|
|
Post by AlwaysAnAztec on Mar 8, 2013 15:50:06 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Mar 8, 2013 16:10:12 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Mar 12, 2013 15:23:45 GMT -8
The fraud in medicare is not coming from the government, it is fraud upon the government. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Mar 12, 2013 16:47:43 GMT -8
The fraud in medicare is not coming from the government, it is fraud upon the government. Being an easy target is no defense. |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Mar 12, 2013 17:04:25 GMT -8
The fraud in medicare is not coming from the government, it is fraud upon the government. Being an easy target is no defense. Did not say it was. Just wanted to point out the fraud was coming private enterprise, not the government. There is fraud in the Defense Dept. as well as Medicare. Do you suggest that we do away with the Defense Dept. because they are a target of fraud? I doubt it. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Mar 13, 2013 12:53:31 GMT -8
Being an easy target is no defense. Did not say it was. Just wanted to point out the fraud was coming private enterprise, not the government. There is fraud in the Defense Dept. as well as Medicare. Do you suggest that we do away with the Defense Dept. because they are a target of fraud? I doubt it. By all means wring out the fraud in Defense. Even you must see that Defense is a legitimate function of government. Healthcare? Not even on the Radar screen. |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Mar 13, 2013 13:14:34 GMT -8
Did not say it was. Just wanted to point out the fraud was coming private enterprise, not the government. There is fraud in the Defense Dept. as well as Medicare. Do you suggest that we do away with the Defense Dept. because they are a target of fraud? I doubt it. By all means wring out the fraud in Defense. Even you must see that Defense is a legitimate function of government. Healthcare? Not even on the Radar screen. Do we not govern ourselves? If we have a government of, by, and for the people, why can we not decide that health care is a legitimate function of government? |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Mar 13, 2013 16:40:30 GMT -8
By all means wring out the fraud in Defense. Even you must see that Defense is a legitimate function of government. Healthcare? Not even on the Radar screen. Do we not govern ourselves? If we have a government of, by, and for the people, why can we not decide that health care is a legitimate function of government? Well, we do have a Constitution. |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Mar 13, 2013 17:26:56 GMT -8
Do we not govern ourselves? If we have a government of, by, and for the people, why can we not decide that health care is a legitimate function of government? Well, we do have a Constitution. Yes, that is my point. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Mar 20, 2013 16:25:15 GMT -8
By all means wring out the fraud in Defense. Even you must see that Defense is a legitimate function of government. Healthcare? Not even on the Radar screen. Do we not govern ourselves? If we have a government of, by, and for the people, why can we not decide that health care is a legitimate function of government? I guess we could, but we have not and seem to be going against The Constitution. |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Mar 20, 2013 17:04:18 GMT -8
Do we not govern ourselves? If we have a government of, by, and for the people, why can we not decide that health care is a legitimate function of government? I guess we could, but we have not and seem to be going against The Constitution. Medicare is not against the Constitution. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Mar 21, 2013 12:07:59 GMT -8
I guess we could, but we have not and seem to be going against The Constitution. Medicare is not against the Constitution. Where is that MEDICARE laid out as a legit function? |
|
|
|
Post by AlwaysAnAztec on Mar 21, 2013 14:11:14 GMT -8
Medicare is not against the Constitution. Where is that MEDICARE laid out as a legit function? Based upon your argument then you should not recieve a pension from the Federal Government since pensions are not mentioned in the Constitution. Give it a break.  |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Mar 21, 2013 16:16:53 GMT -8
Where is that MEDICARE laid out as a legit function? Based upon your argument then you should not recieve a pension from the Federal Government since pensions are not mentioned in the Constitution. Give it a break. Silly Boy! Might be a subset of Defense. |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Mar 23, 2013 13:17:49 GMT -8
Medicare is not against the Constitution. Where is that MEDICARE laid out as a legit function? If you are looking for the word "medicare" you are right you will not find it in the Constitution. You will not find "military pensions" either. As you point out it seems likely that pensions are reasonable as Constitution is put in place to "provide for the common defence". The Constitution is also put in place to "promote the general Welfare". I would say Medicare does just that. It is as constitutional as can be. |
