The difference is that you can opt out of paying auto insurance by not owning a car. There will be no way I can legally opt out of having health insurance.

You can opt out by not having a job. Then you'd get it for free

So, you would opt out of going to the hospital if you became really sick?

And it can happen to anyone, even healthy people. My Ron Paul supporting, 20-something friend just had $90,000 in medical bills from getting meningitis. He lives just as healthy of a lifestyle that I do.

translation: make everyone give money to insurance companies, guaranteeing a profit, so the government can implement price controls to make health care just a little less expensive, guaranteeing a profit, and nearly everyone can have guaranteed medical care access, guaranteeing a profit.

do i have that right?

You can read more about the IL-legality of this in the Constitution itself.

Yes, but it was My Choice to Buy the car, no one forced it upon me, no one forced me to own a car. This "Health Care" Will be different, you will pay, they will make you pay, whether you want to or not. That's like forcing a blind person to buy a car just because everyone else has to.

Totally not the same as auto insurance. because you can drive a car without insurance, without a license, without anything as long as you don't get caught (I'm not saying that's right, just true, it's your choice), there is NO CHOICE here "regulated, mandated health insurance" they will know how much you owe, when you owe it, when you pay it, if you do or do not pay it and if you don't, they will take it form you one way or another, that's unconstitutional......

Great, just one more person i will have to pay for.

constitutional scholar is a useless term. Over the last 150 years I've seen 'scholars' define the constitution in such twisted and tortured ways that it's beyond belief. why do we keep referring such important issues to 'sholars'?

as i've stated many times, because of mainstream politicos worship of big government power, the power to tax has been broadened to such an extent that congress can now mandate that you plant roses or morning glories in your front yard. I hardly think that this kind of power was intended by the framers of the constitution.

Didn't realize the bill had you personally writing checks for every person using the system. Sorry about your luck....

And when you do get in a crash without insurance, you do have to pay a fine. And you have to cover all the damages. If you can not, then the taxpayers have to cover you (well insurance payers since we all pay the uninsured drivers fee). But in current hospitals, it's the taxpayers.

Where exactly in the constitution does it say it's illegal to mandate health insurance? And back to the having a choice about car insurance thing, you also have the choice not to work. If you choose not to work you won't have to pay for health insurance yourself.

---------- Post added at 04:04 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:02 PM ----------

I don't understand how you can say there are no constitutional scholars, but you seem to proclaim yourself one(though not with those exact words) you seem to think your view of the constitution is the only one that matters and people who's job it is to interprit the constitution are dead wrong.

then you have a problem. i've said this before, and it really is very simple should you choose to look at it that way. The constitution is written in plain and UNAMBIGUOUS words. it's only 'vague' when people wish to 'interpret' the wording in a way that they choose to suit them. constitutional scholar is nothing more than a term used to describe a person that reinterprets the constitution to suit an ideological perspective. that is all.

the exact wording and text AT THE TIME IT WAS WRITTEN should be all you need to understand it. anyone else proclaiming otherwise is not interested in the vision of america, but their own vision of life.

well regulated militia

well

regulated

militia

Sorry bro, I know I can't change your mind on this since your a strict constructionist and all but you are quite clearly dead wrong. The infallable founding fathers didn't have a magic crystal ball to see into the future, or the problems we'd face in it. So the constitution needs to be changed from time to time to suit the current situations, when it doesn't need to be changed, really smart people(scholars) can make laws that are still well within the bounds of the constitutional language.

I won't waste my time or yours with any further posts regarding the constitution.

/thread jack

rahl and Derwood, respectively

Not to mention that over half of Americans questioned about whether they want this passed the way it is, said No. Just the sound "FEDERAL REGULATION of Health Insurance," what part of that sounds right.

What the hell is wrong with a well regulated military, Sometimes it seems people don’t realize what it takes to have freedom, to keep freedom. There are so many people out there who hate our way of life, who feel that the free speech you and I have, even here in this forum, is wrong. Who would take from you not just your money but your rights to the very expression of how you feel about your country, and yet here, not only is it offered to you, it is protected for you by people willing to die for it.

Even if my taxes didn’t go to pay for that protection, I would absolutely give it to them as they work so I may enjoy my freedom, however, I don’t know if everyone who will receive the benefit of my mandated funds for this health care, mind you health care that if they joined the military and fought for something would be free to them, will work in participation as an American, or at the minimum, just get a job. As it appears to me, people are already thinking, well I will just stop working and then I won't have to pay, how about the dole system mandated next, we can put electricity use coin boxes in people houses too.

