Trump vows ‘insurance for everybody’ in Obamacare replacement plan

[evoeth]

I'm for helping others - not through the use of government force, but by private efforts.

Social security and Medicare were established because private efforts were as useless as a fart in the wind.

 

[Veritas]

Clearly.



You agreed, in fact asserted, that the Mob was the supreme entity that had the authority to set the rules of the game at the get go.

Are you backpedaling on that assertion now?

You certainly are erecting a handsome straw man with this comment.

Perhaps you could explain what "Promote & provide for the general welfare" looks like through your lens?

Keeping in mind that "promote and provide" are not passives, but rather actives.

What you are referring to is the "General Welfare Clause" which is Article 1 Sec. 8 Clause 1:

The Congress shall have 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…

Common defense is understood to mean national defense as in to protect the country. However, "general welfare" is not so obvious. Why? Because words have meanings and those meanings change over time. A well-known example would be the word, "gay". Anyone past a certain age knows that not that long ago, it use to mean "happy". Now it means "homosexual". So what did "welfare" mean back at the time the framers wrote the Constitution?

According to Webster’s American Dictionary of the English Language, 1828:

Exemption from any unusual evil or calamity; the enjoyment of peace and prosperity, or the ordinary blessings of society and civil government


But The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (1969), gave a new meaning: “Public relief – on welfare. Dependent on public relief”.

DOES THE “GENERAL WELFARE CLAUSE” OF THE U.S CONSTITUTION AUTHORIZE CONGRESS TO FORCE US TO BUY HEALTH INSURANCE?

So we can clearly see that word meanings and interpretation change to suit a political agenda. Afterall, there was no such thing as public assistance at the time the Constitution was ratified nor until the 1930's. That's for most of our history.

 

[ananda]

Social security and Medicare were established because private efforts were as useless as a fart in the wind.

Useless for what purpose?

That's like saying "It is my opinion that the airplane is the best way to get to Europe (your purpose), so you must be forced to travel by airplane too.", when my purpose is merely to travel to the other side of town via bicycle.

 

[rjs330]

What you are referring to is the "General Welfare Clause" which is Article 1 Sec. 8 Clause 1:

The Congress shall have 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…

Common defense is understood to mean national defense as in to protect the country. However, "general welfare" is not so obvious. Why? Because words have meanings and those meanings change over time. A well-known example would be the word, "gay". Anyone past a certain age knows that not that long ago, it use to mean "happy". Now it means "homosexual". So what did "welfare" mean back at the time the framers wrote the Constitution?

According to Webster’s American Dictionary of the English Language, 1828:

Exemption from any unusual evil or calamity; the enjoyment of peace and prosperity, or the ordinary blessings of society and civil government


But The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (1969), gave a new meaning: “Public relief – on welfare. Dependent on public relief”.

DOES THE “GENERAL WELFARE CLAUSE” OF THE U.S CONSTITUTION AUTHORIZE CONGRESS TO FORCE US TO BUY HEALTH INSURANCE?

So we can clearly see that word meanings and interpretation change to suit a political agenda. Afterall, there was no such thing as public assistance at the time the Constitution was ratified nor until the 1930's. That's for most of our history.

Excellent point and one missed often by the left. It's kind of the same thing with the 2nd Amendment and the "well regulated milita".

 

[Veritas]

Social security and Medicare were established because private efforts were as useless as a fart in the wind.

No, not really.

In this 1996 Cato Institute book — now available as a free download — Cato’s Michael Tanner traces the growth of the welfare state in America. He argues that government welfare programs have failed to accomplish their ostensible goal of alleviating poverty. Moreover, they have undermined the traditional American principle of voluntarism. The interventionist welfare state has replaced civil society with political society — and the results have been disastrous for taxpayers, community, liberty and, most especially, the poor themselves.

Tanner argues persuasively that government welfare has failed by every measure, and that private charity can and should replace coercive bureaucratic government welfare. This will not only be more cost-effective, it will provide the poor with more effective and humane care.

The Left wants us to believe that we can't live without government programs and that they are the only effective lifeline for the poor. Of course without them, it would be hard to buy votes which is why the democratic party instituted them in the first place.

But more than that, government run programs are inefficient.

“[Government] income redistribution agencies are estimated to absorb about two-thirds of each dollar budgeted to them in overhead costs, and in some cases as much as three-quarters of each dollar. Using government data, Robert L. Woodson (1989, p. 63) calculated that, on average, 70 cents of each dollar budgeted for government assistance goes not to the poor, but to the members of the welfare bureaucracy and others serving the poor. Michael Tanner (1996, p. 136 n. 18) cites regional studies supporting this 70/30 split.

