Larry Kudlow: The government needs to pay 50% of healthcare costs

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

This current drug manufacturer didn't invent the drug. They bought the patent.

If you think I'm complaining wait until I start bitching.

Right, but somebody still needs to pay for research costs.


I'm with a company that is a CRO (contractual research organization) for Pharmaceutical clients. We do outsourced research for companies. Don't be fooled by the propaganda, these companies pay a pretty penny on research costs.

[INVAR]

You're saying the Constitution doesn't permit Congress to provide for the general welfare?

Nope.  Not in the way and manner Central Planners like you view the words 'general welfare'.  My view is that of the Founders - and government provision was not one of those attributes afforded the national government.

What's your view of Social Security?  Just another Commie plot?

I certainly do not consider FDR to be any kind of Constitutional Conservative. Especially given his admiration of Benito Mussolini's work in Italy.

You are truly this forum's font of mythology.     

Coming from this forum's resident Communist/Marxist - that is a massive compliment.  Thanks.

[txradioguy]

I think he would be the go-to source to find out what the intent was!

@Bigun  you would think...and I agree with you BTW...but some people here refuse to listen.

[bigheadfred]

Right, but somebody still needs to pay for research costs.


I'm with a company that is a CRO (contractual research organization) for Pharmaceutical clients. We do outsourced research for companies. Don't be fooled by the propaganda, these companies pay a pretty penny on research costs.

Right. Someone has to pay your way.

Since everyone is at risk for cancer it behooves everyone to pay something towards its cure. Maybe the government should have a tax for that.

[Idaho_Cowboy]

Right, but somebody still needs to pay for research costs.


I'm with a company that is a CRO (contractual research organization) for Pharmaceutical clients. We do outsourced research for companies. Don't be fooled by the propaganda, these companies pay a pretty penny on research costs.

They also have to cover the cost of a lot of money sucking failures. Like anything else, its a tough business. If they were simply @#$ their customers someone would come along and undercut them. Their's a lot of issues with how the FDA regulates drugs and drags out the research time and cost that play a big factor.

[Cyber Liberty]

@Bigun  you would think...and I agree with you BTW...but some people here refuse to listen.

I find it interesting Madison's words from The Federalist Papers have no impact on court decisions, yet Trump's words on the campaign trail do.

[INVAR]

@Smokin Joe for some people in the country Government has become their religion/God.

Indeed it has.

Even among those who self-identify as Conservatives.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Right. Someone has to pay your way.

Since everyone is at risk for cancer it behooves everyone to pay something towards its cure. Maybe the government should have a tax for that.

Since everyone is at risk for homelessness it behooves everyone to pay something towards public housing.


Since everyone is at risk for hunger it behooves everyone to pay something towards food stamps.


Since everyone is at risk for bankruptcy it behooves everyone to pay something towards SSDI.


Since everyone gets old it behooves everyone to pay something towards Social Security.


Since everyone lives in the environment it behooves everyone to pay something towards the EPA


Since everyone eats it behooves everyone to pay something towards the FDA


Since everyone needs a job it behooves everyone to pay something towards the Department of Education.


See the pattern here?

[Bigun]

I find it interesting Madison's words from The Federalist Papers have no impact on court decisions, yet Trump's words on the campaign trail do.

Just shows how far we have gone down the slippery slope to hell!

We didn't have much of a problem with rogue courts for so long as any founder still lived because they knew what the proper relationship was!

[INVAR]

Right. Someone has to pay your way.

Since everyone is at risk for cancer it behooves everyone to pay something towards its cure. Maybe the government should have a tax for that.

Everyone is at risk of starvation.  Does that mean it behooves everyone to pay something towards it's provision for everyone?  Empowering government to tax for that?

Oh.... we already have that.  It's where EBT cards come from.

Where welfare constituents drive better cars and have better name brand shoes than anything I can afford because their housing and food is paid for by via confiscatory taxation by the government that panders to them for votes to stay in power for perpetuity.

Where does it end?

It doesn't.  We just become the Soviet Union and we lie to ourselves that we are a Republic.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Just shows how far we have gone down the slippery slope to hell!

We've butted heads Bigun but I admire your commitment to liberty and freedom.

[Bigun]

We've butted heads Bigun but I admire your commitment to liberty and freedom.

Thank you!  It's all right there before us written down in plain English language!  All WE have to do is INSIST on using it again!

[roamer_1]

Where does it end?

"Sooner or later you run out of other people's money." -Maggie Thatcher

[Sanguine]

What, then, is the point of medicine? Is it to actually help people, or make money? I'm betting money.

There is a ton of money being spent on all aspects of cancer. Do you think there are that many researchers and related people in the BUSINESS of cancer that want to see any cures?

Well, I'm a multiple-time survivor, so from what I can personally attest to: yes, they do want to see cures.

[Idaho_Cowboy]

"Sooner or later you run out of other people's money." -Maggie Thatcher

The founders never intended the American government to have the power to print and borrow money like it does. I think they'd be appalled just by ability to spend much less what we use it for.

