We could all argue what General Welfare means and be correct, our founders left it vague for a reason.
I demand that my healthcare costs are covered in full. I, along with all the other casualties of acceptable risk should not have to spend their life savings and fall into debt to treat medical conditions caused by the greed of industry and the politicians on their payroll.
For thirty years I've contributed my share to our society, earning a very nice living, paying taxes, consuming and creating fantastic wealth for some of my better customers.
If my sickness was caused by smoking, drinking or anything under my control I would accept responsibility and not expect compensation. If it was caused by my mothers foolishness while pregnant, caused by an accident, or passed down to me in the genes, them's be the breaks as well.
That is not the case. Adrenal Cortical Cancer - check it out and tell me where I went wrong.
Forget about me, I cannot tell you which of the handful of known carcinogenic chemicals, allowed under the theory of acceptable risk, contributed to my condition. The annals are full of cases of specific populations getting sick due to exposure to acceptable levels of industrial pollutants. If government allows an activity due to acceptable risk then I maintain that provisions must be made to care for the 300 or so individuals anticipated to fall sick due to its use.
I wish I could be listening to the show but instead I sit here in a dialysis center with crappy WiFi access. I lost my remaining kidney two weeks ago to the recurrence of a cancer I have been fighting for 6 years. I don't want a free house, I don't want to be on the dole, I just do not want to have to worry about money when all this other shit is going down.
Please excuse me if any of this is incoherent
-- Charlie (in atlanta)
I demand that my healthcare costs are covered in full. I, along with all the other casualties of acceptable risk should not have to spend their life savings and fall into debt to treat medical conditions caused by the greed of industry and the politicians on their payroll.
For thirty years I've contributed my share to our society, earning a very nice living, paying taxes, consuming and creating fantastic wealth for some of my better customers.
If my sickness was caused by smoking, drinking or anything under my control I would accept responsibility and not expect compensation. If it was caused by my mothers foolishness while pregnant, caused by an accident, or passed down to me in the genes, them's be the breaks as well.
That is not the case. Adrenal Cortical Cancer - check it out and tell me where I went wrong.
Forget about me, I cannot tell you which of the handful of known carcinogenic chemicals, allowed under the theory of acceptable risk, contributed to my condition. The annals are full of cases of specific populations getting sick due to exposure to acceptable levels of industrial pollutants. If government allows an activity due to acceptable risk then I maintain that provisions must be made to care for the 300 or so individuals anticipated to fall sick due to its use.
I wish I could be listening to the show but instead I sit here in a dialysis center with crappy WiFi access. I lost my remaining kidney two weeks ago to the recurrence of a cancer I have been fighting for 6 years. I don't want a free house, I don't want to be on the dole, I just do not want to have to worry about money when all this other shit is going down.
Please excuse me if any of this is incoherent
-- Charlie (in atlanta)
-------------- Original message from awaylate <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: --------------
>
> I would argue that promoting the general welfare meant something very
> different than paying for everyone's health care. Continued
> recognition of new "rights" while relieving people of their own
> responsibilities makes children of us all, with government as the
> parent. People have the right to eat the bread earned by their own
> work, and the right to be left alone. The Constitution is actually an
> enumeration of "negative rights," proscribing what the Government
> can't do. The government can't tell me what to say. It can't tell me
> who to associate with, it can't keep me from owning the means of my
> own self-defense. Nowhere does the Constitution tell me what our
> society owes me, other than the common defense. The government (or
> the People) does not owe me a home, does not owe me sustenance, does
> not owe me happiness. What the government owes us all is a civil
> structure that allows us to take care of ourselves without having to
> worry about assault or oppression by others, including oppression by
> mob rule.
>
> On Oct 27, 9:38 am, Brian S Paskin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > There are many items that are not in the Constitution. However, the
> > preamble of the Constitution does say,
> >
> > "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."
> >
> > I would argue that "promote the general Welfare" covers health care.
> >
> > --
> > Regards / Saluti / mit Freundlichen Grüßen,
> > Brian
> >
> > #-------------------------------------------#
> > "La pittura è una poesia che si vede
> > e non si sente, e la poesia è una
> > pittura che si sente e non si vede."
> >
> > email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]://www.paskino.com
> > #-------------------------------------------#
> >
> > On Oct 27, 2008, at 12:11 PM, Dan in Atlanta wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > That's the issue a lot of right wingers like to fall back on.
> >
> > > The "right" to health care is not officially in the Constitution,
> > > there fore it is not a right of Americans. But I say that it is, at
> > > the very least, a natural right; and if we need to formally put it in
> > > the Constitution to satisfy those people, then I say we do so.
> >
> > > On Oct 27, 10:07 am, "Brian S. Paskin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >> The Republicans, and some Democrats, do not know the difference
> > >> between Socialism and social programs. Even Alex says Europe has
> > >> Socialism. That is not exactly true. The States do not own any
> > >> industries, except maybe the Post, and now some banks after the
> > >> financial disaster of the last few months. What they do is tax
> > >> people's income at a higher rate to give people more social programs,
> > >> like health care, child care and education. The question is giving
> > >> someone health care and education a redistribution of wealth, a sign
> > >> of Socialism, or a right of the people.
> >
> > >> Regards,
> > >> Brian (Cambridge, MA)
> --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "AlexBennettProgram" group.
> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/alexbennettprogram?hl=en
> -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
>
