Again?!? declaring something unconstitutional doesnt make it so. FOr example

Again? Simply saying I am wrong does not make it so! You seem it is ok for congress to do whatever it wants under the guise of "gerneral welfare"? Why don't we just write them a blank check and hand over all of our freedoms as well? You trust the government way too much. There are LIMITS in the constitution for a reason!

simply saying you are correct doesnt make it so. I say the color yellow is unconstitutional. The only people that really can dispute constitutionality of things are constitutional experts, typically ACLU lawyers.

Neither author is a constitutional lawyer. David Rivkin is a frightening individual. I read an almost Ayn Rand Paranoia to his work. Only Capitalism is good. Anything that isn't is bad. So as soon as either one of your quoted individuals heads back to law school and gets that degree in Constitutional Law then I'll take it for granted that any problem with publicly paid Insurance can be dealt with in the Federal court system. BTW if they strike down Publicly funded insurance as Unconstitutional then Medicare medicade unemployment insurance and social security are all unconstitutional as well. Good luck with that fight.

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

simply saying you are correct doesnt make it so. I say the color yellow is unconstitutional. The only people that really can dispute constitutionality of things are constitutional experts, typically ACLU lawyers.

Neither author is a constitutional lawyer. David Rivkin is a frightening individual. I read an almost Ayn Rand Paranoia to his work. Only Capitalism is good. Anything that isn't is bad. So as soon as either one of your quoted individuals heads back to law school and gets that degree in Constitutional Law then I'll take it for granted that any problem with publicly paid Insurance can be dealt with in the Federal court system. BTW if they strike down Publicly funded insurance as Unconstitutional then Medicare medicade unemployment insurance and social security are all unconstitutional as well. Good luck with that fight.

Wow... I give up. Unless you can point out which part of the consitution gives congress the power to require people to carry health insurance. No, it is not in the preamble... That was the worst idea yet. Following your logic congress has the power to do anything. Is this what you want? I see no point in continuing this.

Enact a $1500 tax on everyone making above a certain income level AND make ALL health insurance premiums (not just those paid by employers) fully deductible.

Problem solved... and the self-insured get a (long overdue) break.

---

Join the PACK!

Enact a $1500 tax on everyone making above a certain income level AND make ALL health insurance premiums (not just those paid by employers) fully deductible.

Problem solved... and the self-insured get a (long overdue) break.

Sounds good to me!

simply saying you are correct doesnt make it so. I say the color yellow is unconstitutional. The only people that really can dispute constitutionality of things are constitutional experts, typically ACLU lawyers.

Neither author is a constitutional lawyer. David Rivkin is a frightening individual. I read an almost Ayn Rand Paranoia to his work. Only Capitalism is good. Anything that isn't is bad. So as soon as either one of your quoted individuals heads back to law school and gets that degree in Constitutional Law then I'll take it for granted that any problem with publicly paid Insurance can be dealt with in the Federal court system. BTW if they strike down Publicly funded insurance as Unconstitutional then Medicare medicade unemployment insurance and social security are all unconstitutional as well. Good luck with that fight.

Wow... I give up. Unless you can point out which part of the consitution gives congress the power to require people to carry health insurance. No, it is not in the preamble... That was the worst idea yet. Following your logic congress has the power to do anything. Is this what you want? I see no point in continuing this.

I'm not going to bother repeating myself. If you can explain why we have Medicare, medicaid, social security, unemployment insurance, and the FDIC maybe we could come to an understanding. I put that out there before and you clearly weren't willing to read that. Health insurance falls under the same auspices of these other fine programs the GOV't created. Tell me again what the difference is between them and universal healthcare

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

simply saying you are correct doesnt make it so. I say the color yellow is unconstitutional. The only people that really can dispute constitutionality of things are constitutional experts, typically ACLU lawyers.

Neither author is a constitutional lawyer. David Rivkin is a frightening individual. I read an almost Ayn Rand Paranoia to his work. Only Capitalism is good. Anything that isn't is bad. So as soon as either one of your quoted individuals heads back to law school and gets that degree in Constitutional Law then I'll take it for granted that any problem with publicly paid Insurance can be dealt with in the Federal court system. BTW if they strike down Publicly funded insurance as Unconstitutional then Medicare medicade unemployment insurance and social security are all unconstitutional as well. Good luck with that fight.

Wow... I give up. Unless you can point out which part of the consitution gives congress the power to require people to carry health insurance. No, it is not in the preamble... That was the worst idea yet. Following your logic congress has the power to do anything. Is this what you want? I see no point in continuing this.

