seanla4350 wrote:
I am so happy that I live in Norway and not in the United States.
Me too
| Star Sonata http://www.starsonata.com/forum/ |
|
| 2 weeks till Supreme Court Obamacare Decision http://www.starsonata.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=51036 |
Page 2 of 2 |
| Author: | seanla4350 [ Fri Mar 16, 2012 11:32 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 2 weeks till Supreme Court Obamacare Decision |
I am so happy that I live in Norway and not in the United States. |
|
| Author: | Dorin Nube [ Fri Mar 16, 2012 11:34 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 2 weeks till Supreme Court Obamacare Decision |
seanla4350 wrote: I am so happy that I live in Norway and not in the United States. Me too
|
|
| Author: | sleepysnagrund [ Fri Mar 16, 2012 12:56 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 2 weeks till Supreme Court Obamacare Decision |
Dorin Nube wrote: Jesus 2.0 wrote: "...promote the general welfare..." I leave you with that thought. Four words that have caused so much trouble! What did "promote the general welfare" mean in the context of the time it was written and the people who wrote it? Unless you really are leaving. In that case, no need to answer Interestingly enough, it meant different things to different people even then. It actually meant different things to the people that included it in the Constitution. In the writings of some of the founding fathers, they go so far as to mention this phrase. Some of them felt that it essentially further restricted the specifically listed powers of Congress to ensure that they only did them in ways that promote the general welfare. Others believed that they included it to ensure that Congress could act on things that were not specifically listed among the powers of Congress in order to deal with issues they did not think to include at the time. TL;DR: People have been arguing this since before it was written into the Constitution. |
|
| Author: | Jesus 2.0 [ Fri Mar 16, 2012 3:57 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 2 weeks till Supreme Court Obamacare Decision |
Dorin Nube wrote: Jesus 2.0 wrote: "...promote the general welfare..." I leave you with that thought. Four words that have caused so much trouble! What did "promote the general welfare" mean in the context of the time it was written and the people who wrote it? Unless you really are leaving. In that case, no need to answer Whats it worth to you? |
|
| Author: | SerjicalStrike [ Fri Mar 16, 2012 4:04 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 2 weeks till Supreme Court Obamacare Decision |
sleepysnagrund wrote: Others believed that they included it to ensure that Congress could act on things that were not specifically listed among the powers of Congress in order to deal with issues they did not think to include at the time. TL;DR: People have been arguing this since before it was written into the Constitution. They did ensure that Congress could deal with issues they did not think to include at the time. It is called the amendment process. If government wants to be able to force an individual to purchase a product like healthcare, why can't they just make an amendment, granting them that specific power? |
|
| Author: | sleepysnagrund [ Sat Mar 17, 2012 9:28 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 2 weeks till Supreme Court Obamacare Decision |
SerjicalStrike wrote: sleepysnagrund wrote: Others believed that they included it to ensure that Congress could act on things that were not specifically listed among the powers of Congress in order to deal with issues they did not think to include at the time. TL;DR: People have been arguing this since before it was written into the Constitution. They did ensure that Congress could deal with issues they did not think to include at the time. It is called the amendment process. If government wants to be able to force an individual to purchase a product like healthcare, why can't they just make an amendment, granting them that specific power? Why bother with going through a massive process to do a Constitutional amendment if you feel that what you are doing already falls within he acceptable parameters of the Constitution? |
|
| Author: | trevor54 [ Sun Mar 18, 2012 12:28 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 2 weeks till Supreme Court Obamacare Decision |
Psshhh who pays for health care anyways? Keep letting the state pay for mine =) On a serious note, Australia's health care is just as crappy as the next. I have a person on my team who has a daughter who has a rare disease, and the government refuses to pay for hardly any of it. He has to spend countless hours on his hands and knees trying to earn extra money just to pay back the loans they have had to take out to get her the special food and other items she needs. Do not ever tell me Australia's health care is of any decent quality. If the same thing was to happen to say my daughter here in the US, I would pay almost nothing to get all of the same stuff and she would have had all the surgeries instantly(I just happen to be fortunate that my parents think healthcare is important), versus the countless weeks this man has had to wait for his daughter in Australia. Get out of here with that crap. |
|
| Author: | landswimmer [ Sun Mar 18, 2012 12:53 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 2 weeks till Supreme Court Obamacare Decision |
so one example is all anyone needs to prove something is bad? |
|
| Author: | Visorak [ Sun Mar 18, 2012 12:55 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 2 weeks till Supreme Court Obamacare Decision |
landswimmer wrote: so one example is all anyone needs to prove something is bad? ... No system is perfect. Ever. It isn't possible. The real question is, "Is it Better?" |
|
| Page 2 of 2 | All times are UTC - 5 hours |
| Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|