“In contrast, administrative and other operating costs in private charities absorb, on average, only one-third or less of each dollar donated, leaving the other two-thirds (or more) to be delivered to recipients. Charity Navigator, www.charitynavigator.org the newest of several private sector organizations that rate charities by various criteria and supply that information to the public on their web sites, found that, as of 2004, 70 percent of charities they rated spent at least 75 percent of their budgets on the programs and services they exist to provide, and 90 percent spent at least 65 percent. The median administrative expense among all charities in their sample was only 10.3 percent.”

Imagine, having your hard-earned money going toward a charity that helps people in need for less cost and greater success. This method establishes a connection between the giver and the receiver. There's accountabiliy and a relationship. Government is nameless and faceless. When is the last time you heard those receiving gov assistance publically thanking the taxpayers?

 

[ananda]

... Imagine, having your hard-earned money going toward a charity that helps people in need for less cost and greater success. This method establishes a connection between the giver and the receiver. There's accountabiliy and a relationship. Government is nameless and faceless. When is the last time you heard those receiving gov assistance publically thanking the taxpayers?

Exactly!

When we help others directly and personally, there is a positive personal connection between giver and receiver, which enhances personal relationships, not to mention strengthening the bonds of local community. Also, 100% of a donors gift goes to the receiver. These links are broken through the heavy hand of so-called "liberal" government. Not only broken, but turned into negatives - the receiver often finds it in his best interest to cheat the government, and the taxpayer find ways to hide or otherwise isolate his assets from the taxman. Both do so to the detriment of their own hearts and personal development, and destroys the local community. The taxman also steals his own share, before "giving" what's left to the receiver.

 

[jayem]

What you are referring to is the "General Welfare Clause" which is Article 1 Sec. 8 Clause 1:

The Congress shall have 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…

Common defense is understood to mean national defense as in to protect the country. However, "general welfare" is not so obvious. Why? Because words have meanings and those meanings change over time. A well-known example would be the word, "gay". Anyone past a certain age knows that not that long ago, it use to mean "happy". Now it means "homosexual". So what did "welfare" mean back at the time the framers wrote the Constitution?

According to Webster’s American Dictionary of the English Language, 1828:

Exemption from any unusual evil or calamity; the enjoyment of peace and prosperity, or the ordinary blessings of society and civil government


But The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (1969), gave a new meaning: “Public relief – on welfare. Dependent on public relief”.

DOES THE “GENERAL WELFARE CLAUSE” OF THE U.S CONSTITUTION AUTHORIZE CONGRESS TO FORCE US TO BUY HEALTH INSURANCE?

So we can clearly see that word meanings and interpretation change to suit a political agenda. Afterall, there was no such thing as public assistance at the time the Constitution was ratified nor until the 1930's. That's for most of our history.

So what if meanings change? Times change and circumstances change. If there's a question about how to interpret Constitutional language, that's what SCOTUS is for. The Social Security Act was challenged, and was upheld. Helvering v. Davis, 1936. Some parts of Medicare have been tested in court, but the fundamentals have never been challenged.

All of the publicly funded federal social insurance programs were enacted by our elected Congresspersons following Constitutional guidelines. You're entitled to disagree with them, and you have recourse. Instead of just complaining, why don't you run for office on a platform of repealing SS and Medicare? Or maybe just making them voluntary? See how far you get.

 

[cow451]

I'm not for either of that. But I'm also not for forcing others to pay for it either.

Who do you think is paying for the uninsured when they have to go to the ER???

 

[cow451]

No, not really.

In this 1996 Cato Institute book — now available as a free download — Cato’s Michael Tanner traces the growth of the welfare state in America. He argues that government welfare programs have failed to accomplish their ostensible goal of alleviating poverty. Moreover, they have undermined the traditional American principle of voluntarism. The interventionist welfare state has replaced civil society with political society — and the results have been disastrous for taxpayers, community, liberty and, most especially, the poor themselves.

Tanner argues persuasively that government welfare has failed by every measure, and that private charity can and should replace coercive bureaucratic government welfare. This will not only be more cost-effective, it will provide the poor with more effective and humane care.

The Left wants us to believe that we can't live without government programs and that they are the only effective lifeline for the poor. Of course without them, it would be hard to buy votes which is why the democratic party instituted them in the first place.

