It’s time to quell excessive partisanship in politics
read more recent story comments Reader comments| nobodyimportant Friday, July 20, 2012: 12:51 pm More from nobodyimportant  | Danny, you are taking my comments out of context. I didn't talk about what is or is not in the Constitution. I only spoke to what we choose to spend money on. But now that you mention it, let me remind you of the preamble to the constitution. "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, 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." Note the words "promote the general welfare." I think health is a vital part of general welfare, and that is spoorted by the following definition: "A General Welfare clause is a section that appeared in many constitutions, as well as in some charters and statutes, which provides that the governing body empowered by the document may enact laws to promote the general welfare of the people, sometimes worded as the public welfare. In some countries, this has been used as a basis for legislation promoting the health, safety, morals, and well-being of the people governed thereunder (also known as the police power). Such clauses are generally interpreted as granting the state broad power to legislate or regulate for the general welfare that is independent of other powers specified in the governing document." |
| Danny Stewart Friday, July 20, 2012: 2:13 pm More from Danny Stewart | Nice try on the spin Nobody. I didn't take you out of context. You veered off of my original comment in the direction of money. You can't be in favor of smaller gov't being a supporter of Obamacare. It has very little to do with money. It has to do with control over our everyday lives. The military has no such power here. Being a supporter of Obamacare makes you a supporter of bigger gov't, higher taxes, on yourself no less since you are a millionaire, more federal regulations, a weakened Constitution and fewer liberties for us. In other words, it's a contradiction. |
| ronschoolcraft Friday, July 20, 2012: 2:25 pm More from ronschoolcraft | nbi, The General Welfare clause has been badly abused and twisted to mean something entirely different from what the framers intended. You are basing your understanding of "general welfare" off of over 60 years of liberal revisionism, not what the words meant when they were written. |
| Moose 65 Friday, July 20, 2012: 3:52 pm More from Moose 65 | Yes and thank God he is gone from the hill |
| Moose 65 Friday, July 20, 2012: 4:06 pm More from Moose 65 | I guess I should have read all the other comments before putting in mine , but back to Hamilton. 2 years was long enough for this country to have him in office and if the democrats said blow air this way he did as you have read by his voting record. A kiss man was he |
| nobodyimportant Friday, July 20, 2012: 10:18 pm More from nobodyimportant | Danny, we just won't agree on this one. I'm good with that. And Ron, one of the most difficult thing for anyone to try to figure, especially about laws that were passed generations and in this case centuries ago, out is intent of those who crafted it and voted for it. We can put our own spin on it, but it is in a small way, like what people do with the Bible. You either believe what it says and take it on face value or you try to make it fit your way of thinking. I cannot believe that national defense language in the Constitution trumps general welfare language in the same sentence. What is written is encompassing when it fits your point of view and defined away when it doesn't. I might be persuaded if I could see evidence that the framer's definition of general welfare would not cover the health and well-being of the nation's citizens, and the fact that it took over 2 centuries to get around to doing something under that banner doesn't make it any the more unpatriotic or unconstitutional. |
| ronschoolcraft Friday, July 20, 2012: 10:42 pm More from ronschoolcraft | Ever read any of the Federalist Papers? |
| nobodyimportant Saturday, July 21, 2012: 8:54 am More from nobodyimportant | Yes, of course I have, as I have some of the letters from several of the signatories. |
| nobodyimportant Saturday, July 21, 2012: 10:02 am More from nobodyimportant | Back to this after breakfast. The federalist papers were written as apologetics for the union and the Constitution. They were written at a time in which a very real and present danger was that a nation, newly born and just having narrowly defeated Great Britain to gain independence, was vulnerable to foreign agression, even the defeated enemy. There was not agreement over the need for a federal government. The Federalist Papers were written in defense of that proposition in order to convince the nay-sayers. Quite appropriately, the papers focused on the value of a united national government for the purpose of defending against a very possible scenario. Why was there no attention to health of it's citizens? It wasn't on the plate. It was not forseen as a problem. Interestingly, in 1790, Congress passed a law that included a mandate that ship owners buy medical insurance, but not hospital insurance, for their seamen. That Congress included 20 framers and was signed by another framer: President George Washington. Fast forward to the 1900's. Up till then, the health of citizens at large had still not been an issue. Virtually all health care was provided in the homes and people spent very little of their money on it. In fact, the greatest concern for costs associated with health care was for loss of wages. The money lost by not being able to work far exceeeded the costs of the health care while they were off work. It was not until the growth of hospitals as centers for health care delivery that costs started skyrocketing and people began to become concerned about how to pay for the increasing medical costs. Insurance companies didn't want any part of health insurance. They didn't know how to actualize the risks and were concerned that people would not be honest in declaring their health status. in the 20's, a group of teachers in Dallas may have been the first to organize a health insurance plan when they contracted with Baylor University for pre-paid hospital care. They struck a deal for up to 21 days of hospitalization for $6.00 That was the starting point for what became Blue-Cross - Blue Shield. The health insurance industry grew during the great depression and now here we are. The founding fathers didn't have a crystal ball. They dealt with their siutation. They had a weak, fractured country