If there are public schools, why can't there be public health care?

You need to look at the facts.

School and Health care are 2 different agendas. Having a government run healthcare system is socialism. I do not want the government making my choices for my heathcare or for my family's heathcare. It is my responsibility to provide heathcare for my family and myself.

Canada is looking to get out of the government run program because it has been a failure. They are looking into bringing back the private business option like the UK has and the EU is realizing government run programs are utter failures as well and looking for reform.

Medicare and Medicaid are government run programs and are broken and broke. The need to be fixed. With 59-60 % of Americans not wanting government run healthcare because the private sector can and will do a better job, we need to tweak the private sector so it works for all and the government need not be involved.

Our government outlines the root cause for our economic chaos and it was caused by Freddy Mac and Fannie Mae, both programs run by the government. The government states that they were the reason for this crisis. So if they realize that government creates more problems then help, we do not need them looking to provide healthcare either.

America is not a socialistic country but a Republic based on capitalism. Lets keep America free.

HAL5000

Canada is not looking to abandon their single-payer system and the UK is not looking to abandon the NHS; they are merely reforming their respective systems. Not ONE country is looking to adopt the health care system found in the U.S.

And their isn't any sort of urgent problem solely with Medicare and Medicaid - there is a problem with the overall health care system that the two are embedded in.

Well of course it is not a carte blanche power; nothing is a carte blanche power - but the clause has been interpreted through a Hamiltonian lense by the Supreme Court. Universal health care is perfectly constitutional.

"The clause confers a power separate and distinct from those later enumerated... limited only by the requirement that it shall be exercised to provide for the general welfare of the United States. … It results that the power of Congress to authorize expenditure of public moneys for public purposes is not limited by the direct grants of legislative power found in the Constitution."

- U.S. v. Butler

-Sun_Tzu-

That decision is nonsensical. If that is the case then there is no point to the enumeration of specific powers. Nor is there any point in the tenth amendment. Which states explicitly that rights not delegated to the fed by the constitution are reserved by the states respectively or to the people. What is the point of listing specific, granted powers if they are included in an already existing clause? In the Federalist #41 James Madison wrote about this very argument.

Some, who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation, have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution, on the language in which it is defined. It has been urged and echoed, that the 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," amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction.

Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms "to raise money for the general welfare."

But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon? If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded, as to give meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions be denied any signification whatsoever? For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity, which, as we are reduced to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection or on the authors of the Constitution, we must take the liberty of supposing, had not its origin with the latter.

The objection here is the more extraordinary, as it appears that the language used by the convention is a copy from the articles of Confederation. The objects of the Union among the States, as described in article third, are "their common defense, security of their liberties, and mutual and general welfare." The terms of article eighth are still more identical: "All charges of war and all other expenses that shall be incurred for the common defense or general welfare, and allowed by the United States in Congress, shall be defrayed out of a common treasury," etc. A similar language again occurs in article ninth. Construe either of these articles by the rules which would justify the construction put on the new Constitution, and they vest in the existing Congress a power to legislate in all cases whatsoever. But what would have been thought of that assembly, if, attaching themselves to these general expressions, and disregarding the specifications which ascertain and limit their import, they had exercised an unlimited power of providing for the common defense and general welfare? I appeal to the objectors themselves, whether they would in that case have employed the same reasoning in justification of Congress as they now make use of against the convention. How difficult it is for error to escape its own condemnation!

PUBLIUS
James Madison

You need to look at the facts.

School and Health care are 2 different agendas. Having a government run healthcare system is socialism. I do not want the government making my choices for my heathcare or for my family's heathcare. It is my responsibility to provide heathcare for my family and myself.

Canada is looking to get out of the government run program because it has been a failure. They are looking into bringing back the private business option like the UK has and the EU is realizing government run programs are utter failures as well and looking for reform.

Medicare and Medicaid are government run programs and are broken and broke. The need to be fixed. With 59-60 % of Americans not wanting government run healthcare because the private sector can and will do a better job, we need to tweak the private sector so it works for all and the government need not be involved.

Our government outlines the root cause for our economic chaos and it was caused by Freddy Mac and Fannie Mae, both programs run by the government. The government states that they were the reason for this crisis. So if they realize that government creates more problems then help, we do not need them looking to provide healthcare either.

America is not a socialistic country but a Republic based on capitalism. Lets keep America free.

