Biden plans to ask Congress for funding to develop new COVID vaccine, may require shot for all

No. I answered YOUR question. You failed to answer mine. And now you are trying to ask another one . . . one based on false premises. Come back after you are able to answer the question I originally posed.

 

Nice try, I answered your question, and I made my point and you know it. Yes have a nice very nice day!

 

You did not answer my question. I answered yours. You still won't answer my question. We both know why.

 

Ok, @yardmeat, you keep peddling as fast as you can cuz the ice you're on is too thin to support you.

Like I said the government has absolutely zero legitimate authority to control what you put in your body or what you do not put in your body period.

That falls smack under the Bill of Rights.

I've got productive things to do so you have yourself a very wonderful day.

 

That isn't an answer to my question. That's just you asking another question.

 

Public health is an important part of public welfare but public health is not an enumerated power of federal government. It needs to see to the public welfare in areas where it it should. It should stay in its lane and deal with with public welfare issues in that lane. The 10th amendment says that all but the enumerated powers go to the states. It is quite clear. I've made up my mind and I stay with the words of the constitution which were brilliantly written.

 

It does but it also defines the areas in which it has purview over public welfare. Federal government was designed to stay in a defined lane and put the rest to the states. Your position is that federal government can do anything it wants as long as it feels it is a benefit to the public. The founders didn't want that at all. They wanted federal government to serve the needs of the states in areas where it was impractical to have the states handle them. These are the lanes in which the constitution gave power to federal government:
1. Defense of the nation
2. Maintenance of a relationship with other nations
3. Provision of a stable currency
4. Resolution of interstate disputes
5. Operation of a postal system

The rest goes to the states per the 10th amendment. The original concept was to have a union of states, not what we have today.

 

Does it say that Congress has a purview over public welfare or not? Yes or no?

 

Public welfare is enumerated.

 

Neither. Federal government has authority to deal with public welfare but in defined areas. I have listed them above. It would be in public welfare for government to buy a new car for every citizen but that is just as unconstitutional as dealing with public health. Well, unconstitutional in my opinion, not in the opinion of federal government, of course.

 

No argument there.

We agree on something at least.

Could be, I don't know.

That indicates that they died while testing positive for covid, not from covid. I also think every U.S. hospitalized patient was tested for covid as well. But we don't have nationaIized health care so the government would have to get the data from the hospitals. I think U.S. government has the vaccination data or at least can get it from the states. I think the vaccines, while not preventing infection did reduce incidents of hospitalization and that is positive.

Well at least they speak to you.

No argument there.

It isn't moral authority. It is the words of the constitution. You mistake my intent. Public health is good and important. All of it is done at the state and local level and in the private sector. Federal government has no constitutional business messing with it. It's involvement was not helpful with this pandemic either.

 

No. Public welfare is not a specific thing that can be enumerated. It is saying that government should work in a positive manner for public welfare. That work, however, is defined elsewhere in the constitution. You can't assign authority to government to do anything it wants to do if it thinks it helps the people. Well you can, government has and we have the disaster we see today.

 

Some can and do, some can and refuse. Trump is the latter.

This "news" story sucks because it inadequately presents what Old Joe says. There's a huge difference between require and recommend. We don't know which he said or gives signs he's intending.

Seems so.

 

Society already does through the economic system that rewards people who create value. There's good reason for us to have government fund the quest for knowledge when there is little chance for investors to obtain a return. One researcher I know got a NIH grant to test the effectiveness of green tea in preventing or treating lunch cancer.

You'll have to tell the researchers so they'll know to stop looking.

The founders knew what a "general welfare" clause might mean in the future.

https://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_1s27.html

Maybe you should do a better job of explaining your position.

 

SCOTUS and Congress decided long ago that public health and public welfare go together.

This from Bing:

"Q: What is the history of the U.S. federal government involvement in public health to the 1860s?

A: The history of the U.S. federal government’s involvement in public health leading up to the 1860s can be traced back to the establishment of the Marine Hospital Service (MHS) in 1798. This was the nation’s first public health agency, formed to care for sick and injured seamen. Over time, the MHS’s duties expanded beyond the seamen population, becoming responsible for preventing the spread of contagious diseases throughout the United States.

During the Industrial Revolution, rapid urbanization led to overcrowded cities, which became hotbeds of disease. The poor living conditions and inadequate sanitation in these areas prompted debates about public health. In Britain, the Public Health Act of 1848 marked the beginning of the sanitary reform movement, which influenced public health policies in the U.S. as well.

By the mid-1860s, the U.S. government adopted a more positive and interventionist approach to public health, spurred on by the 1866 cholera epidemic. This event clearly revealed the flaws in earlier public health efforts and highlighted the need for more robust government involvement.

Additionally, after the American Civil War, the federal government established the Freedmen’s Bureau, which constructed hospitals, employed physicians, and treated over one million sick and dying former slaves. These hospitals were operational from 1865 to 1870.

Epidemics of contagious diseases like smallpox, yellow fever, and cholera had devastating effects throughout the 19th century, leading Congress to enact laws to stop their importation and spread. This period laid the groundwork for the modern public health system in the United States."​

There was never an intent by government to stay out of public health.