that badly needed cohesion and a time to gain strength to ward off those that would take advantaged of a continuation of that weakness and lack of unity. The founding fathers had a great vision, but not one that could have seen centuries into the future. But they were wise enough to put into place a way for the document to grow along with the country, amendments and judicial review. It is at this point where things become contentious. Since about the mid 1800's, the growth and evolution of the republic has caused many runs at making the original document relevant to the situations at hand. Health care as a national issue was not specified in the original Constitution beacause there was no perceived relevance in that day. Because it was not addressed means absolutely zilch today. Maybe the founders did not anticipate AIDS, spine stenosis, renal dialysis, or the costs, co-pays, and deductibles that come along with them. Maybe we need to use our own common sense, rather that trying to convince one another why long-dead people meant to say what our particular minds wishes they meant to say. |
| ronschoolcraft Saturday, July 21, 2012: 9:01 pm More from ronschoolcraft | The difference in me and you is the love of individual liberty. The founding fathers never intended for the government to take care of its people in this way. They were rugged individualists who cherished their hard fought freedoms. Why do you think that someone else should pay for your healthcare? The only problem with our healthcare system today is that it is not truly market driven. After World War II, we were the only industrial nation standing. Our industry had no competition. Companies began paying for their employee's health care and doctors figured it out pretty quickly. Patients also figured it out. Suddenly, it didn't matter how much things cost. I, as a patient, am not paying for it, so go for it. Do whatever you want and charge whatever you want. Why am I even bothering. I'm wasting my time arguing with someone who hides behind a screen pseudonym. It's become clear that you will use whatever faulty logic is necessary to rationalize your irrational belief system. There are many better ways to address the healthcare issue than turning it over to government. Besides, with Obamacare, it's not really about health care. It's about control. If the government is paying for your healthcare, they have the right to regulate every aspect of your life behavior. We cease to be free people and become wards of the state. Maybe you welcome that. The founding fathers didn't and neither do I. You should move to Venezuela and leave us alone. DON'T TREAD ON ME! |
| Moose 65 Sunday, July 22, 2012: 2:17 pm More from Moose 65 | Ron just realize that people like nobodyimportant really don't care about this country as freedom to them is what they can get next for free. Like the name he uses he just a nobodyimportant like the rest of the people that don't care untill we keep giving to him. In time if things keep going the same direction they all will be screaming like the person dying in bed from smoking, WHY didn't sombody try to stop me. We did try to stop it but you have to pay the piper for your actions and Others do not want to paid for your bad action. |
| nobodyimportant Sunday, July 22, 2012: 3:02 pm More from nobodyimportant | That's a novel idea Ron, that the reason health care is so expensive is because it is not market-driven and because of the desire of big business to pay for it. That is absurd on any level. There has been no business in my experience that is more market-driven. The consumer demand to have medicine keep us upright and mobile in spite of self-destructive lifestyles is at the core of the runaway costs. We demand that our aches be dulled immediately, our imperfections be altered, our moods be managed, and our infirmities be erased. That is the market. Build it and people will come. What we have is a market-driven health care system giving us exactly what we ordered and because we are a wealthy nation, the costs have risen to what the market will bear, and now beyond In the midst of all this, health care for those unable to pay the outrageous costs has developed in a hodge-podge non-system that is fractured, unaccountable, and inequitable. Our collective conscience will not allow our people to go without health care, regardless of the "it's not in the Constitution" hyperbole. The President's health care plan may well be scrapped. But we will not be better off for it. There is nothing else on the table that even comes close to addressing the issues of out-of-this-world costs and how we are going to deliver health care to those not capable of paying for those costs. But we'll be able to pat ourselves on our backs and proudly proclaim that we have freed the nation from the responsibility of caring for the health and well-being of our people. Meanwhile, businesses, large and small, will accelerate the actions to scale back or drop health care benefits for employees, passing those responsibilities on to their employees (at least those that will still be there after they ship more of the jobs overseas) and/or the fractured government non-system. We are in the 21st century. Our great country could not be invisioned by the founding fathers. We cannot nor should we return to those "good ole days." We are challenged to find solutions to complex national and international issues that could never have been forseen. Squarely planting our feet in eighteenth century best-thinking will not serve us well. And thank you for the invitation to leave so that the "right-thinkers" can be unobstructed. I'll decline. This country was not founded by people who thought alike and I trust it will continue to embrace those of us who refuse to feel un-American because those with whom we disagree would like to give us second-class status. |
| 58 comments found | |
| Previous | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Most Recent | Next |
Add a comment
Posting comments on this web site requires you to be logged in. • Create your account• Log in to your account
» more
TABLE OF CONTENTS »
NEWS
Today
Obituaries
Local
Police
Court news
Weather
Business
Property transfers
Area salaries & stats
Education
State
Nation/World
Photo galleries
Videos
SPORTS
Sports
MD-T sports
IU sports blog
Martinsville
Mooresville
Decatur Central
Eminence
Indian Creek
Monrovia
Tabernacle Christian
Fantasy racing league
BLOGS
All blogs
Quit Smoking...Do It
Sci-Fi Sojourns
The Hoosier Scoop
Hoosier Wine Cellar
Gaming Guru
Mellenblog
