What? And take away their last best hope to control the world through manufactured crisis?
Population bomb?...bust Famine?...nothing Nuclear Winter?...phhssssaaaa Ozone hole?...They still don't know what's going on with that. Swine/Bird flu?...flew the coop. AIDS?...Only people getting that now are the ones who go putting things where they don't belong.
If you take away AGW, I suspect there will be millions of depressed and unemployed activists.
The precedent was specifically about the taking of private property. The General Welfare clause was (incorrectly) used to bolster the State's argument.
The ability for the government to do this is covered in the 5th Amendment and is not relevant to the Health Care situation at all. Unless you want to claim that by forcing me to buy insurance (of their choice) they are confiscating a portion of my income for the public good.
BTW, did you read about the cancer patient that is being denied life saving drugs by Medicare?
Would it be in the Public Interest to ban all high sugar food and drinks from super markets? Probably.
Would it be in the Public Interest to require everyone to purchase a membership in a health club AND use it? Of course.
Would it be in the public interest to ban all vehicles that don't get X MPG and weigh more than X? Probably so.
How about homes that exceed X square feet per person? I'm sure many people on Slashdot could go on and on about how that would be in the Public Interest.
Who could argue that crack addicts should not be sterilized? Their babies costs millions and need special care for the rest of their lives.
An argument could be made that doing all these things are in the General Welfare. Are you on board?
If the Preamble works how you suggest, then that means the feds can pretty much do anything, including those things that Slashdot consistently has fits about.
But just look at it from a common sense standpoint. The entire Constitution and the Amendments are about limiting government. What makes you think the Preamble, which is simply stating the purpose of the document, was intended to enable the government to do whatever it feels is in the general Welfare?
Clearly, they meant that the general welfare was best served by limiting the scope of government.
They question you and everyone else should be asking is why did your employer have to stop providing Health care...costs maybe?
And what is in this bill addresses cost? NOTHING. It merely tries to provide a way to meet the rising costs without even trying to address the cause.
Keep in mind that government services are analogous to the speed of light. The closer you get to the imagined "perfect" through providing increasing services, the more money and government control is required.
Perfection requires infinite government resources and control.
Over here we have this thing called the Constitution that explicitly restricts what the government can do. But that doesn't seem to matter much to people anymore.
So long as the pet cause of the Administration is achieved, fuck the Constitution.
I think it's practically unheard of here, except proponents of nationalized health care are exceptionally good at either making it up, misrepresenting it, or finding the very small percentage of those in that position.
And if you had read them you would have realized that it was an issue of the Canadian facilities being the ONLY facilities nearby, not one of cost or coverage.
Slashdot Mirror
What are you? Al Gore?
Or you could just build that many more Nukes. Is there some sort of energy generation cap I don't know about?
I say we start with the "activists". Lots of CO2 coming from their mouths.
Unless you're also going to somehow make there be fewer people, and have them do less, with fewer luxuries like sanitation and refrigeration
Do you seriously think that is not in their play book? Except of course for Al Gore, et.al...they get to keep all that stuff
Hmmm...everything you mention is a payment to the government in some form or fashion.
What? And take away their last best hope to control the world through manufactured crisis?
Population bomb?...bust
Famine?...nothing
Nuclear Winter?...phhssssaaaa
Ozone hole?...They still don't know what's going on with that.
Swine/Bird flu?...flew the coop.
AIDS?...Only people getting that now are the ones who go putting things where they don't belong.
If you take away AGW, I suspect there will be millions of depressed and unemployed activists.
How many people have died one way or another in the coal industry in the last 20 years?
How many people have died one way or another in the Nuclear industry in the last 50 years?
Yeah...Nuclear is reeeaaaal dangerous.
The Liberal Feel Goods hate everything
The precedent was specifically about the taking of private property. The General Welfare clause was (incorrectly) used to bolster the State's argument.
The ability for the government to do this is covered in the 5th Amendment and is not relevant to the Health Care situation at all. Unless you want to claim that by forcing me to buy insurance (of their choice) they are confiscating a portion of my income for the public good.
BTW, did you read about the cancer patient that is being denied life saving drugs by Medicare?
http://abcnews.go.com/m/screen?id=10151392
Medicare? you mean the GOVERNMENT run program?
Would it be in the Public Interest to ban all high sugar food and drinks from super markets? Probably.
Would it be in the Public Interest to require everyone to purchase a membership in a health club AND use it? Of course.
Would it be in the public interest to ban all vehicles that don't get X MPG and weigh more than X? Probably so.
How about homes that exceed X square feet per person? I'm sure many people on Slashdot could go on and on about how that would be in the Public Interest.
Who could argue that crack addicts should not be sterilized? Their babies costs millions and need special care for the rest of their lives.
An argument could be made that doing all these things are in the General Welfare. Are you on board?
If the Preamble works how you suggest, then that means the feds can pretty much do anything, including those things that Slashdot consistently has fits about.
But just look at it from a common sense standpoint. The entire Constitution and the Amendments are about limiting government. What makes you think the Preamble, which is simply stating the purpose of the document, was intended to enable the government to do whatever it feels is in the general Welfare?
Clearly, they meant that the general welfare was best served by limiting the scope of government.
They question you and everyone else should be asking is why did your employer have to stop providing Health care...costs maybe?
And what is in this bill addresses cost? NOTHING. It merely tries to provide a way to meet the rising costs without even trying to address the cause.
But then, that's par for the course I guess.
Go ahead and look it up in the Constitution.
Let me know when you find it and be sure to cite the Article or Amendment so I can look it up too, I'm curious.
Keep in mind that government services are analogous to the speed of light. The closer you get to the imagined "perfect" through providing increasing services, the more money and government control is required.
Perfection requires infinite government resources and control.
Over here we have this thing called the Constitution that explicitly restricts what the government can do. But that doesn't seem to matter much to people anymore.
So long as the pet cause of the Administration is achieved, fuck the Constitution.
So, it is your position that because it only misses a few million people, then it's alright?
Don't forget, the opposition to the bill was more bi-partisan than was the support.
If you are covered at work and change jobs, you cannot be denied coverage with the new insurance due to pre-existing conditions.
That's the law.
Making shit up isn't helping anything.
DailyKOS trolls have mod points today I see.
Since the just passed Healthcare bill still excludes millions, then I guess you are against it then.
Guess you read the NYTs version.
I think it's practically unheard of here, except proponents of nationalized health care are exceptionally good at either making it up, misrepresenting it, or finding the very small percentage of those in that position.
What if the fucking world comes to an end?
They are options, and they are designed for different levels of cost.
You can sit there all day and say what if this and what if that. It means nothing.
Up until tonight, I could vote with my dollars.
HMO? Fee for service? Catastrophic plan? take yer pick.
But now, it's just gonna be what the feds say it should be.
And if you had read them you would have realized that it was an issue of the Canadian facilities being the ONLY facilities nearby, not one of cost or coverage.
Sound like that could be the case. You can't buy a kidney in the U.S. You can in India.