:30 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
