Implement Health Care Reform

[Ursa Majoris]

Victimhood is exclusively a liberal state of being.

Completely incorrect.

[untateve]

I'm a victim...a victim of having overwhelmingly deep blue eyes.

[cliaz]

America, hell yeah! Wooo-hoooo, Constitution! Wait, what's that you say? Something about Article VI of the Constitution saying: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

Yeah, that's what I thought.

 

 

Pretty much.

People can hate the health care bill all they want, for very very justified reasons. But I severly doubt that a Constitutional challenge would be upheld, as it is guaranteed to go further than a local Texas judge . .

 

Let us enter this debate in a civilized, mature manor. Not to say either of you would fly off the handle but I would ask that the three of us have a health, intelligent debate on the topic. If you agree (and I hope you do) then continue reading.

 

 

The Constitution of the United States of America allows limited powers to Congress. Of these powers are regulations of commerce and taxes. Commerce, defined as the trade and carriage of merchandise, doesn't not encompass insurance contracts between entities (companies, people, ect). This is why insurance has been regulated by the sovereign states within the United States. However, the Judicial branch has, for a long time, curtailed this line in the sand by extending the definition of 'commerce' and applying it to almost anything they wish.

 

For example, in the 40's the Supreme Court upheld the federal government's rights to regulate the wheat markets in the US. This law was written so loosely that any wheat grown in the US, even by a farmer only growing it for his own family, was bound by the regulatory law set forth for the national wheat market. That farmer is not growing tons of wheat and transporting it across state lines for 'commerce', he is growing it for his family. The Supreme Court ruled that if enough independent farmers or families grew they own wheat, it would, through the sum of all the independent families (a cause and effect), have a substantial economical impact on interstate commerce and therefore within the power of Congress (Filburn vs Wichard). This went on for decades.

 

In the mid 90s, a high school senior in Texas by the name of Alfonzo Lopez brought a concealed gun in to school. He was caught and charged by the state of Texas with firearm possession on public school property. The very next day the charges were dismissed after federal ATF agents charged Alfonzo with violating a federal criminal statute known as the Gun-Free School Zones act. Alfonzo received a guilt verdict and served time in prison.

 

Now, going by Yo Mama's quoting in his post, Alfonzo was justly tried and convicted on a federal law:

 

Article VI of the Constitution saying: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

 

In actuality, what was done was completely unconstitutional. What Alfonzo did was illegal but the federal government, specifically the powers of Congress, cannot supersede the laws set forth by the State of Texas.

 

But why is that? Because the law is a criminal law and has nothing to do about commerce or any type of economic related actions on Alfonzo's part. When brought before the Supreme Court, it ruled against the notion that the federal government had the right to dismiss the charges levied by Texas and impose the federal charges with the same argument that the commerce clause could allow Congress to regulate non-economical actions by leveraging a previous set expectation that through a series of cause and effect events, Alfonzo's action could have impacted interstate commerce (I believe one of the points attempted to be made was if there was a shooting, the highway would be closed next to the school and therefore goodies being shipped overland would be impacted). By the Supreme Court's decision, the overextended powers of Congress were reigned back in a bit.

 

Congress used its power over taxing to implement and fund Medicare and Social Security. People may disagree that Congress has the power, per the Constitution, to force citizens to give up some of their income to fund these programs...but they do because it comes from their income. Congress' power to tax gives the federal government powerful authority over the citizens of this country. But Congress can only levy taxes for regulatory reasons and not to generate revenue. Congress cannot impose a 'penality' (tax) on entities that do not purchase health coverage as this violates the Constitution by generating revenue from those who do not purchase insurance and forcing citizens to purchase health coverage or face a penalty.

 

Additionally, when Congress enacted the health care reform law using, "powers delegated to the United States by the Constitution, then that law is supreme" it was basically saying, "there is nothing you states can do about this." However, in order for the federal government to have absolution over a law, the states must agree to give up the power over that law to the federal government OR that law has not existed in any capacity within one of the states. Remember at the top of my post about states regulating insurance?

 

However, the states can leverage Article V of the Constitution which gives state legislatures the power, if 2/3 of state legislatures agree, to force Congress to convene on an amendment blocking the federal regulation of health care. If that is to happen, Congress must heed the call to convene per the Constitution and, because 2/3s are needed to approve the amendment, it would be passed.

 

Congress neither has the power or the authority to force private citizens to purchase any goods simply because. Our health care is neither productions, consumption or transportation of commodities and the federal government does not have the legal rights to extend a power of regulation over all US citizens simply because it feels like it.

