skews13

It's socialism for the rich. Which is the only form of socialism that exists in the US.

Jimmyb

The US infant mortality rate is not 27th amoung the 27 wealthy countries.

The Founders did not require private companies to pay for medical care.

The Supreme Court is not the Constitution. Anytime you want to provide the clause in the Constitution that supports Obamacare, post it.

If that is the way the Constitution works, then point out that clause also.

right to left

1. MSM and rightwing sources are bragging about a relative decline in US infant mortality rates: https://www.minnpost.com/second-opin...low-rate-uncha while glossing over the fact that A state by state breakdown shows improvements in those wealthier blue states, while 3rd world America either shows no change or are getting worse. You can have your own opinions, but you don't get to have your own facts! Pass it on to Trump!

2. Want to bring back the restrictions and rules The Founders set up before allowing a business to incorporate?
Our Hidden History of Corporations in the United States

3.Show in the Constitution where the document mentions God, or that the drafted constitution should be considered divinely inspired by God and unalterable in the future?
Besides severely restricting the formation and continued operation of private corporations, the Constitution does not outlaw or even address the growing slavery issue at the time of federation, nor does it allow the formation of a full time, professional army! So how "original" are you originalists anyway?

RNG

Give up. Jimmy knows exactly what the FFs were thinking and that's what counts, not what they wrote and then ratified.

And if you want confirmation, ask him again.

right to left

And regardless of all kinds of problems public health systems have around the world (starting with lack of attention on health and preventative medicine), private insurance and private for-profit hospitals are always worse, because for-profit business can best maximize profits when clients have equity and highest credit availability when they'r older, more likely to need expensive care, therefore at their most desperate stage in life...i.e. how many Americans (I know a few personally) have to 2nd mortgage the house..take on more debt..even try to make some money from a go fund me campaign when they get a cancer diagnosis?

I wonder how much of the lack of movement in dealing with healthcare costs in America comes from developing a culture that is in denial of death...let alone aging! There are reasons why libertarians grow out of their stupid narcissistic philosophy by middle age, and why even the majority of Republicans want a real national healthcare plan...when you get older, it become harder to deny the obvious! And that's why healthcare should be a shared cost for a civil society..and is in most of the world..even third world nations that have limited resources.
I don't know what cell phones or computers are a good example for...aside from outsourcing cheap 3rd world labor and running a multibillion dollar scam in the Eastern Congo, using slave labor to extract essential rare minerals needed to make all the high tech crap we got today. And that expanded performance is in the rearview mirror now! Moore's Law has only been a general rule of logarithmic increase in number of transistors as long as physics will allow continued increases. Even Gordon Moore himself has predicted it will come to an end within the next 10 years.

High tech should never have been given automatic accreditation as "clean technology" and been subject to full environmental scrutiny instead. According to geochemist-Ugo Bardi, each "smart" phone requires the extraction and processing of about half a ton of earth to get the materials to make that stupid cell phone! But, since the environmental costs of extraction impact the poorest people in the world (same with extraction in northern China), it's out of sight/out of mind for the typical high tech yuppie living in the west!

right to left

I can tell without asking, what talkradio shows he listens to during the day! Their pseudohistorical sources like David Barton try to argue that the FF's were all God-fearing men who wrote a divinely inspired document for an "exceptional" nation. Without that, there is no foundation to support originalism- the notion that modern judges, politicians and citizens need to get inside the heads of the founders/instead of using legal precedent or trying to figure out what would work best in today's world.

goober

You're right we're 29th in the OECD
Check it out
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...mortality_rate
It depends what you use, the point is there are a couple of dozen countries at least with lower infant mortality than the US, and what they all have in common is some form of universal health care.
They all pay less, they all have better outcomes.

Actually they did require ship owners to collect money from the wages of seamen, and if the company failed to collect from the wages of seamen, the ship owner was liable for the amount.
Slice it anyway you want, the Federal Government was involved in health care, while the founders were still alive, and one of the founders signed health care legislation, and not one of them said "boo, where's that in the constitution".

When you get to Article 3, get back to me....

RNG

Hmmmm. What the SC says seems to be enforced and what Jimmy says seems to be ignored.

Funny how that happens again and again.

Jimmyb

The US has one of the lowest infant mortality rates in the world.

The US is the only country that uses the full WHO definition of live birth and other countries eliminate several of the criteria. Switzerland uses only two of the four criteria. Italy uses only three of four criteria, etc. This allows other countries to use weight, gestation period, and length to classify a baby as not being born alive, and the US counts all as a live births. Other countries do not count premature births as live births if they die afterwards. The U.S. counts them as live births. The U.S. does more for premature infants than most countries, which also skews the numbers when they do not survive. When factoring in all the criteria, the US has one of the lowest infant mortality rates in the world.

