Eager: Where in the Constitution Does It Say "Provide for the General Welfare?"

Where in the Constitution Does It Say "Provide for the General Welfare?"
Share
Today at 9:40am
Is there no one in the U.S. Senate who understands the issue is not
health care, it's who's going to control our health care - government
or you and I - We the People?

Will someone please explain to me where in the Constitution it says
"provide for the general welfare?"

Where, in any of our Founders' notes on the Constitution, does it say
that the Federal government should mandate wage and price controls on
the free market?

Where does it say that the Federal government should require all
employers and all Americans to participate in this Federally mandated
plan which will impose up to 25% tax increase?

Where does it say that the Federal government should tell insurance
companies it must provide abortion services options? Where does it say
that the Federal government must provide grants to set up
comprehensive school-based clinics where health professionals will
provide contraceptives and abortion counseling without parental
consent?

We all know how Lincoln began a precedent of Federal control in an
effort to keep the union from breaking apart during the civil war. We
know how Wilson grabbed an unprecedented amount of executive power to
"make the world safe for...democracy" (even though we aren't a
democracy) by setting up a system of executive-appointed czars.

And don't attempt to explain it away with Wickard-Filburn folly. We
know how FDR used the unemployment crisis and his manipulation of
farmers to prohibit them from growing a surplus of grain and actually
store it for a rainy day (what a concept!) to justify and push through
his expansion of Federal government. He completely re-wrote Article I
Section 8 and it became an "elastic clause" that is destroying our
economic stability.

This alone is putting our nation in harm's way. One enumerated power
is that Congress provide for national security. How can we do this
when this nation is bankrupt and yet both sides of the aisle insist
that they must provide health care as a fundamental RIGHT?

Something is WRONG with this picture. The debate is and must be:
should the Federal government provide health care or should this
matter be returned to the various states where it was intended in the
first place?

I'm a baby boomer. I'm not thrilled about approaching my retirement
only to relinquish my options to what the Feds and a group of
extremist czars dictate for me. We also cannot put today's seniors in
harm's way and leave them vulnerable and without the coverage
promised. We must elect a new crop of rookies who have some common
sense and who will act to protect our future generation and those not
yet in this doomed system and give them a new set of free market
choices that they can prepare to make.

This Washington Post Blog shows just how out of touch Washington, and
specifically its chief sponsor Utah's Senator Bennett, is. If we want
to do ourselves the favor of our lifetime, 2010 might a good time to
vote them all out (except perhaps a handful in the Senate and a few in
the House, including Michele Bachman and Jason Chaffetz... :-) )

Here is Washington's spin on Wyden-Bennett Health Care - Google this
bill and read pp. 15-16 (abortion coverage) and pp. 27-29 (school
based health center grants) and the expansion of Federal government
coverage into long term health care pp. 31-35. Just watch how schools
will respond if this carrot is dangled. (e.g. "More money we can get
from the Feds? Oh boy! Go for it!!!")

Read about how insurance companies will be required to provide health
benefits to domestic partnerships" (p. 17). After several decades of
radical feminist folly and the devastating results for families and
children, isn't it time for this society to get serious about what is
best for our children (our future)? Isn't it time to stop the insanity
of legally recognizing a relationship between two people who have
children but who refuse to take the commitment to legally join
together to raise those children with the legally-binding commitment
those deserve? The statistics are staggering, yet we blindly wash our
hands of the responsibiity to promote MARRIAGE and specifically
marriage between a man and a woman. Some states have constitutional
amendments that prohibit a same-sex domestic partnership (for example,
Utah).

Starting on page 61, read about how the IRS will be the collecting
("controlling") agency. Every state will get "waivers" IF they meet
the qualifications, which means they will be required to set up the
acceptable plans in order to play by Washington's rules. How about the
concept of setting up yet another "trust" fund to transfer 90% of
Medicare/Medicaid from existing funds that are already bankrupt?

In fact, does anyone trust anything Washington does any more? I'm
reminded of Reagan's famous words: "The nine most terrifying words in
the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm hear to
help.'"

No wonder Club for Growth has placed a tab on this bill many times
more than the current national health care proposal being debated and
is funding an ad campaign against it in Utah. Thank you, Chris Chocola
for caring enough to alert us as to the damage to which our Utah
Senator has contributed.

I held a producers license for a short time. On p. 31 this bill starts
addressing how the Federal government is going to fund long term
health care. Do you know how much long term care costs, on average?
Some say $54,000 a year per person for an average of three years for
women, and if you add inflation, the cost is astronomical over the
next 20 years. How will our government provide for this care for the
upcoming baby boomers? Are you 30-somethings listening? Are you not
concerned about how much you will be paying to care for us retirees
when we get there?

I have just two thoughts in general about this Federal government
approach to providing health care, or any charitable service for that
matter. Those who think it's the Federal government's role to provide
charity or to re-construct what some religious denominations call "the
law of consecration" somehow missed that particular Sunday School
lesson. It's not the Federal Government that the faithful are to call
upon to provide those charitable services. That's the role of the
Church.

Senator Bennett should understand.

Dave Ramsey understands. He says everyone should be paying a full 10%
tithing. But that's another statistic I'll comment on in another post.
Meanwhile, you do the math - population, times, income tax collected,
divided by 10% equals ??? Times poverty numbers... You will be
surprised what you will find.

Here's the Washington Post blog:

Wednesday, September 23, 2009 11:55 a.m. | The Wyden Plan
No one ever accused Ron Wyden of lacking persistence. Even as the
Finance Committee is marking up a bill that is premised on leaving the
current employer-based insurance system in place (for now), the Oregon
Democrat was making another plug for his far more aggressive reform
plan.

For several years, Wyden has, with Utah Republican Bob Bennett, been
pushing a plan that would essentially dismantle the employer-based
insurance system and replace it with one in which people would get tax
deductions to purchase their own coverage. The thinking is that this
would introduce far more competition and personal choice to health
insurance and would be fairer than the current system, where people
who get employer-based coverage benefit from the tax exempt nature of
employer based benefits while people who buy insurance on their own
must do so with after-tax dollars.

The primary objection to the proposal is that it is just too dramatic
a change for a country where health reformers feel the need to
constantly reassure people with insurance that they can "keep what
they have."The Baucus bill has actually moved slightly closer to the
Wyden vision by expanding accessibility to a new "exchange" where
small businesses and people without employer-based coverage would buy
insurance.

The bill opens up access to the exchange to employers with as many as
100 workers, and envisions further expansions in coming years, which
could over time lead to a shift away from employer-based plans and
into the exchange.

But Wyden said this is not going far enough to provide true choice to
the 200 million Americans who now have employer-based coverage."It
does not hold insurance companies accountable and it denies choice of
insurers to 200 million Americans," he said. "It stipulates that you
can keep what you have but if you don't like what you have...you're
stuck."

He said he realized that the odds of his plan had always been long: "I
know I'm taking on what amounts to the status quo lobby," he said.

And he made clear that he would be prepared to vote for the Baucus
bill even if it fell short of his vision, as many other dissatisfied
Democrats would. "This bill for a lot of my colleagues is not our
first choice," he said.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/health-care-reform/2009/09/live_blogging_the_senate_finan.html

My friends, will you help us - all across this nation, we must work
together to elect a new class of representatives - we need those who
are activists and advocates, who aren't going to DC to "go along to
get along" but who really care about doing what is right. Please go to
my website and donate today - small or large, it all helps. Keep this
freedom fire burning! www.Eagar4Senate.com

All my best,
Cherilyn Eagar