Really, that sounds like a great idea, all able bodied people who cannot pay for the mandated insurance will be required to serve a certain period of time in the service of the U.S. Military as their payment, let’s see how many of the liberals change their minds on that one. I think it sounds very fair, they don’t have to go and fight, but they have to support the government in some form, dig ditches, build roads, but, they have to work. I would have no problem with my sons having to work to pay their own way, didn't most of us have to? I know I sure as hell did, nobody paid for me. Nobody paid to help my mom either as she struggled, this is bull-shit welfare promotion and again the lose of pride in the 'self'.

I have nothing against the military

Idyllic, you misunderstood Derwood's post. dksuddeth interprets the second amendment as being an individual right. Derwood's point was that the second amendment clearly states that "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." So, either the constitution is written in plain, unambiguous language, and the right to bear arms is not an individual right, or the constitution requires interpretation. Derwood's point was that you can't have it both ways.

Regarding your other point, why do you think "FEDERAL REGULATION of Health Insurance" sounds inherently wrong? Why is it any more wrong than the multitude of other things the federal government regulates? Or, perhaps you're against all federal regulation?

The same parts as the FDA, SEC, EPA and every other organisation that keeps people safe that you aren't bitching about.

There's days that I would like to quit my job and just let the government support me, but I mostly like my job have too much self respect to take government handouts. Besides which, that won't work too well when the majority of the people in the US get fed up with government taxation and mandates and decide to let the government support them.

I'd much rather see an end put to the concept that the government has to solve everyone's personal problems by imposing mandates like this and a return to people accepting responsibility for their actions.

On the other hand, I'll be retired sometime in the next 10 years. Maybe I should just relax, enjoy all the free stuff the government is going to give me and let some other poor sap pay the bills.

Right, because 30 million people don't have insurance because they're lazy and irresponsible


I assume when you retire you will pull yourself up by your bootstraps and say no to all Social Security and Medicare offered by the evil federal gubment

At this point, I'm almost willing to take my chances. In the last 30 years I have been in the ER twice. Once because I stepped on a huge nail and punched a hole in my foot. Another time because I got hit by a car while riding my bike. I've been to the doctor twice other than routine checkups, once for Lyme disease and another time because I stressed my ankle doing some really heavy lifting and my wife was on my case to go to the doctor to have the swelling checked out. I could have covered the medical bills in each of those cases, and would probably still be ahead of the game compared to the $10K-$20K I've paid as my share of medical coverage in the last 10 years.

No one ever promised me that no matter what medical problem I had, I wouldn't have to worry about paying for it.

The thing is, dogzilla, you've just explained part of the reason why this concept of masses of people freeloading off the government is so ludicrous: it's simply not in our nature. People don't like having nothing to do. In fact, people who don't have jobs to do are much more likely to become depressed. There's also the fact that the government doesn't just give out money indefinitely and without requirements. Unless it's something like disability, there are limits to how long you can receive benefits, and requirements you must fulfill in order to keep receiving those benefits. Finally, on the subject of personal responsibility, government is not concerned with individuals but with society. Take unemployment benefits, for example: they are quite clearly an economic benefit to society. They help minimize the effect an individuals unemployment has on the other parts of society that individual interacts with. They also help keep that individual afloat long enough for them to find another job and reenter society. Do unemployment benefits harm the concept of personal responsibility? Maybe a little bit. But you know what? It doesn't matter, because governments are concerned with the whole, not the parts.

There's a fair amount of medical care in this country that is the direct result of people making poor lifestyle choices. Problems related to obesity, smoking, alcohol, drugs, random sex, etc are the direct result of lifestyle choices. If someone makes a lifestyle choice with bad consequences, I should not have to pay for that.

That's another government ripoff.

Considering that I've paid about 12% of my income (I pay half directly and the company pays the other half instead of putting it my salary) for quite a few years, no. But fear not. I'm also covered by 401K, pension, and a few investments so I won't be a total drain on the government.