I'm not going to bother repeating myself. If you can explain why we have Medicare, medicaid, social security, unemployment insurance, and the FDIC maybe we could come to an understanding. I put that out there before and you clearly weren't willing to read that. Health insurance falls under the same auspices of these other fine programs the GOV't created. Tell me again what the difference is between them and universal healthcare

Wow, you never read any of my posts... I did not say anything about universal healtcare. We are talking about obamacare and the FACT that it requires people to buy health insurance or pay a penalty. You seriously think the prograns you mentioned justify obamacare (the bill currently in congress)? You are saying that since congress has set up so many programs, they can do whatever they want. Again, this is scary!

"Speaker [Nancy] Pelosi's constitutional contempt, perhaps ignorance, is representative of the majority of members of both the House and the Senate. Their comfort in that ignorance and constitutional contempt, and how readily they articulate it, should be worrisome for every single American. It's not a matter of whether you are for or against Congress' health care proposals. It's not a matter of whether you're liberal or conservative, black or white, male or female, Democrat or Republican or member of any other group. It's a matter of whether we are going to remain a relatively free people or permit the insidious encroachment on our liberties to continue. ... In each new session of Congress since 1995, John Shadegg, R-Ariz.,) has introduced the Enumerated Powers Act, a measure 'To require Congress to specify the source of authority under the United States Constitution for the enactment of laws, and for other purposes.' The highest number of co-sponsors it has ever had in the House of Representatives is 54 and it has never had co-sponsors in the Senate until this year, when 22 senators signed up. The fact that less than 15 percent of the Congress supports such a measure demonstrates the kind of contempt our elected representatives have for the rules of the game -- our Constitution. If you asked the questions: Which way is our nation heading, tiny steps at a time? Are we headed toward more liberty, or are we headed toward greater government control over our lives? I think the answer is unambiguously the latter -- more government control over our lives." --economist Walter E. Williams

I'll tell you like I told Rush. Have an opinion of your own. I don't intend to argue with columnists that aren't here to argue their own points. I do love a good OpEd piece but a contribution by you into the arguement would actually allow me to understand how you feel about a topic. I understand how the columnists feel. They make it perfectly clear. However I find it hard to believe that one can go through life spitting out everyone elses opinions and still not have one of their own.

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

However I find it hard to believe that one can go through life spitting out everyone elses opinions and still not have one of their own.

Isn't that what you are trying to do by arguing a point that I am not trying to make? (you have done this several times before) I never mentioned universal heath care yet you used your argument to cover up my point about the bill in congress. And you never responded to what I actually posted. If you do not want to comment on my posts then don't. I am beginning to think you want to censor me because you disagree.

The substitution: "Obamacare"--
is disingenuous...

---

The substitution: "Obamacare"--
is disingenuous...

So is the plan itself. The plan in congress will not make healthcare better or cheaper. It just amounts to wealth distribution.

If you take out all the waste initiated by underinsured or uninsured and you tak them out of the ER and put them in a Drs office to receive care you've astronomically reduced cost. Lets not forget that we are already paying for all the charity cases that end up at the ER now. So instead of paying for these people to get the most expensive visit to a Doctor for the common cold. We'll cut the cost by about 90% by just going to a Drs office. We're not reinventing the wheel. OF course some will still bgo to the ER for non emergency events and they'll have to be told that unless they are dying they need to go to a non Emergency Dr to get treated for their snffles

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

If you take out all the waste initiated by underinsured or uninsured and you tak them out of the ER and put them in a Drs office to receive care you've astronomically reduced cost.

So why aren't they going to the Dr's office now? Could it be the silly rule against Dr's advertising? Could it be that most Dr's are refusing new patients? Could it be there aren't enough Dr's to go around?

Lets not forget that we are already paying for all the charity cases that end up at the ER now.

Ah, these one who can't afford it are the ones who will have to buy it, or at gunpoint pay it on their taxes. I'm beginning to understand.

So instead of paying for these people to get the most expensive visit to a Doctor for the common cold. We'll cut the cost by about 90% by just going to a Drs office.

Except most Dr's are not accepting new patients, at least they weren't when I had to pick one for my employers plan. God what a snafu that is!

We're not reinventing the wheel. OF course some will still bgo to the ER for non emergency events and they'll have to be told that unless they are dying they need to go to a non Emergency Dr to get treated for their snffles

Oh I get it, deny and delay care. Yes that drops costs.

---

If you take out all the waste initiated by underinsured or uninsured and you tak them out of the ER and put them in a Drs office to receive care you've astronomically reduced cost.

So why aren't they going to the Dr's office now? Could it be the silly rule against Dr's advertising? Could it be that most Dr's are refusing new patients? Could it be there aren't enough Dr's to go around?

Lets not forget that we are already paying for all the charity cases that end up at the ER now.

Ah, these one who can't afford it are the ones who will have to buy it, or at gunpoint pay it on their taxes. I'm beginning to understand.