But more than that, government run programs are inefficient.

“[Government] income redistribution agencies are estimated to absorb about two-thirds of each dollar budgeted to them in overhead costs, and in some cases as much as three-quarters of each dollar. Using government data, Robert L. Woodson (1989, p. 63) calculated that, on average, 70 cents of each dollar budgeted for government assistance goes not to the poor, but to the members of the welfare bureaucracy and others serving the poor. Michael Tanner (1996, p. 136 n. 18) cites regional studies supporting this 70/30 split.

“In contrast, administrative and other operating costs in private charities absorb, on average, only one-third or less of each dollar donated, leaving the other two-thirds (or more) to be delivered to recipients. Charity Navigator, www.charitynavigator.org the newest of several private sector organizations that rate charities by various criteria and supply that information to the public on their web sites, found that, as of 2004, 70 percent of charities they rated spent at least 75 percent of their budgets on the programs and services they exist to provide, and 90 percent spent at least 65 percent. The median administrative expense among all charities in their sample was only 10.3 percent.”

Imagine, having your hard-earned money going toward a charity that helps people in need for less cost and greater success. This method establishes a connection between the giver and the receiver. There's accountabiliy and a relationship. Government is nameless and faceless. When is the last time you heard those receiving gov assistance publically thanking the taxpayers?

Welfare is there to minimize rioting in the streets and to give less reason for the average citizen to starve and want to overthrow the government.

 

[Veritas]

So what if meanings change? Times change and circumstances change. If there's a question about how to interpret Constitutional language, that's what SCOTUS is for. The Social Security Act was challenged, and was upheld. Helvering v. Davis, 1936. Some parts of Medicare have been tested in court, but the fundamentals have never been challenged.

All of the publicly funded federal social insurance programs were enacted by our elected Congresspersons following Constitutional guidelines. You're entitled to disagree with them, and you have recourse. Instead of just complaining, why don't you run for office on a platform of repealing SS and Medicare? Or maybe just making them voluntary? See how far you get.

I dunno. Trump ran on cutting gov and taxes and he got elected. He's got quite a few things up his sleave......

 

[ananda]

Who do you think is paying for the uninsured when they have to go to the ER???

Under a libertarian system - the hospital would pay ... if they accept them.

 

[Ringo84]

It's funny that he's going against Republican gospel on this issue, but I'll believe it when I see it. To me, Republicans have a HUGE credibility gap on health insurance. If they want to prove to me they care about me and millions of others, they can start by either leaving the ACA alone or fixing it for the better.
Ringo

 

[rjs330]

[Staff edit].

We love our fellow human beings by individually being generous and kind. Forcing people to give is not being loving. You can't force people to be loving. You can force them to give but you can't force them to love.

A true act of love is giving from yourself to others because you want to not because you are forced to.

 

[wing2000]

Under a libertarian system - the hospital would pay ... if they accept them.

...the hospital would have the option to accept them?

 

[rjs330]

It's funny that he's going against Republican gospel on this issue, but I'll believe it when I see it. To me, Republicans have a HUGE credibility gap on health insurance. If they want to prove to me they care about me and millions of others, they can start by either leaving the ACA alone or fixing it for the better.
Ringo

I have a suspicion that whatever plan he has won't be what progressives envision. I also don't think it will be everything the Conservatives want either.

 

[ananda]

...the hospital would have the option to accept them?

Sure, hospitals are usually private.

Should you be forced to accept, feed, and shelter every hungry, homeless person who wanders into your private home?

 

[wing2000]

Sure, hospitals are usually private.

Should you be forced to accept, feed, and shelter every hungry, homeless person who wanders into your private home?

Why would a private business, competing with other hospitals, accept any additional cost?

 

[ananda]

What would a private business, competing with other hospitals, accept any additional cost?

There's no reason to, unless they wish to be personally charitable.

 

[wing2000]

There's no reason to, unless they wish to be personally charitable.

...then relying on Hospitals to pay for ER services for the uninsured - voluntarily, is hardly a workable solution is it?

 

[ananda]

...then relying on Hospitals to pay for ER services for the uninsured - voluntarily, is hardly a workable solution is it?

No, but the best solution that respects and equalizes individual rights, individual preferences, personal choices, and individual objections for every party is a libertarian solution - minimize government force and taxes, thus restoring the ability for private entities to serve their communities voluntarily.