Again with the individual vs the society. Maybe you're right, maybe in a perfect world where every individual is isolated from the bad decisions of others you shouldn't have to pay for that. We don't live in that world though. Take the person who make bad decisions about random sex and gets an STD. They can't afford to get the necessary treatment because you don't want to pay for it. Maybe they don't even know they have an STD. Maybe their sex isn't so random and the people they're having sex with think this is someone they can trust. Those people get infected too. Maybe this person, because they can't afford testing but still want to have random sex, just plain lies to the people they have sex with. Maybe they even forge test results. It's just herpes after all, nothing serious. Anyway, the point is, this is just as much for the society as it is for the individual. Keeping other people healthy keeps me healthy (this is the whole concept behind vaccines), and keeping them healthy also keeps them acting as otherwise productive members of society.

and in those days, 'well regulated' meant well trained. meaning they know how to shoot and how to maintain their weapons. NOT government regulated or controlled. any questions?

---------- Post added at 05:36 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:35 PM ----------

did the founding fathers put in a course of changing the constitution? a simple yes or no will suffice.

"and in those days" is exactly my point.

Yes. and it is used, but since the wording of the constitution has ALOT of wiggle room, most of the time it's not needed.

a complete and total crock of shit. those that intend to interpret a 'well regulated milita' as being the national guard is just plain ignorant, especialy considering that the national guard did not exit back then. a 'militia' was a body of the people, not a government run entity. what part of that is unclear?

---------- Post added at 05:55 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:39 PM ----------

meaning you don't like that you can't change the meanings of those words[/QUOTE]

that 'wiggle room' provided your jim crow laws, your kelo precedent, and your united citizens verdict.. are you happy with that?

here is what the definition of militia means:Militia - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Now I'm a firm believer in my "personal" right to bear arms while not being affiliated with any sort of organised militia or army. If the 2nd ammendment were not interpreted the way it is I wouldn't be able to have arms.

---------- Post added at 07:00 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:57 PM ----------

Of course I don't like those laws. Thankfully reason exists.

that 'reason' gives you those laws i mentioned. 'reasonable regulation' provides the government with every availability they need to control what you do, where you do it, how you do it where, and anything else they deem it to be.

Could you adress the abiguity of the wording in the second ammendment I pointed out please?

Or just explain why you believe the individual mandate for health care is not simply within Congress's general taxation powers....to provide for the "general welfare" of the US.

Oh...and have you filled out your census form yet. :)

what ambiguity? a group of people that know how to fight?

be EXTREMELY specific about the supposed ambiguity.

---------- Post added at 06:38 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:36 PM ----------

does 'general welfare' include the power for congress to mandate anything they want?

No.

That is not an answer. I'm not suggesting Congress can mandate anything they want.

Health care = general welfare

So how is the mandate not within Congress's power:

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States;

The link in post 106 that is the definition of a militia. According to your reasoning both you and I can't bear arms(assuming your not apart of a militia). It needed to be interpreted by the Supreme Court to make it so.

yes you are, by your simple equation, yes you are.

---------- Post added at 07:05 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:04 PM ----------

then i'm assuming that your definition of torture resembles that of justice bybee?

No, I am not saying Congress can mandate anything.

I am saying specifically that affordable and accessible health care for all the "people" falls within the meaning of "general welfare"

Why doesnt it? Because it is not specifically listed under the general welfare clause?

And lets not forget that the concept of "general welfare" is not just limited to Article I, but is in the very preamble of the Constitution:

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, 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

So, you still havent answered my question. Why do you think the mandate does not "promote the general welfare" of the US?

by even DARING to promote your theory is tantamount to giving congress everything they want.

cop out.

If access to affordable health care for the people is not related to the general welfare of the people, then what is?

As an interesting aside....the recently adopted Iraqi constitution, which the US helped develop and is modeled on our own, specifically guarantees health care for all and does not specifically guarantee a right to bear arms.

cite the passages, please. lets see how different they are.

please stop dodging, I'm sorry if your own theories on what you "think" the founders meant doesn't hold water. My link specifically debunks your standpoint that what the constitution literally says is the end all and be all of our rights.

I would like you to answer the question first:

If access to affordable health care for the people is not related to the general welfare of the people, then what is?

Cite the passages of the Iraq constitution?

See Rights and Freedoms....which include all the basics...right to assemble, freedom of religion, right to counsel, etc....AND right to work, right to a minimum wage, and Article 31: "Every citizen has the right to health care. The state takes care of public health and provide the means of prevention and treatment by building different types of hospitals and medical institutions." Just no specific right to bear arms, but a right to own personal property.

But that was just an aside.... focus, on the issue, please.

If Well Regulated meant Well Trained, then you would have no issue with a basic firearm safety test that would need to be passed before owning a firearm, right?

Because the constitution does not guarantee the right to a weapon if one is not well regulated.