So instead of paying for these people to get the most expensive visit to a Doctor for the common cold. We'll cut the cost by about 90% by just going to a Drs office.

Except most Dr's are not accepting new patients, at least they weren't when I had to pick one for my employers plan. God what a snafu that is!

We're not reinventing the wheel. OF course some will still bgo to the ER for non emergency events and they'll have to be told that unless they are dying they need to go to a non Emergency Dr to get treated for their snffles

Oh I get it, deny and delay care. Yes that drops costs.

1) Drs have a right to refuse to treat a patient without insurance or a particular type of insurance. THe only option for the underinsured is the ER.
2) sarcasm gets you no credit on this topic. Please Note I and you are currently paying for it already. wouldnt hurt if someone put their own dime in
3)Think about this. ER's will be treating Emergencies... They won't need dozens of caregivers. Guess what happens. They are asked to do other work. guess where the need will be? family/general practice. also note, with 1 payer you don't have to worry about your doctor accepting your insurance. Since you'll have the only insurance.
4)Deny and delay? Ever hear of triage. cases deamed non emergencies get referred to primary care providers. Hmmm ever hear of having a primary care provider. There is no deny and delay. the person will be referred back to their own doctor. Please stop reinventing the wheel. You make the health care system seem so difficult to manage. in its current state its a disaster.

Heck What would be much more informative that some hoohah claiming crap about healthcare, would be an actual EUropean or Canadian to chime in. Heck we've already heard from them. without fault theirs is a superior system to ours. I'd like to have a country where a person never files bancruptcy because of overwhleming medical bills. the last I checked every country that has socialized medicince can claim 100% of medical patients have never filed for bancruptcy over medical bills.

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

If you take out all the waste initiated by underinsured or uninsured and you tak them out of the ER and put them in a Drs office to receive care you've astronomically reduced cost.

So why aren't they going to the Dr's office now? Could it be the silly rule against Dr's advertising? Could it be that most Dr's are refusing new patients? Could it be there aren't enough Dr's to go around?

Lets not forget that we are already paying for all the charity cases that end up at the ER now.

Ah, these one who can't afford it are the ones who will have to buy it, or at gunpoint pay it on their taxes. I'm beginning to understand.

So instead of paying for these people to get the most expensive visit to a Doctor for the common cold. We'll cut the cost by about 90% by just going to a Drs office.

Except most Dr's are not accepting new patients, at least they weren't when I had to pick one for my employers plan. God what a snafu that is!

We're not reinventing the wheel. OF course some will still bgo to the ER for non emergency events and they'll have to be told that unless they are dying they need to go to a non Emergency Dr to get treated for their snffles

Oh I get it, deny and delay care. Yes that drops costs.

1) Drs have a right to refuse to treat a patient without insurance or a particular type of insurance. THe only option for the underinsured is the ER.

So "This note is legal tender for all debits public and private" isn't. Perhaps this should be fixed before we do anything else.

2) sarcasm gets you no credit on this topic. Please Note I and you are currently paying for it already. wouldnt hurt if someone put their own dime in

So you think the additional tax revenue from money changing hands and creating income tax is going to be more than the cost of the public subsidy. Somehow with more bureaucrats being hired I suspect it will just cost more.

3)Think about this. ER's will be treating Emergencies... They won't need dozens of caregivers. Guess what happens. They are asked to do other work. guess where the need will be? family/general practice. also note, with 1 payer you don't have to worry about your doctor accepting your insurance. Since you'll have the only insurance.

Wow. Aren't the doctors there already? So now we have to move them into private offices and rent the space and somehow it will cost less. Or did you mean to pay a bunch of doctors to sit around with their thumbs up where the sun don't shine while they wait for the next car crash?

4)Deny and delay? Ever hear of triage. cases deamed non emergencies get referred to primary care providers. Hmmm ever hear of having a primary care provider. There is no deny and delay. the person will be referred back to their own doctor.

So all the wasted time isn't delay. The go elsewhere isn't deny. If you say so.

Please stop reinventing the wheel. You make the health care system seem so difficult to manage. in its current state its a disaster.

What no one is saying is what medical care was like in the USA before insurance. It was available and reasonably priced. It stayed available and reasonably priced until the era of the HMO/PPO. That is what needs to be eliminated to fix health care in the USA.

Heck What would be much more informative that some hoohah claiming crap about healthcare, would be an actual EUropean or Canadian to chime in. Heck we've already heard from them. without fault theirs is a superior system to ours. I'd like to have a country where a person never files bancruptcy because of overwhleming medical bills. the last I checked every country that has socialized medicince can claim 100% of medical patients have never filed for bancruptcy over medical bills.

And why is not going bankrupt over medical costs better? Darwin's laws should be allowed to operate on humans. Can't support yourself and your DNA shouldn't be passed on.

---