Do 'preambles' matter? START v. Obamacare

[WhiskeyGirl]

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

“The New Start Treaty places no limitations on the development or deployment of our missile defense programs,” Obama wrote. “We are proceeding apace with a missile defense system in Europe designed to provide full coverage for NATO members on the continent, as well as deployed U.S. forces, against the growing threat posed by the proliferation of ballistic missiles.”

Kyl said the question is about what the Russians understand about the language in the preamble.

“Tell it to the Russians,” Kyl said on the “Fox News Sunday” Program. “In fact, change the preamble to the treaty, which would eliminate any doubt about this issue.”

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-12-19/durbin-says-senate-has-67-votes-to-ratify-arms-treaty-as-mcconnell-balks.html

I've been watching the news about the new START treaty.  Apparently, the Russians have ideas that don't seem to match what Washington is thinking.  Why would anyone vote for something when there is no meeting of the minds?  What are they thinking?

Do 'preambles' matter?

For some reason, the Russians seem to have given this great thought, and determined that words really do matter.  Congress, the Senate, Obama, and others in Washington seem to have decided that for START, for the purposes of voting on this treaty, the preamble is meaningless. 

Why have a treaty?  At times, words seem to be is meaningless to these folks, unless they involve taxes/fees/regulation that costs Americans money or life...

I think, that in the end, this treaty will be used against the American people by the Obama administration.  It's not good for America. 

The Obama's and many in Washington make much of sending their children to an elite Friends school (Quaker) in Washington - apparently it's where the in crowd, and political connected folks send their children, rather than the DC schools.

Old time Quakers, like many, owned guns.  There is an old story that went something like this -

When confronted with a robber/intruder in his home, an elderly Quaker man didn't shoot without warning, he advised the unknown person "Friend, I mean thee no harm, but thou standest where I am about to shoot!"

just my humble opinions

[WhiskeyGirl]

For some reason, during the debate about Obamacare, the words "general Welfare" in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution was used by the Obama/liberal crowd as their mandate to take money from hard working Americans and put it in another slush fund for politicians known as Obamacare.  my humble opinion.

There is belief among some that if everyone contributed, healthcare would be cheap - it's the theory about large numbers.  An infinite/large pool of participants would make healthcare affordable for everyone.

Obamacare doesn't put that into practice.  I think Obamacare allows existing pools, like the gold standard plans the unions, government workers, Congress, and Wall Street have to continue on, and get a subsidy from taxpayers via the 'reinsurance' section of the legislation. 

Folks on Main Street, making dimes compared to billions, running small businesses, get to pay for these highly paid, high roller health care plans, that don't seem to fall into the Obamacare pool of $$$ donors.

Their pools of money/participants seem to remain separate, they get exceptions to Obamacare's mandates.

The rest of us?  We get 'defacto' rationing.  Breast cancer drugs seem to be the first to go...

During the Obama campaign, many example of bad insurance companies were used and promoted in the media.  One involved a union guy with a sick child.  The insurance wouldn't pay for the a treatment it considered experimental. 

From memory - The new glass and chrome hospital wanted over $100,000 per TREATMENT.  No estimate of how many treatments this child would need.  The policy had a lifetime limit, that IIRC, was exhausted.  So, the company had two reasons not to pay.  Never knew if this guy looked into a state high risk pool, or other means to pay...

I looked on the internet and it seems that the treatment was touted by other media stories as costing just $40,000 per YEAR.   Was the hospital in business to build grand campuses?  Or to save lives?

How can one hospital seemingly charge millions to desperate parents, and others promote this treatment at such a bargain rate? I guess it depends on who is paying. 

Why would the gold plate plans have any limits when taxpayers are footing the bill?  Paying the claims and premiums?

Many on Main Street are stuck with Obamcare, and it's ration system.  I would imagine this union guy will see no change, maybe even more generous benefits.  There doesn't seem to be a common sense limit on the reinsurance taxpayers have to pay for his benefit.

Main Street not only gets to pay for unions, Wall Street, Washington, and others, they get to pay for themselves, and any others politicians strap on their back.

Yes, sometimes 'preambles' seem to matter to Washington.  It always seems to be about $$$.

just my humble opinions