 

Your opinion is not shared by SCOTUS or the feds.

https://www.cdc.gov/quarantine/aboutlawsregulationsquarantineisolation.html

 

If you're reporting correctly, it's no doubt because far more people were vaccinated. This from Canada:

Biden's victory lap was followed by the bad winter wave of 2021-22.

 

The words interpreted by SCOTUS, not you, say the federal government has an important role to play in public health.

http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/biden-plans-to-ask-congress-for-funding-to-develop-new-covid-vaccine-may-require-shot-for-all.613103/page-6#post-1074556978

You may wish to make public health a local matter, but making it a federal isn't unconstitutional.

Wong. Click on the link above. The feds early on enacted public health measures. Never did the Founders anticipate the federal government would not be involved.

So you say. The vaccines and treatments saved lives. They made sure you can get them.

Some red states left to their own devices would have been unwilling to buy the vaccines.

Without federal money, a lot of red states would have had their hospitals overwhelmed with covid patients.

 

That is an opinion I don't share. Does the supreme court have opinions that you don't share?

It is a local matter now. Federal government doesn't do public health outside the CDC. The actual work is don at the state and local level. The constitution says it is unconstitutional.

Doesn't make it right.

So I say. Others could have made sure I can get them.

All of government should not have bought them. The vaccinated people or their insurance companies should have bought them.

How did federal money prevent that? You want more government, I want less. Pretty simple.

 

Sure. As I see it, no law against abortion should be constitutional, but that doesn't mean I run around proclaiming the
Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 is unconstitutional.

This from Bing:

Q: Does the U.S. federal government do public health outside of the CDC? Please comment..

A: Yes, the US federal government is involved in public health through several agencies besides the CDC. The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has 12 operating divisions, including nine agencies in the U.S. Public Health Service and three human services agencies. These divisions administer a wide variety of health and human services and conduct life-saving research for the nation.

Some of the key agencies involved in public health include:

• National Institutes of Health (NIH): Conducts medical research and supports health science research.
• Food and Drug Administration (FDA): Ensures the safety of food, pharmaceuticals, and other products.
• Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA): Provides health resources for medically underserved populations.
• Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR): Deals with harmful exposures and related diseases.
• Indian Health Service (IHS): Provides health services to American Indians and Alaska Natives.
• Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ): Improves the quality, safety, efficiency, and effectiveness of healthcare.
• Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA): Advances the behavioral health of the nation.
• Administration for Strategic Preparedness and Response (ASPR): Prepares for and responds to public health emergencies.

These agencies work together to safeguard and improve national and global health conditions and outcomes. The Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health oversees the U.S. Public Health Service. The Public Health Service Commissioned Corps is the federal uniformed service of the PHS, and is one of the eight uniformed services of the United States.​

Red states like Mississippi, Alabama, West Virginia get a lot of transfer payments from the federal government. How poor do you want to see these people? Besides, if the federal transfers stopped, states like New York and California would have a lot more money.

No, it's not that simple.

 

Same thing. Federal government involvement in abortion is unconstitutional by reading the constitution. It is not an enumerated power. It is a power of the states.

These agencies just fund things. They spend money on things that belong in the states. The post is nonsense. Actual public health activities happen in the states. ​

Transfers of funds from federal to state should be illegal except in cases where the federal government is buying something from the states. It is the major tool used to disable states rights. You probably have not understood that government spending has never fixed poverty. It goes on for reasons beyond government spending. I have no interest in coloring states by the way. I am a non partisan. I despise political parties.

The difference between left and right in the U.S. boils down to differing attitudes about the desired size, cost and power of federal government. Everything else is just details It is that simple.

 

I think the 14th Amendment ("equal protection") should be seen as making all abortion laws unconstitutional, but that's not how SCOTUS saw it with Roe v. Wade or Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization.

The FDA? They just "fund things?"

Like banning the import of fentanyl?

My post is nonsense and yours isn't?

Of course, public health "activities" happen in the states.

A lot of red states would be much poorer without federal transfers. Doesn't matter to you?

The details matter.

 

They are not an enumerated power in the constitution. The function belongs in the states.

Money won't buy an end to fentanyl. It requires closed borders, law enforcement and even hard nosed international relations - all of which are appropriate roles for federal government

Correct

Good. An agreement.

That does not matter to me. States, those states just like individuals are responsible for their own lot in life. It is inappropriate for people in New York to support citizens of Mississippi. Those who live in what you call poor states have the ability to vote for their leadership and the ability to move to another state if they don't like things the way they are.

To add more opinion you don't like, I think federal government should be supported politically and economically by the states, not by federal taxation. The states should do the taxation. Then the states could add whichever support they want from the central government or remove things they prefer to do themselves.

Some do. But they are related to attitudes about federal government. Some people want more government and more safety. Others want less government and more freedom. All the details boil down to that in the end.

 

What does that mean?

 

Public welfare means public welfare. Feel free to pretend that public health is not part of public welfare. You are free, of course, to engage in that nonsensical fantasy.