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on Mar 23, 2013 14:20:39 GMT -8
Where is that MEDICARE laid out as a legit function? If you are looking for the word "medicare" you are right you will not find it in the Constitution. You will not find "military pensions" either. As you point out it seems likely that pensions are reasonable as Constitution is put in place to "provide for the common defence". The Constitution is also put in place to "promote the general Welfare". I would say Medicare does just that. It is as constitutional as can be. You should review Federalist #41 by Madison for an explanation of the difference between a prefatory phrase and an operatave phrase as contained in the Constitution. |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Mar 23, 2013 14:40:26 GMT -8
If you are looking for the word "medicare" you are right you will not find it in the Constitution. You will not find "military pensions" either. As you point out it seems likely that pensions are reasonable as Constitution is put in place to "provide for the common defence". The Constitution is also put in place to "promote the general Welfare". I would say Medicare does just that. It is as constitutional as can be. You should review Federalist #41 by Madison for an explanation of the difference between a prefatory phrase and an operatave phrase as contained in the Constitution. I will. Perhaps you could review Ellis v. City of Grand Rapids. |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Mar 23, 2013 14:43:59 GMT -8
If you are looking for the word "medicare" you are right you will not find it in the Constitution. You will not find "military pensions" either. As you point out it seems likely that pensions are reasonable as Constitution is put in place to "provide for the common defence". The Constitution is also put in place to "promote the general Welfare". I would say Medicare does just that. It is as constitutional as can be. You should review Federalist #41 by Madison for an explanation of the difference between a prefatory phrase and an operatave phrase as contained in the Constitution. Since you are the resident "Sea Lawyer" on the board perhaps you can cite where the Supreme Court has declared Medicare against the Constitution. It has been the law for three generations or so. Surely by now it has been to the USSC. |
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on Mar 23, 2013 15:44:08 GMT -8
You should review Federalist #41 by Madison for an explanation of the difference between a prefatory phrase and an operatave phrase as contained in the Constitution. I will. Perhaps you could review Ellis v. City of Grand Rapids. Ellis was 5th Amendment case, and didn't involve a federal taking. The Preamble utilization was "dicta". "An example of the way courts utilize the Preamble is Ellis v. City of Grand Rapids. Substantively, the case was about eminent domain. The City of Grand Rapids wanted to use eminent domain to force landowners to sell property in the city identified as "blighted", and convey the property to owners that would develop it in ostensibly beneficial ways: in this case, to St. Mary's Hospital, a Catholic organization. This area of substantive constitutional law is governed by the Fifth Amendment, which is understood to require that property acquired via eminent domain must be put to a "public use". In deciding whether the proposed project constituted a "public use", the court pointed to the Preamble's reference to "promot[ing] the general Welfare" as evidence that "[t]he health of the people was in the minds of our forefathers". [T]he concerted effort for renewal and expansion of hospital and medical care centers, as a part of our nation's system of hospitals, is as a public service and use within the highest meaning of such terms. Surely this is in accord with an objective of the United States Constitution: '* * * promote the general Welfare.'"
"On the other hand, courts will not interpret the Preamble to give the government powers that are not articulated elsewhere in the Constitution." see: "United States v. Kinnebrew Motor Co." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preamble_to_the_United_States_Constitution |
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on Mar 23, 2013 15:51:00 GMT -8
You should review Federalist #41 by Madison for an explanation of the difference between a prefatory phrase and an operatave phrase as contained in the Constitution. Since you are the resident "Sea Lawyer" on the board perhaps you can cite where the Supreme Court has declared Medicare against the Constitution. It has been the law for three generations or so. Surely by now it has been to the USSC. I'm not aware of any challenges to Medicare on Constitutional grounds. That doesn't mean it is actually Constitutional. Perhaps you could get one of your ACLU shyster thugs to bring an action. |
|
