A discussion I had with a friend on the vine:
Not wrong. I stand by previous statement. I conflate for the purpose of communication. Decisions about right or wrong are personal. I take issue with your earlier statement
providing is a specific subset of promoting.that "provide" is sub of "promote". Provide is a specific statement that can stand alone. Promote is relative in context depending on subjective analysis. Do we agree? We are responsible for providing our general welfare, not our government. The "Nanny Government" decides for you and in the case of health insurance, we have a choice as long as we make the "right choice".
I don't care about splitting hairs, but certain circumstances, misquoting the Constitution for example (and I understand you did not misquote), demand scrutiny. It's important to know the original text because the wording evolved through careful consideration, and changing one word may change the concept. The Preamble provides context only, no power to legislate.
Requiring us individually to purchase health insurance (or health care), conflicts with the domestic tranquility statement. I am my health care provider. If the government really wants promote my general welfare, they can send me a voucher that I can use to pay for my health care. I would agree to a health care system based on such vouchers as long as the tax base can support it. Current tax base will not. I would use my voucher to purchase exercise equipment, whole foods, and nutritional supplements.
I own life insurance because I want it. I own dental insurance because I want it. I don't own any health insurance because I can pay as I go.
If the value of nuts goes up, plant more nuts!
for fruitcakes of course ;)