The data regarding Infant mortality rates in the US compared to the rest of the world come from the CDC, and the CDC gets their information from the OECD and the United States Children’s Fund. The data is brutally skewered and misleading.

There is no standard or continuity regarding the registration of babies born too early, too light, and too short in the other countries.

There is no standard or continuity regarding the registration, or preventing selective registration of preterm infants who survived in other countries.

There is no standard or continuity regarding the systematic under-registration of infants who did not survive in other countries.

There is little to no data from the cultures that do not attempt to save prematurely born infants with birth defects. The US always does its best to save any baby born regardless of its condition, and those that do not survive are added to the misleading statistic used by the OECD.

When infants born before 24 weeks are subtracted from the CDC report, the mortality rate decreases by 30%. This accurate data puts the US equal or lower than any other developed country.

Many countries do not consider an infant that dies at birth weighing less than 500 grams as a live birth. The US considers an infant that weighs less than 500 grams and dies at birth a live birth. Eighty percent of these births in other countries do not survive and are not counted, but are counted in the US.

Many countries classify a baby as stillborn or as a miscarriage if it survives less than 24 hours regardless if it is breathing and has a beating heart. The US classifies these infants as live born. Forty percent of all infant deaths happen within twenty-four hours.

If a child in Hong Kong or Japan is born alive but dies within the first 24 hours of birth, he or she is reported as a miscarriage and does not affect the country's reported infant mortality rates.

In Switzerland and other parts of Europe, a baby born who is less than 30 centimeters long is not counted as a live birth. The U.S. counts these infants as live births.

Your list has no basis in history and the Founders set nothing up regarding corporations. Corporations were created and chartered by state legislatures when petitioned. You are using the term “corporations” without any context. There were four types of corporations in the founding era: Corporate charters for religious societies, corporate charters municipalities, corporate charters business corporations, and corporate charters such as the Democratic-Republican Societies.


I have never stated that the Constitution mentions God. I have only stated that most of it has a Biblical basis.

Do you mean like Franklin’s prayer during the Philadelphia Convention asking for God’s help? Or Alexander Hamilton statement “For my own part, I sincerely esteem it the Constitution a system which without the finger of God, never could have been suggested and agreed upon by such a diversity of interests.”

Or James Wilson, who signed both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, and was one of the most active speakers of the convention having spoken 168 times. He was also a Supreme Court justice from 1789-1798. He was also the first law professor at University of Pennsylvania:

Of law there are different kinds. All, however, may be arranged in two different classes. 1. Divine. 2. Human laws. The descriptive epithets employed denote, that the former have God, the latter, man, for their author.

The laws of God may be divided into the following species.

I. That law, the book of which we are neither able nor worthy to open. Of this law, the author and observer is God. He is a law to himself, as well as to all created things. This law we may name the “law eternal.”

II. That law, which is made for angels and the spirits of the just made perfect. This may be called the “law celestial.” This law, and the glorious state for which it is adapted, we see, at present, but darkly and as through a glass: but hereafter we shall see even as we are seen; and shall know even as we are known. From the wisdom and the goodness of the adorable Author and Preserver of the universe, we are justified in concluding, that the celestial and perfect state is governed, as all other things are, by his established laws. What those laws are, it is not yet given us to know; but on one truth we may rely with sure and certain confidence—those laws are wise and good. For another truth we have infallible authority—those laws are strictly obeyed: “In heaven his will is done.”

III. That law, by which the irrational and inanimate parts of the creation are governed. The great Creator of all things has established general and fixed rules, according to which all the phenomena of the material universe are produced and regulated. These rules are usually denominated laws of nature. The science, which has those laws for its object, is distinguished by the name of natural philosophy. It is sometimes called, the philosophy of body. Of this science, there are numerous branches.

IV. That law, which God has made for man in his present state; that law, which is communicated to us by reason and conscience, the divine monitors within us, and by the sacred oracles, the divine monitors without us. This law has undergone several subdivisions, and has been known by distinct appellations, according to the different ways in which it has been promulgated, and the different objects which it respects.

Etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.
The Constitution says nothing about corporations because that would be a violation of the separation of powers. Why would a compact between the states address slavery? The Constitution does not prohibit the formation of a professional army. There was no need at that juncture for a full time army.

Jimmyb

Why don’t you list the talk radio shows I listen to considering I do not listen to talk radio or television pundits. Instead of huffing and puffing with no substance, why don’t you actually produce any historical evidence that supports your worldview regarding orginalism and make and actual argument that refutes my statements?