[Jimmy Neutron]

Bravo, Cliaz. Well said.

[Square]

Bravo, Cliaz. Well said.

Cliaz reminds me of Will Ferrel on the movie old school. Where he spends most of the movie chugging beer and yelling stuff. Then when you least expect it, he gives some savant like speech and wows the audience.

 

Seriously though, politicians aren't known for acting within limits of their power (or even their budget) so even if he is technically correct there is a lot of poop that goes on and I wouldn't bet on court appointed by politicians to throw out the healthcare reform.

[cliaz]

Bravo, Cliaz. Well said.

 

 

Cliaz reminds me of Will Ferrel on the movie old school. Where he spends most of the movie chugging beer and yelling stuff. Then when you least expect it, he gives some savant like speech and wows the audience.

 

Seriously though, politicians aren't known for acting within limits of their power (or even their budget) so even if he is technically correct there is a lot of poop that goes on and I wouldn't bet on court appointed by politicians to throw out the healthcare reform.

 

So I can count on your votes in 2012?

Edited December 11, 2010 by cliaz

[yo mama]

Let us enter this debate in a civilized, mature manor. Not to say either of you would fly off the handle but I would ask that the three of us have a health, intelligent debate on the topic. If you agree (and I hope you do) then continue reading.

 

 

The Constitution of the United States of America allows limited powers to Congress. Of these powers are regulations of commerce and taxes. Commerce, defined as the trade and carriage of merchandise, doesn't not encompass insurance contracts between entities (companies, people, ect). This is why insurance has been regulated by the sovereign states within the United States. However, the Judicial branch has, for a long time, curtailed this line in the sand by extending the definition of 'commerce' and applying it to almost anything they wish.

 

For example, in the 40's the Supreme Court upheld the federal government's rights to regulate the wheat markets in the US. This law was written so loosely that any wheat grown in the US, even by a farmer only growing it for his own family, was bound by the regulatory law set forth for the national wheat market. That farmer is not growing tons of wheat and transporting it across state lines for 'commerce', he is growing it for his family. The Supreme Court ruled that if enough independent farmers or families grew they own wheat, it would, through the sum of all the independent families (a cause and effect), have a substantial economical impact on interstate commerce and therefore within the power of Congress (Filburn vs Wichard). This went on for decades.

 

In the mid 90s, a high school senior in Texas by the name of Alfonzo Lopez brought a concealed gun in to school. He was caught and charged by the state of Texas with firearm possession on public school property. The very next day the charges were dismissed after federal ATF agents charged Alfonzo with violating a federal criminal statute known as the Gun-Free School Zones act. Alfonzo received a guilt verdict and served time in prison.

 

Now, going by Yo Mama's quoting in his post, Alfonzo was justly tried and convicted on a federal law:

 

 

 

In actuality, what was done was completely unconstitutional. What Alfonzo did was illegal but the federal government, specifically the powers of Congress, cannot supersede the laws set forth by the State of Texas.

 

But why is that? Because the law is a criminal law and has nothing to do about commerce or any type of economic related actions on Alfonzo's part. When brought before the Supreme Court, it ruled against the notion that the federal government had the right to dismiss the charges levied by Texas and impose the federal charges with the same argument that the commerce clause could allow Congress to regulate non-economical actions by leveraging a previous set expectation that through a series of cause and effect events, Alfonzo's action could have impacted interstate commerce (I believe one of the points attempted to be made was if there was a shooting, the highway would be closed next to the school and therefore goodies being shipped overland would be impacted). By the Supreme Court's decision, the overextended powers of Congress were reigned back in a bit.

 

Congress used its power over taxing to implement and fund Medicare and Social Security. People may disagree that Congress has the power, per the Constitution, to force citizens to give up some of their income to fund these programs...but they do because it comes from their income. Congress' power to tax gives the federal government powerful authority over the citizens of this country. But Congress can only levy taxes for regulatory reasons and not to generate revenue. Congress cannot impose a 'penality' (tax) on entities that do not purchase health coverage as this violates the Constitution by generating revenue from those who do not purchase insurance and forcing citizens to purchase health coverage or face a penalty.

 

Additionally, when Congress enacted the health care reform law using, "powers delegated to the United States by the Constitution, then that law is supreme" it was basically saying, "there is nothing you states can do about this." However, in order for the federal government to have absolution over a law, the states must agree to give up the power over that law to the federal government OR that law has not existed in any capacity within one of the states. Remember at the top of my post about states regulating insurance?