HAL5000

Where do you get your information. EVERY SINGLE reputable news agency reports that the majority of americans want universal healthcare.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/01/washington/01cnd-poll.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/06/19/opinion/polls/main5098517.shtml

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/living/US/healthcare031020_poll.html

http://levellers.wordpress.com/2009/03/03/majority-of-americans-want-universal-healthcare/

Could we please keep ignorant americans such as this away from town hall meetings

The difference is public schools are free to everyone. The public health care is only public to the poor while the non-poor have to still pay for their own pluss the poors' care.

Pirate700

Incorrect. The non-poor will pay for a small fraction of the poor's healthcare, and healthcare will be cheaper eventually as well, effectively bringing costs down.

Read the 10th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States

Read the 10th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States

HAL5000

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]

Well of course it is not a carte blanche power; nothing is a carte blanche power - but the clause has been interpreted through a Hamiltonian lense by the Supreme Court. Universal health care is perfectly constitutional.

"The clause confers a power separate and distinct from those later enumerated... limited only by the requirement that it shall be exercised to provide for the general welfare of the United States. … It results that the power of Congress to authorize expenditure of public moneys for public purposes is not limited by the direct grants of legislative power found in the Constitution."

- U.S. v. Butler

Frattracide

That decision is nonsensical. If that is the case then there is no point to the enumeration of specific powers. Nor is there any point in the tenth amendment. Which states explicitly that rights not delegated to the fed by the constitution are reserved by the states respectively or to the people. What is the point of listing specific, granted powers if they are included in an already existing clause? In the Federalist #41 James Madison wrote about this very argument.

Some, who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation, have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution, on the language in which it is defined. It has been urged and echoed, that the 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," amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction.

Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms "to raise money for the general welfare."

But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon? If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded, as to give meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions be denied any signification whatsoever? For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity, which, as we are reduced to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection or on the authors of the Constitution, we must take the liberty of supposing, had not its origin with the latter.

The objection here is the more extraordinary, as it appears that the language used by the convention is a copy from the articles of Confederation. The objects of the Union among the States, as described in article third, are "their common defense, security of their liberties, and mutual and general welfare." The terms of article eighth are still more identical: "All charges of war and all other expenses that shall be incurred for the common defense or general welfare, and allowed by the United States in Congress, shall be defrayed out of a common treasury," etc. A similar language again occurs in article ninth. Construe either of these articles by the rules which would justify the construction put on the new Constitution, and they vest in the existing Congress a power to legislate in all cases whatsoever. But what would have been thought of that assembly, if, attaching themselves to these general expressions, and disregarding the specifications which ascertain and limit their import, they had exercised an unlimited power of providing for the common defense and general welfare? I appeal to the objectors themselves, whether they would in that case have employed the same reasoning in justification of Congress as they now make use of against the convention. How difficult it is for error to escape its own condemnation!

PUBLIUS
James Madison

U.S v. Butler > Federalist Paper No. 41

America is not a socialistic country but a Republic based on capitalism. Lets keep America free.

HAL5000

This is the root of the problem here, americans need to drop this mindset and understand some socialist systems are good and can be applied to their country. I saw today a woman calling any socialist method NAZI on MSNBC today and compared obama to hitler I was shocked, it was such an ignorant statement made on national television.

Read the 10th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States

HAL5000

The Federalist Papers, while they are magnificent pieces of constitutional literature, do not override the Supreme Court.

U.S v. Butler > Federalist Paper No. 41

-Sun_Tzu-

Why? Madison presented a counter argument to your argument. Saying "the supreme court agrees with me" is an appeal to authority.

i personally dont see what makes american so great. They have never ever been rated #1 in healthcare, never in education. I dont think they have ever made the UN's top 5 of "best country to live in" They dont have the best standard of living per capita. they don't have the lowest crime rate. The only thing america has is the best military...

I watched the News today in Toronto, Canada. Canada's largest city. Do you want to know what the top story was? It was a story about an abused dog. That was our biggest crime today.

STAR_Admiral

all you need to do is Google " Overhauling Canada's health care system tops agenda at annual meeting of Canada's doctors" to start with. Learning by searching the facts is a good start for everyone.

You will see that the Canadians are looking to reform their problem infested government health care system. UK allows the private business sector as a viable choice to the government run health care that is a failure in UK as well.

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]

The Federalist Papers, while they are magnificent pieces of constitutional literature, do not override the Supreme Court.

U.S v. Butler > Federalist Paper No. 41

Frattracide

Why? Madison presented a counter argument to your argument. Saying "the supreme court agrees with me" is an appeal to authority.

all you need to do is Google " Overhauling Canada's health care system tops agenda at annual meeting of Canada's doctors" to start with. Learning by searching the facts is a good start for everyone.

