the new health care?

They didn't for the same reason they didn't say "the right to bare assault weapons." Are you expecting them to be explicit with respect to everything and all possible situations? I would also like to add that the right to an attorney is fundamental and necessary right in that the state is trying to to strip a person of their right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The founders would have been hypocrites if they did not include such provision in the constitution.

No, no.

First of all, the term "assault weapon" is redundant. If you mean semi-automatic rifles then the analogy still doesn't fit because there were certainly doctors in their age. So it's not as if they couldn't envision doctors they way they couldn't envision automatic or semi-automatic weapons.

And no, I don't believe they had to specifically mention all the rights the people are entitled to. That's what the Ninth Amendment was for. But to use the general welfare clause to imply that everybody gets the services of a doctor, nurse or hospital free of charge, is to seriously misunderstand the Constitution and everything the Founders established.

Who then pays for the poor?

Taxpayers, just like we do now. We all pay taxes to fund our state's Medicaid program.

The trick is to tweak that program to incent the poor to use preventative care services. Successfully doing so would reduce the tax burden on all of us.

That said, doing so is much easier said than done. One of the biggest barriers preventing the poor from seeking preventative care is basic transportation. For many, if they can't walk to it, they're not interested. (And in that case I'm inclined to say eff 'em, let 'em die of pneumonia, but that doesn't really fly.)

I would be more inclined to except a government base health care coupled with a la cart items. I've only been to the doctor once in 20 years and that was for a knee operation. Being fairly active outdoors I can see myself signing up for some extra orthopedic/chiropractic services. As far visiting a doctor for sinus infections, flu, stomach virus, etc, I just stay home, get rest and fluids.

I really hope we don't have some "one size fits all" health care package. I think that the cost is just going to be more excessive as far what I'm paying into and what I'm getting out of it.

I would be more inclined to except a government base health care coupled with a la cart items. I've only been to the doctor once in 20 years and that was for a knee operation. Being fairly active outdoors I can see myself signing up for some extra orthopedic/chiropractic services. As far visiting a doctor for sinus infections, flu, stomach virus, etc, I just stay home, get rest and fluids.

I really hope we don't have some "one size fits all" health care package. I think that the cost is just going to be more excessive as far what I'm paying into and what I'm getting out of it.

Yeah, and if you don't incorporate enough choice into the program, many people will just say 'eh, this ain't for me' and they'll go without insurance.

Then when they get hit by a bus we're right back where we started with the whole uninsured problem. Choice is a must.

Taxpayers, just like we do now. We all pay taxes to fund our state's Medicaid program.

The trick is to tweak that program to incent the poor to use preventative care services. Successfully doing so would reduce the tax burden on all of us.

That said, doing so is much easier said than done. One of the biggest barriers preventing the poor from seeking preventative care is basic transportation. For many, if they can't walk to it, they're not interested. (And in that case I'm inclined to say eff 'em, let 'em die of pneumonia, but that doesn't really fly.)

I'm inclined to say eff'em regardless. The only preventative medicine that most of the poor that I see use is Night Train. There's a guy that lives under the Manchester Bridge where I work. He's as healthy as a bull but he's only interested getting loaded. I think churches are better places for the poor than homeless shelters. They don't let them smoke base in the church.

No, no.

First of all, the term "assault weapon" is redundant. If you mean semi-automatic rifles then the analogy still doesn't fit because there were certainly doctors in their age. So it's not as if they couldn't envision doctors they way they couldn't envision automatic or semi-automatic weapons.

And no, I don't believe they had to specifically mention all the rights the people are entitled to. That's what the Ninth Amendment was for. But to use the general welfare clause to imply that everybody gets the services of a doctor, nurse or hospital free of charge, is to seriously misunderstand the Constitution and everything the Founders established.

It's like that huh? I am more than willing to refer to them as "automatic weapons" if that makes you feel better. Oh and how about the government has got better weapons, and I want a rocket luncher.

Seriously dude, the highlighted text is one big incoherent statement. You affirm that they don't have to mention everything specifically, you refer to service rendered by the government as "free of charge" and then proceed to throw in baseless rhetoric about not understanding the Constitution and the Founders intentions.

My father always told me "never misrepresent yourself."

Taxpayers, just like we do now. We all pay taxes to fund our state's Medicaid program.

The trick is to tweak that program to incent the poor to use preventative care services. Successfully doing so would reduce the tax burden on all of us.

That said, doing so is much easier said than done. One of the biggest barriers preventing the poor from seeking preventative care is basic transportation. For many, if they can't walk to it, they're not interested. (And in that case I'm inclined to say eff 'em, let 'em die of pneumonia, but that doesn't really fly.)
I bet if you gave them $40.00 to come in and get a check up every year the doctors would have a line out the door.

it seems like some of you guys are pissed that we actually have poor people in this country. sometimes shit happens. even a nation as great as ours fails once in a while.some people genuinely need help. what are we to do with them? throw them to the curb? this is one major party difference. and why it seems to many the G.O.P is out of touch with main stream America

it seems like some of you guys are pissed that we actually have poor people in this country. sometimes shit happens. even a nation as great as ours fails once in a while.some people genuinely need help. what are we to do with them? throw them to the curb? this is one major party difference. and why it seems to many the G.O.P is out of touch with main stream America

I often get the sense you're pissed there are rich and successful people in this country...but maybe that's just me

it doesnt piss me off. but alot of times it seems that they play by a different set of rules