 

However, the states can leverage Article V of the Constitution which gives state legislatures the power, if 2/3 of state legislatures agree, to force Congress to convene on an amendment blocking the federal regulation of health care. If that is to happen, Congress must heed the call to convene per the Constitution and, because 2/3s are needed to approve the amendment, it would be passed.

 

Congress neither has the power or the authority to force private citizens to purchase any goods simply because. Our health care is neither productions, consumption or transportation of commodities and the federal government does not have the legal rights to extend a power of regulation over all US citizens simply because it feels like it.

Cliaz: are you referring the US Supreme Court's decision in Lopez?

[Perchoutofwater]

Berman is my representative. I've known him for quite a while, as I used to date his niece in high school. She was actually at my house today because her and my wife are co-chairing an upcoming charity event. Anyway, Leo is a little crazy,or rather lacks pretty much any filter between his brain and his mouth which has gotten him into a few controversies in the past. Most people around here like him as while he may be a little rough, you always know which side of an issue he stands on. He is vehemently against illegal immigration, and is a strong proponent of states rights. I'll be the first to admit that I don't know if he's doing the right thing here or not. I agree with the sentiment, but I question if it is going to stand if passed. Of course we all said the same thing about Obamacare too. If this gets more momentum behind repealing Obamacare or puts additional pressure on the judicial branch to do the right thing regarding Obamacare then it is a good thing I guess.

[bpwallace49]

Let us enter this debate in a civilized, mature manor. Not to say either of you would fly off the handle but I would ask that the three of us have a health, intelligent debate on the topic. If you agree (and I hope you do) then continue reading.

 

 

The Constitution of the United States of America allows limited powers to Congress. Of these powers are regulations of commerce and taxes. Commerce, defined as the trade and carriage of merchandise, doesn't not encompass insurance contracts between entities (companies, people, ect). This is why insurance has been regulated by the sovereign states within the United States. However, the Judicial branch has, for a long time, curtailed this line in the sand by extending the definition of 'commerce' and applying it to almost anything they wish.

 

For example, in the 40's the Supreme Court upheld the federal government's rights to regulate the wheat markets in the US. This law was written so loosely that any wheat grown in the US, even by a farmer only growing it for his own family, was bound by the regulatory law set forth for the national wheat market. That farmer is not growing tons of wheat and transporting it across state lines for 'commerce', he is growing it for his family. The Supreme Court ruled that if enough independent farmers or families grew they own wheat, it would, through the sum of all the independent families (a cause and effect), have a substantial economical impact on interstate commerce and therefore within the power of Congress (Filburn vs Wichard). This went on for decades.

 

In the mid 90s, a high school senior in Texas by the name of Alfonzo Lopez brought a concealed gun in to school. He was caught and charged by the state of Texas with firearm possession on public school property. The very next day the charges were dismissed after federal ATF agents charged Alfonzo with violating a federal criminal statute known as the Gun-Free School Zones act. Alfonzo received a guilt verdict and served time in prison.

 

Now, going by Yo Mama's quoting in his post, Alfonzo was justly tried and convicted on a federal law:

 

 

 

In actuality, what was done was completely unconstitutional. What Alfonzo did was illegal but the federal government, specifically the powers of Congress, cannot supersede the laws set forth by the State of Texas.

 

But why is that? Because the law is a criminal law and has nothing to do about commerce or any type of economic related actions on Alfonzo's part. When brought before the Supreme Court, it ruled against the notion that the federal government had the right to dismiss the charges levied by Texas and impose the federal charges with the same argument that the commerce clause could allow Congress to regulate non-economical actions by leveraging a previous set expectation that through a series of cause and effect events, Alfonzo's action could have impacted interstate commerce (I believe one of the points attempted to be made was if there was a shooting, the highway would be closed next to the school and therefore goodies being shipped overland would be impacted). By the Supreme Court's decision, the overextended powers of Congress were reigned back in a bit.

 

Congress used its power over taxing to implement and fund Medicare and Social Security. People may disagree that Congress has the power, per the Constitution, to force citizens to give up some of their income to fund these programs...but they do because it comes from their income. Congress' power to tax gives the federal government powerful authority over the citizens of this country. But Congress can only levy taxes for regulatory reasons and not to generate revenue. Congress cannot impose a 'penality' (tax) on entities that do not purchase health coverage as this violates the Constitution by generating revenue from those who do not purchase insurance and forcing citizens to purchase health coverage or face a penalty.