You will see that the Canadians are looking to reform their problem infested government health care system. UK allows the private business sector as a viable choice to the government run health care that is a failure in UK as well.

HAL5000

all you need to do is Google " Overhauling Canada's health care system tops agenda at annual meeting of Canada's doctors" to start with. Learning by searching the facts is a good start for everyone.

You will see that the Canadians are looking to reform their problem infested government health care system. UK allows the private business sector as a viable choice to the government run health care that is a failure in UK as well.

HAL5000

Nothing in there about abandoning single-payer - just talk about reforming the present system.

GOVERNMENT run heath care is a failure everywhere it is. .HAL5000

Ahem: The USA has the largest healthcare deficit per capita in the world. The USA spends the most $ per capita on healthcare in the world, for much roughly the same results

All i see from the facts, it that government run healthcare does have it problems, but is no where near as big as a failure as the US private system.

Star..... America is founded on the Constitution, this is what the government , supreme court and we Americans live by and are sworn to uphold. Join the military , take a oath of office, ...learn the facts.

[QUOTE="Frattracide"]

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]

The Federalist Papers, while they are magnificent pieces of constitutional literature, do not override the Supreme Court.

U.S v. Butler > Federalist Paper No. 41

-Sun_Tzu-

Why? Madison presented a counter argument to your argument. Saying "the supreme court agrees with me" is an appeal to authority.

I have yet to challenge the legitimacy of government health care. I entered this discussion when you evoked the "general welfare" clause of the eighth section of the first article of the U.S. constitution as a justifiable means for the circumvention of the enumerated powers of the same section. I am arguing from the position of a constitutional minarchist. So, to me, what 'ought to be' is perfectly relevant. This a digression, but I wasn't too terribly interested in the thread anyway. I will conceded that my position is academic. That the decision was already made by people with opinions contrary to mine. An inconvenience of force I suppose. But my argument is still valid.

And I never made an appeal to authority.

Star..... America is founded on the Constitution, this is what the government , supreme court and we Americans live by and are sworn to uphold. Join the military , take a oath of office, ...learn the facts.

HAL5000

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]

[QUOTE="Frattracide"]

Why? Madison presented a counter argument to your argument. Saying "the supreme court agrees with me" is an appeal to authority.

Frattracide

I have yet to challenge the legitimacy of government health care. I entered this discussion when you evoked the "general welfare" clause of the eighth section of the first article of the U.S. constitution as a justifiable means for the circumvention of the enumerated powers of the same section. I am arguing from the position of a constitutional minarchist. So, to me, what 'ought to be' is perfectly relevant. This a digression, but I wasn't too terribly interested in the thread anyway. I will conceded that my position is academic. That the decision was already made by people with opinions contrary to mine. An inconvenience of force I suppose. But my argument is still valid.

And I never made an appeal to authority.

If things were this simple.

all the doctors at my office are worried about public health care because their pay will be cut from it lol.

Crimtmp

[QUOTE="Crimtmp"]

all the doctors at my office are worried about public health care because their pay will be cut from it lol.

cametall

In my country they just have a private practice along with the government run healthcare.. they basically make the same money except medical treatment is avaliable for the less fortunate as well as the wealthy. As long as there is the option for both everything should be fine.

Because like public schools, it would suck and be chaotic.

Crimtmp

[QUOTE="STAR_Admiral"][QUOTE="OnTheBayou"]I know that, but as of right now, it is unconstitutional and hopefully their legislation will be shot down to keep it that way.

OnTheBayou

[QUOTE="psychobrew"]

[QUOTE="RJay123"]

Isn't this the same logic? If there are public schools competing against private schools, then why can't there be public health care competing against private.

Yale isn't going anywhere just because there are state universities.

Locke562

In all honesty, you've just made me change my mind about a public healthcare option. I've gone to three school systems, one private (up until my 9th year) where I struggled and had to study all the time, one public where I didn't need to study but still passed, and a second public where I just turned in papers from my 8th grade year (but instead of getting the C's they got me in 8th grade at the private school, my 8th grade work got me A's as a senior at the public school). Seriously, I didn't have to crack a book open after I left the private school, and that says something about the difference in quality between public and private initiatives.

Concidering one of the public schools I went to was in a wealthy area and I've been to two different public schools in two different states, I say it is. Scantron tests are easy to pass without studying for them.

There is no question -- private schools are much better. You can usually tell who went to a public school and who went to a private school just by talking to them. The public should be offered choice through school vouchers.