[r9etb]

"General welfare" is limited by the enumerated powers given to Congress in the Constitution.

Not sure how much clearer it needs to be.

You cannot make that claim: the meaning of the term is not defined by the Constitution, and in the quotes you posted, neither Madison nor Hamilton clarified the its exact meaning.  At most they talked about its scope, as they saw it -- and for what it's worth, Hamilton and Madison disagreed on that point.

If we look at it using common-sense, the term "general Welfare of the United States" is probably best interpreted as "things that need to get done that are not explicitly enumerated in the Constitution."  Things like allocating money for the Louisiana Purchase, say -- also not explicitly among the enumerated powers.  But it's easy to argue that it promoted "the general Welfare."

The scope is limited in one sense: money raised to further "the general Welfare" must be done to the benefit of "the United States," as opposed to a particular state, or to benefit specific individuals.  It can be argued that money to fund Kudlow's idea falls under that clause; and in Butler the USSC ruled that Congress gets to decide what the phrase actually means.

I really don't think you have a valid argument.

[Idaho_Cowboy]

You cannot make that claim: the meaning of the term is not defined by the Constitution, and in the quotes you posted, neither Madison nor Hamilton clarified the its exact meaning.  At most they talked about its scope, as they saw it -- and for what it's worth, Hamilton and Madison disagreed on that point.

If we look at it using common-sense, the term "general Welfare of the United States" is probably best interpreted as "things that need to get done that are not explicitly enumerated in the Constitution."  Things like allocating money for the Louisiana Purchase, say -- also not explicitly among the enumerated powers.  But it's easy to argue that it promoted "the general Welfare."

The scope is limited in one sense: money raised to further "the general Welfare" must be done to the benefit of "the United States," as opposed to a particular state, or to benefit specific individuals.  It can be argued that money to fund Kudlow's idea falls under that clause; and in Butler the USSC ruled that Congress gets to decide what the phrase actually means.

I really don't think you have a valid argument.

Did you read the Madison quotes above? Seems to me if you want to figure out the meaning you should ask the authors.

[INVAR]

The scope is limited in one sense: money raised to further "the general Welfare" must be done to the benefit of "the United States," as opposed to a particular state, or to benefit specific individuals.  It can be argued that money to fund Kudlow's idea falls under that clause; and in Butler the USSC ruled that Congress gets to decide what the phrase actually means.

The bastardization of 'general welfare' as applied is that Congress and the government specifically portion benefit to particular groups and individuals that make up their constituencies.  They then pander to those they make provision via promising more benefits at taxpayer expense or threatening them with elimination of provision if they are not voted for.

We're bankrupt and broke - and all this wrestling over the meaning of words that you think are not clear and can be interpreted the way the Leftists in Congress want them to mean is irrelevant when the currency becomes worthless because our debt crushes everything that the Welfare Statists have piled up into the tens of trillions that this people have no means or ability to pay down.

[Bigun]

Did you read the Madison quotes above? Seems to me if you want to figure out the meaning you should ask the authors.

@Idaho_Cowboy

The trolls are never going to agree with us no matter how much you argue with them! Better to just stop feeding them IMHO!

[r9etb]

Did you read the Madison quotes above? Seems to me if you want to figure out the meaning you should ask the authors.

I did read them.  You will notice that he doesn't actually say what the phrase means.  He says it's doesn't confer unlimited powers, but that's clear from the wording itself.

At any rate, this particular argument was decided over 80 years ago by the branch of government whose purpose is to interpret Constutitional meaning where it is not clear. 

The USSC said that it is within Congress' discretion to decide whether or not something falls within the scope of "general Welfare."

[r9etb]

The bastardization of 'general welfare' as applied is that Congress and the government specifically portion benefit to particular groups and individuals that make up their constituencies.  They then pander to those they make provision via promising more benefits at taxpayer expense or threatening them with elimination of provision if they are not voted for.

There is no doubt that Congress has abused its authority in just the ways you mentioned.

And were not held accountable for doing so.

Whose fault is that?

[Bigun]

I did read them.  You will notice that he doesn't actually say what the phrase means.  He says it's doesn't confer unlimited powers, but that's clear from the wording itself.

At any rate, this particular argument was decided over 80 years ago by the branch of government whose purpose is to interpret Constutitional meaning where it is not clear. 

The USSC said that it is within Congress' discretion to decide whether or not something falls within the scope of "general Welfare."

Would you be so kind as to point out for me the word or phrase in the constitution that grants the courts the power to "interpret" the constitution?  I have not been able to find that and would thank you kindly if you would enlighten me as to its whereabouts.

[r9etb]

@r9etb

We're not individuals only: as humans our proper state is to live as part of a community.

That is too broad of a brush.

How so? 

[r9etb]

Would you be so kind as to point out for me the word or phrase in the constitution that grants the courts the power to "interpret" the constitution?  I have not been able to find that and would thank you kindly if you would enlighten me as to its whereabouts.

Sigh.  We're not going back to Marbury vs. Madison.  You've already lost that one.  Badly.

[Sanguine]

"General welfare" applies to the federal government. It does not apply to individuals.