Republicans can't deal with medical care:

[jimmymccready]

Nope, Into The Night, your interp of how the Constitution and the law works and interacts is wrong. Period.

ACA is constitutional. The Fed Reserve is constitutional. SCOTUS can review the constitutionality of laws.

Period.

[CFM]

Nope, Into The Night, your interp of how the Constitution and the law works and interacts is wrong. Period.

ACA is constitutional. The Fed Reserve is constitutional. SCOTUS can review the constitutionality of laws.

Period.

Where does the Constitution mention healthcare?

[stoned]

No, I didn't say anything about being illegal. These are all programs Americans accept and generally want to pay for. These are programs Americans support and they are not paid because somebody claims they are human rights people are automatically entitled to.

Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid are all entitlements but that is a budgetary term meaning Congress does not appropriate an amount but it is paid to everyone who is eligible. We have not yet made the political decision to provide medical care for all--largely because of the huge cost people are unwilling to pay for with an already $22 trillion debt and $1 trillion deficits. Also, because of the $60 billion fraud Medicare reports.

Gee, wonder who got us back to the trillion dollar deficit?

[Into the Night]

You make no sense. Hamilton backed the clause ,

So do I. It is NOT, however, a power or authority given to the federal government.

We do have a responsibility to the people.

Yes. The responsibility to support the Constitution of the United States and to not allow the Supreme Court or anybody else in the federal government to change it.

The Supremes have used the clause in many cases. That gives it more weight than just an appearance in the constitution.

WRONG. The Supreme Court does NOT have authority to change the Constitution.

However, universal healthcare does not cost you money.

Yes it does. It also makes you a ward of the state.

it is half the cost of our medical care that leaves millions without and many more with substandard care.

WRONG. It is MORE expensive than health care through a private system. Government care is substandard care (just look at VA healthcare nightmares, Medicare nightmares, and Medicaid nightmares).
Universal healthcare (which is to say nationalized healthcare) must ration healthcare. You are also trying to justify that which is unconstitutional.

Universal care would take the cost of medical care out of companies hands.

Yes. It would take your choice of care out of your hands too. See the Canadian healthcare system. You don't GET healthcare at all unless you go around it and pay for privately funded care.

That would help their ability to compete across the globe.

Healthcare doesn't have to globally compete.

It would free them from record keeping

WRONG. It would ADD to it. Federal forms are notorious for how inane they are.

and constant negotiations as prices go up over and over.

Price controls don't work. They ALWAYS cause shortages.

It would give them money they could return to employees in higher wages.

WRONG. It would put them out of business.

[jimmymccready]

Into The Night, your interp is crap, period.

[Into the Night]

Nope, Into The Night, your interp of how the Constitution and the law works and interacts is wrong. Period.

No. The Constitution is plain and straightforward. You cannot just discard it.

ACA is constitutional.

No, it isn't. There is no such authority or power given to Congress in Article I (as amended).

The Fed Reserve is constitutional.

No, it isn't. There is no such authority or power given to Congress in Article I (as amended). Indeed, there are specific clauses in Article I that prohibit the creation of fiat money.

SCOTUS can review the constitutionality of laws.

But they cannot interpret or change the Constitution itself.

Period.

I see you can spell 'period'. That does not make your statement any more correct or incorrect.

[Into the Night]

There's an easy fix. Stop using tax money for the uninsured. If they can't pay, send you the bill. If you refuse to personally pay, let them go without.

An interesting suggestion.

[jimmymccready]

Into The Night, even if you could resurrect Scalia, he would pat you on the head and say, "Sit down and let me straighten you out."

[Into the Night]

Into The Night, your interp is crap, period.

Argument of the stone fallacy.

[Into the Night]

Into The Night, even if you could resurrect Scalia, he would pat you on the head and say, "Sit down and let me straighten you out."

Irrelevance fallacy. The Supreme Court does not have authority to change or interpret the Constitution. Read Article III of the Constitution of the United States.

[jimmymccready]

Scalia would tell Into The Night, "your two-fold fallacy is an argument of the stone and one of irrelevance."

"SCOTUS interprets the law, and that is the law," Scalia would tell Into The Night, "until it says different. Argue all you want if it makes you feel better, but it meaneth nothing."

[Gonzomin]

Where does the Constitution mention healthcare?

Public welfare clause. Supremes have ratified its use.

[CFM]

An interesting suggestion.

Aren't the bleeding hearts that consider healthcare a right constantly claiming they care about those that don't have it? Shouldn't they be willing to back up those claims?

[CFM]

Public welfare clause. Supremes have ratified its use.

That doesn't say "healthcare". That's nothing more than a very vague statement you bleeding hearts believe it means something it doesn't.

Can you read? Can you answer a simple fucking question without trying to divert?

[Into the Night]

Scalia would tell Into The Night, "your two-fold fallacy is an argument of the stone and one of irrelevance."

Which is a fallacy fallacy and an inversion fallacy. You don't get to speak for Scalia. You only get to speak for you.

"SCOTUS interprets the law, and that is the law,"

Courts can't make law.

Argue all you want if it makes you feel better, but it meaneth nothing."

But it does.