 

Additionally, when Congress enacted the health care reform law using, "powers delegated to the United States by the Constitution, then that law is supreme" it was basically saying, "there is nothing you states can do about this." However, in order for the federal government to have absolution over a law, the states must agree to give up the power over that law to the federal government OR that law has not existed in any capacity within one of the states. Remember at the top of my post about states regulating insurance?

 

However, the states can leverage Article V of the Constitution which gives state legislatures the power, if 2/3 of state legislatures agree, to force Congress to convene on an amendment blocking the federal regulation of health care. If that is to happen, Congress must heed the call to convene per the Constitution and, because 2/3s are needed to approve the amendment, it would be passed.

 

Congress neither has the power or the authority to force private citizens to purchase any goods simply because. Our health care is neither productions, consumption or transportation of commodities and the federal government does not have the legal rights to extend a power of regulation over all US citizens simply because it feels like it.

 

 

Cliaz, my point is that if anyone thinks that the legislation would be easily overturned, then it wouldnt have passed muster in the first place. Especially with a professor of constitutional law as the President. There are many examples of how the Constitution has been "interpreted" to mean whatever the hell the fedgov wants it to . . . . the commerce clause comes to mind . . .

 

It all comes down to picking the right judge to hear the case, and if/when it gets appealed all the way up the line, then the supremes would ahve the final say . . which would take years upon years with delays and continuances . . . . so it get to the point that it is impossible to unring that bell and it is fully integrated into US society . . . For better or worse

[bushwacked]

Cliaz: are you referring the US Supreme Court's decision in Lopez?

 

 

While many of us have appreciated Cliaz's rationale, I sense a trap of facts and a better understanding of law and court decisions.

[cre8tiff]

I'm a victim...a victim of having overwhelmingly deep blue eyes.

 

You had me at victim, McDreamy.

[cliaz]

Cliaz: are you referring the US Supreme Court's decision in Lopez?

 

Not sure, I just remember the case from a Government class I took a couple of semesters ago.

[cliaz]

Cliaz, my point is that if anyone thinks that the legislation would be easily overturned, then it wouldnt have passed muster in the first place. Especially with a professor of constitutional law as the President. There are many examples of how the Constitution has been "interpreted" to mean whatever the hell the fedgov wants it to . . . . the commerce clause comes to mind . . .

 

It all comes down to picking the right judge to hear the case, and if/when it gets appealed all the way up the line, then the supremes would ahve the final say . . which would take years upon years with delays and continuances . . . . so it get to the point that it is impossible to unring that bell and it is fully integrated into US society . . . For better or worse

 

 

Ahh, gotcha. I see where you are coming from now. That's my biggest grip about our federal government. It has, over the decades, increased it's reach where it isn't legally allowed to do so. Our federal government is suppose to be a weaker, central government that regulates interstate commerce, taxes, and can put together a military for defense. In modern times it is this bloated micro manager of our daily lives and infringes on citizens rights to privacy and civil rights. If this is the way our government is suppose to evolve, then the Constitution needs to be changed or a completely new one drafted.

[evil_gop_liars]

In modern times it is this bloated micro manager of our daily lives

 

535 people feel the need to keep themselves busy...

[yo mama]

Not sure, I just remember the case from a Government class I took a couple of semesters ago.

I think Lopez is what you're thinking of. The guy involved was named Alfonso, and the case was decided in 1995. In any event, the case involved a federal statute that prohibited having a gun near a school. The Court ruled the Commerce Clause was an insufficient basis for the statute because there was no nexus between guns near schools and the interstate commerce of the gun industry. That case is readily distinguishable from our health care debate because:

- the supremacy clause was not at issue in Lopez;

- Congresses' taxing power was not at issue in Lopez; and

- the issue of national health care is a far more significant nexus to interstate commerce than whether or not it is legal to posses a firearm near a school.

 

It is also worth mentioning that Lopez is basically the only Supreme Court decision to really ever invalidate a federal statute based on the fact that the nexus to interstate commerce was too remote. Simply stated, Lopez is the exception, not the rule.

 

I certainly appreciate that fact that you're bringing actual authority to this discussion, rather than hyperbolic opinion. But I just don't see Lopez as a basis for states to ignore federal statutes they don't like. Will Obamacare survive constitutional challenge? I don't know. Maybe not. But until then states cannot pass laws that contradict, ignore, or conflict with it.

