Americans WANT Health Care Reform!!!!!

[sfc_oliver]

You are 100% on the target ytownNewsandViews. Obama himself has admitted that we cannot sustain this level of spending , yet he proposes to spend even more.

How can we spend more for health care or anything when we cannot sustain what is being spent already? And yes Bush spent too much but Obama has shown us that he is the true master of spending.

[ytowner]

Obama may fix the economy short term, but his stimulus will lead to a recession and his reckless spending will lead us to a depression if we don't fix the budget FAST.

Universal Health Care is yet another aspect of socialism the new administration is embracing. That and nationalized auto-bank-mortgage industries as well...

THE SOCIALIST STATES OF AMERICA

[iwasthere]

surveys can be missleading when it is done by political actions groups. i do not go by public opinion polls to make my decision aka the house and the senate. i make my opinion by what i hear from people on the streets, public meeting places, on chat boards and personal observations that am. people do want healthcare reform now and not later. percentages of people who do not want healthcare reform will go lower in few weeks when Chrysler and gm bankruptcies are decided by the federal cts. it will be a different story a month from now.

[Towntalk]

And Congress is well within their right to pass health care legislation, just as they passed Social Security and Medicare.

Again, no one is disputing that Congressional prerogative. That is a given.

The O N L Y dispute I have with your contention is that is is E X P R E S S L Y ebodied in the Constitution.

THOSE EXACT WORDS.

Again, I DO NOT as a FDR/Truman Democrat deny the need for reforms in how health care is distributed, for if I did, I would also have to say that Social Security is unconstitutional, or for that matter Federal Income Tax.

If you would leave out the notion that health care is a Constitutional right, and simply go with what Congress is trying to do, there would be absolutely no dispute except for the fact that Conyers is calling for free health care for absolutely every one including people who come to America for a holiday.

Consider the financial condition of Medicare ... its going bankrupt.

What we would be creating is another tax burden. Medicare funds come from taxes and with America bleeding good paying jobs, the money that would fund universal health care would have to come from higher taxes for those in the work force.

Even if Congress raised the taxes on the wealthy, they would simply pass the tax on the consumers. And what about those families whose income is below the cut off point (Senior Citizens)?

[sfc_oliver]

Thirty-six percent (36%) of U.S. voters say cutting the deficit is the most important of the four priorities the president cited in a speech to Congress in February, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey. That's up from 32% in March.

At the same time, 24% rate health care reform as the most important of Obama's priorities, down from 29% in the earlier survey.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/may_2009/voters_put_more_emphasis_on_deficit_cutting_over_health_care_reform

[irishbobcat]

The bottom line is, Americans want health care reform and it is coming.....

End of discussion.

[sfc_oliver]

Yes Gore vs Bush was a great decision. And we know who does the drugs in this country too.

Yes the key word is implied, which can mean what ever anyone wants it to mean. And the supreme court Has not said it means universal health care is a right.

And there is plenty wrong with HR 676.

"to the highest quality and most cost effective"

Do these two really go together?  Highest Quality but we have to keep the costs down?

"Every person living or visiting in the United States"   Visitors? such as illegals?

"Those workers who are displaced as the result of
the transition to a non-profit health care system will be the first to be hired and retrained under this act"

Hired by who, retrained to do what?

"The conversion to a not-for- profit health care system will take place as soon as
possible, but not to exceed a 15 year period, through the sale of U.S. treasury bonds."
"Under H.R. 676, employers would
pay a 4.75% payroll tax for all health care costs. For an employee making the median family income of
$56,200 per year, the employer would pay about $2,700."
"• Maintain current federal and state funding for existing health care programs
• Establish employer/employee payroll tax of 4.75% (includes present 1.45% Medicare tax)
• Establish a 5% health tax on the top 5% of income earners, 10% tax on top 1% of wage earners
• ¼ of 1% stock transaction tax

Selling Bonds, employers paying additional payroll taxes, another 15 % on those providing the jobs.  Seems like someone is going to be taxed to death if this goes through. Which is what I expected.

This has a lot of work to be done on it before it is even close to acceptable.

[irishbobcat]

First off Sarge, If you think Gore V. Bush was a good decision, you must be on drugs or you ought to be.

Second. Your courtcase Towntalk agains argues MY CASE...."no power can be exerted to that end by the United States, unless, apart from the preamble, it be found in some express delegation of power, or in some power to be properly implied therefrom."

The key word is implied......and taking care of the general welfare can mean
universal healthcare can be implied as being constitutional.

And I don't find anything wrong with HB 676........

[Towntalk]

Dennis:

Here is a 2 page summary of the universal health care bill currently being considered by Congress.

What do you find wrong with it?

HR 676 Summary

http://conyers.house.gov/_files/HR676Summary.pdf

[sfc_oliver]

Gore vs Bush, a very good decision. But hardly on the subject. Now several have posted court cases that argue the question while You have not. Most all of us agree that we have to do something to fix our health care system. we simply don't know what should be done, and neither does this Congress. We can only hope that they take more time with this than they did with the so called stimulus.

Your attacks against Conservatives does little to promote your ideas or those of your party.

[Towntalk]

West's Encyclopedia of American Law

Congress was granted the power to promote the general welfare of the nation by the Constitution of the United States. It means that Congress should provide laws that are in keeping with the principles of the self governed. It means that Congress may provide legislation that acts in a general best interest of a nation. It does not mean that Congress should create legislation that plunders the people in order to redistribute wealth. It does not provide for any entitlements for certain people. It is a general granting of powers to keep the melodies of each state in perfect harmony.

West's is recognized by every American Court including the Supreme Court.

[Towntalk]

That's what I would also like to know.

Welfare as it applies to the people meant something quite different to the draftes of the Constitution, and it was enumerated in the Bill of Rights, and the provisions limiting the federal government while assuring States Rights.

[ytowner]

How does General Welfare = Universal Health Care?

[Towntalk]

Try this one Dennis:

U.S. Supreme Court
JACOBSON v. COM. OF MASSACHUSETTS, 197 U.S. 11 (1905)
197 U.S. 11
HENNING JACOBSON, Plff. in Err.,
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS.
No. 70.

Argued December 6, 1904.
Decided February 20, 1905.

We pass without extended discussion the suggestion that the particular section of the statute of Massachusetts now in question ( 137, chap. 75) is in derogation of rights secured by the preamble of the Constitution of the United States. Although that preamble indicates the general purposes for which the people ordained and established the Constitution, it has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the government of the United States, or on any of its departments. Such powers embrace only those expressly granted in the body of the Constitution, and such as may be implied from those so granted. Although, therefore, one of the declared objects of the Constitution was to secure the blessings of liberty to all under the sovereign jurisdiction and authority of the United States, no power can be exerted to that end by the United States, unless, apart from the preamble, it be found in some express delegation of power, or in some power to be properly implied therefrom. 1 Story, Const. 462.


As to Roe v. Wade, while I oppose it, I suspect that it could be used as a presidence in a larger decision.

[irishbobcat]

You asked me if all courts were nasty conservatives...

You asked me to cite a Supreme Court decision that was made by a conservative court. I did.

Now, I do not know of any specific court case that has decided universal health care is a right, and I am not interested at this time to do research into it.

While others on here state opinion that is it not a right, I say it is. And what if I
found a case proving it was right.....conservatives would say the decision is still wrong just like they have for the past 30 some years regarding Roe v. Wade.