[QUOTE="Locke562"]

[QUOTE="psychobrew"]

In all honesty, you've just made me change my mind about a public healthcare option. I've gone to three school systems, one private (up until my 9th year) where I struggled and had to study all the time, one public where I didn't need to study but still passed, and a second public where I just turned in papers from my 8th grade year (but instead of getting the C's they got me in 8th grade at the private school, my 8th grade work got me A's as a senior at the public school). Seriously, I didn't have to crack a book open after I left the private school, and that says something about the difference in quality between public and private initiatives.

psychobrew

Concidering one of the public schools I went to was in a wealthy area and I've been to two different public schools in two different states, I say it is. Scantron tests are easy to pass without studying for them.

There is no question -- private schools are much better. You can usually tell who went to a public school and who went to a private school just by talking to them. The public should be offered choice through school vouchers.

Well, my public high school was one of the top rated in the state. The AP classes I took there have been some of the hardest classes I've ever taken, and that's including the classes I've taken at a university ranked in the top 20 in the US and in the top 100 worldwide. So what does that say?

[QUOTE="Locke562"]

[QUOTE="psychobrew"]

In all honesty, you've just made me change my mind about a public healthcare option. I've gone to three school systems, one private (up until my 9th year) where I struggled and had to study all the time, one public where I didn't need to study but still passed, and a second public where I just turned in papers from my 8th grade year (but instead of getting the C's they got me in 8th grade at the private school, my 8th grade work got me A's as a senior at the public school). Seriously, I didn't have to crack a book open after I left the private school, and that says something about the difference in quality between public and private initiatives.

psychobrew

Concidering one of the public schools I went to was in a wealthy area and I've been to two different public schools in two different states, I say it is. Scantron tests are easy to pass without studying for them.

There is no question -- private schools are much better. You can usually tell who went to a public school and who went to a private school just by talking to them. The public should be offered choice through school vouchers.

Because then all the nice men at the Medical Insurance companies won't get their bonus this year and they'll have to stop giving kickbacks to all the lovely Congressmen to vote against it.

Americans view the word socialism the same way they viewed communism in the 50s. It's just bad, and thats it. They don't know what it is, or why it's bad, but it is. If the republicans can make people think either of those words in association with something (in this case the NHS) then that will become bad too.

I love it when liberals use this arguement, because it only hurts the arguement for socialized healthcare.

Yes, just look how great public schools are compared to private schools. Just look how much cheaper they are too...:roll:

[QUOTE="Locke562"]

[QUOTE="Pirate700"]

The difference is public schools are free to everyone. The public health care is only public to the poor while the non-poor have to still pay for their own pluss the poors' care.

Pirate700

Here is a secret. When public schools were instituted, there were no multi billion dollar corporations running schools.

I love it when liberals use this arguement, because it only hurts the arguement for socialized healthcare.

Yes, just look how great public schools are compared to private schools. Just look how much cheaper they are too...:roll:

SpartanMSU

I love it when liberals use this arguement, because it only hurts the arguement for socialized healthcare.

Yes, just look how great public schools are compared to private schools. Just look how much cheaper they are too...:roll:

SpartanMSU

Private schools are typically far more expensive than public. . .

[QUOTE="SpartanMSU"]

I love it when liberals use this arguement, because it only hurts the arguement for socialized healthcare.

Yes, just look how great public schools are compared to private schools. Just look how much cheaper they are too...:roll:

Theokhoth

Private schools are typically far more expensive than public. . .

No...they aren't. The Wahsington D.C. district gets $15,000 per student. Most private schools are waaay under that, unless you go to a really, really, really prestigious one...

I think i'll pass on public healthcare. Id rather not have a major problem and have to get on a week long waiting list to get seen by someone who would inevitably give me shoddy care because i was the 43892039483290th person they had seen that day.

I love it when liberals use this arguement, because it only hurts the arguement for socialized healthcare.

Yes, just look how great public schools are compared to private schools. Just look how much cheaper they are too...:roll:

SpartanMSU

[QUOTE="Locke562"]

[QUOTE="Pirate700"]

The difference is public schools are free to everyone. The public health care is only public to the poor while the non-poor have to still pay for their own pluss the poors' care.

Pirate700

taxes taxes taxes YAY taxes xP

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

[QUOTE="SpartanMSU"]

I love it when liberals use this arguement, because it only hurts the arguement for socialized healthcare.

Yes, just look how great public schools are compared to private schools. Just look how much cheaper they are too...:roll:

SpartanMSU

Private schools are typically far more expensive than public. . .

No...they aren't. The Wahsington D.C. district gets $15,000 per student. Most private schools are waaay under that, unless you go to a really, really, really prestigious one...