Senate Democrats to Introduce A Socialist 'Public Option'

"Least..." is not a component of capitalism, per se, but it would be more to the definition of neoliberalism. All countries of the west who embrace capitalisms have varying degrees of government programs for society's needs, and regulation for business, some of which do not accord with your 'least' depiction.

Also, 'interference' implies all regulation is unnecessary, and though some is, not all is, and it's therefore not a honest characterization without revealing nuance on the subject.

 

No, since FDR, republicans have been calling it that. DSers only adopted it because y'all have been calling it that for years, so, they just accepted your definition.

 

Good, we're making progress.....

Quote: ''.........where the means of production are owned by the private citizens

Now, what's the opposite of private ownership?

 

All governments are bureaucracies. What exactly is the point?

 

"Health Care" , "medicare" etc, are not mentioned in the constitution, and that because you know that fact, you assume that the government cannot bring to it's citizens universal health care, which is the reason you posed the question, but your assumption is incorrect, in my opinion, as much is not specifically mentioned in the constitution that SCOTUS has ruled constitutional, such as penumbra something-or-others and I'm sure there are others. To that, I believe it falls within the welfare clause of the constitution, but I'm not a scholar, so.......

This is a question for a scholar, the issue is a complex one insofar as the constitution, Supreme Court rulings and the like, so I resorted to the essay on the subject on the ABA's own website:

https://www.americanbar.org/groups/...precarious-path-to-universal-health-coverage/

Creating medical care for all Americans is a policy choice, not a legal matter. Decades of litigation provide solid constitutional support for alternative ways to achieve universal health care. The tax and spend power of Congress is the foundation for traditional Medicare. [me interjecting: which is part of the welfare clause, eh? ] A federal state partnership, Medicaid, which provides medical insurance to some groups of people, is fine, as long as the federal government doesn’t coerce the states into doing something that states oppose. In the big Affordable Care Act (ACA) case, NFIB v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. 519 (2012), the Court ruled that the federal government cannot mandate you to buy insurance, but it can tax you if you don’t. Paying for medical care directly through government owned and government-operated facilities like the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs or indirectly through community health center grants is well established. The government can set or negotiate the prices it will pay, for example, the Medicare hospital and physician fee schedules. Congress made the policy choice to prohibit Medicare from negotiating or setting prices when it created the Medicare prescription drug program in 2005. The constitutional basis for a universal health coverage policy will almost certainly remain even if the Supreme Court declares the current ACA unconstitutional next year, based on the theory that the individual mandate was central to the whole scheme (California v. Texas).

 

I don’t care about “all governments” I care about OUR government. And OURS is way too big and powerful. For example even though Ocare was close to a thousand pages huge sections were left to the bureaucracy to write, giving them legislative AND executive powers.

 

Debating the size of government is legitimate, but just complaining it's a bureaucracy is redundant. It's supposed to be a bureaucracy.

 

How exactly is repeating your words “creating a straw man argument?

LOL, you see a lot that isn’t there. Trying to frame my point, you are in fact the strawman builder.

 

Where does it say that in the Constitution?

 

Please. You know damn well that governments consist of bureaus. Stop playing.

 

never mind, you’re obviously incapable of comprehending the nuances of the word “bureaucracy”.

 

I'm not making anything maybe you need to progress I don't. If you have something to say then say it I'm not going to play twenty questions with you.

 

Of course it is, there is nothing conflict with capitalism and system of law and courts to enforce those laws or having a military to protect our national security or having police and fire protection.

 

Give me the synopsis.

 

You didn't repeat my words, you twisted them, but, after pointing that out, you refuse to acknowledge and repeat your strawman.

Putting words into the mouths of another and then arguing what the other didn't actually say, is a strawman by definition.

MOreover, the entire premise you are raising, is a deflection from the original point which wasn't centered on the 'meaning of bureacracry' though you are twisting the thread to be about it.

Since you cannot read and understand English, there is no point in debating you and you are therefore dismissed, set to ignore.

 

Lol. Nuance. Yeah, that's it. A regular smooth operator.

 

Doesn't really do it, Maher's point takes the whole thing to really get.

If you are not interested, fine. Let it go.

 

Your sig:
Never waste your breath explaining to a fool; he won’t accept your wisdom & will just make fun of you. Prov 23:9

Oh, so now you think you are the wise one.

Now that's funny, but, don't quit your day job.

 

Oh well......

 

And you think this post polishes your image as a high intelligence poster?

 

Poppycock. I am still waiting for Trump's plan.

 

Quit making stuff up. Bad habit you have, there.

 

Ok, try to keep up: Bureaucracy has a dictionary definition and an overloaded definition that implies

Not making a thing up.

 

What's wrong with affordable health care?

Obamacare is so destructive that the Rs could not repeal or replace.

Then they walked away. They love it.

 

The enumeration in the Constitution was consciously and deliberately put in to concisely and explicitly define and limit what things the federal government was authorized to do, with good cause. I do not disagree at all with you that the enumerated powers has been bastardized beyond recognition usually by SCOTUS rulings that twist certain convenient phrases into pretzels, misinterpret other parts, or just make up and infer rights that were never written, meant or even implied, but this does not alter the precise meaning and intent of the enumerated powers. Some might be borderline and arguable such as Eisenhower's interstate highway system "primarily for military transport."

I certainly don't have any disagreement with the VA because that is directly tied to the common defense. I don't have any substantial problems with some welfare-like actions like community medical facilities or even food stamps. Community health facilities provided by the feds is probably pushing it, but it is insignificant, probably helpful, and not worth agonizing over. However, they are in an entirely different world from universal health care, Medicare for all, and ACA. These are not helping a few in a small way but putting the federal government smack dab in the entirety of the business of everyone's health. This would unequivocally be extrinsic of the numerated powers and unconstitutional. However, that does not mean that SCOTUS likely won't rule them unconstitutional -- the odds are very good that SCOTUS would rule universal health care constitutional, which does nothing more than amend the Constitution without the bother of going through the amendment process, or by finding a loophole, or simply by rewriting any universal healthcare law as Roberts did with ACA. (As an interesting aside, Roberts' rewrite to make it a tax and not a fee (despite the original insistence of the government) also made it unconstitutional because it made it a tax bill that did not originate in the House -- but that got totally lost in the dust.)

The reason for the enumerated powers is the certain knowledge that the more things the federal government is authorized to do, the more it will do, the more powerful the central government will become, and the more totalitarian with direct control of the people it will become leading to tyranny. Increased control is the number one underlying objective of governments. Which, incidentally, is the primary reason behind universal health care, medicare for all, and, yes, Obamacare; improving health and well being is/was in second place.