[westvirginia]

Ten other states' lawmakers have proposed similar legislation and 13 states have joined Texas in filing a lawsuit against the federal health care law on the basis that the law is unconstitutional.

 

Yeah, it's only the looney fringe in TX. You damned statists just can't understand this, but there are some things you have NO RIGHT to mess with no matter how many particular arseholes vote for it.

 

When is Texas going to secede again?

 

The looney fringe.

[westvirginia]

This is where I tend to come down to - it won't be repealed out of inertia more than anything else. However, you have forgotten about McCain-Feingold and the Line-Item Veto, both in the last 12 or so years if memory serves. So perhaps all is not lost, if enough people bow their necks about it.

 

And cliaz, spectacular my friend. VERY well thought out. People being what they are though, Yo-yo-ma is probably right. There was CLEARLY a right of privacy intended in fedgov formulation from reading both federalist and anti-federalist papers. Today's fedgov ignores it for whatever whim. That's just one example. Guns, taxes, take your pick. "The people" today don't want freedom much.

 

Cliaz, my point is that if anyone thinks that the legislation would be easily overturned, then it wouldnt have passed muster in the first place. Especially with a professor of constitutional law as the President. There are many examples of how the Constitution has been "interpreted" to mean whatever the hell the fedgov wants it to . . . . the commerce clause comes to mind . . .

 

It all comes down to picking the right judge to hear the case, and if/when it gets appealed all the way up the line, then the supremes would ahve the final say . . which would take years upon years with delays and continuances . . . . so it get to the point that it is impossible to unring that bell and it is fully integrated into US society . . . For better or worse

[yo mama]

Yeah, it's only the looney fringe in TX. You damned statists just can't understand this, but there are some things you have NO RIGHT to mess with no matter how many particular arseholes vote for it.

There are two issues in play: (1) whether the statute is constitutional (which states may challenge); and (2) the states' inability to pass contradictory laws in the mean time. I was only speaking to the latter. But it is not uncommon for people to blur the distinction between the two, especially when they feel very strongly about what the end-result should be.

 

As to whether Obamacare is unconstitutional or not, I don't know. I hope it is defeated (your assumption to the contrary notwithstanding). But Congress' power to tax is very broad, and extends to things that are beyond what it is authorized to regulate directly under the Commerce Clause. This is another reason Lopez isn't exactly on point, as Lopez was decided solely with regard to Congress' Commerce Clause powers.

Edited December 13, 2010 by yo mama

[bushwacked]

Yeah, it's only the looney fringe in TX. You damned statists just can't understand this, but there are some things you have NO RIGHT to mess with no matter how many particular arseholes vote for it.

 

Anyone who doesn't believe in your view of extreme Randism is a "statist": to you. Case in point, you apparently have no issues with a renegade Texas lawmaker proposing a bill to arrest people for following a federal mandate but prattle on about HC reform like it's the end of freedom and liberty. Yer hillbilly view of democracy isn't as spot on as you think it is.

[cliaz]

I think Lopez is what you're thinking of. The guy involved was named Alfonso, and the case was decided in 1995. In any event, the case involved a federal statute that prohibited having a gun near a school. The Court ruled the Commerce Clause was an insufficient basis for the statute because there was no nexus between guns near schools and the interstate commerce of the gun industry. That case is readily distinguishable from our health care debate because:

- the supremacy clause was not at issue in Lopez;

- Congresses' taxing power was not at issue in Lopez; and

- the issue of national health care is a far more significant nexus to interstate commerce than whether or not it is legal to posses a firearm near a school.

 

It is also worth mentioning that Lopez is basically the only Supreme Court decision to really ever invalidate a federal statute based on the fact that the nexus to interstate commerce was too remote. Simply stated, Lopez is the exception, not the rule.

 

I certainly appreciate that fact that you're bringing actual authority to this discussion, rather than hyperbolic opinion. But I just don't see Lopez as a basis for states to ignore federal statutes they don't like. Will Obamacare survive constitutional challenge? I don't know. Maybe not. But until then states cannot pass laws that contradict, ignore, or conflict with it.

 

 

There are two issues in play: (1) whether the statute is constitutional (which states may challenge); and (2) the states' inability to pass contradictory laws in the mean time. I was only speaking to the latter. But it is not uncommon for people to blur the distinction between the two, especially when they feel very strongly about what the end-result should be.

 

As to whether Obamacare is unconstitutional or not, I don't know. I hope it is defeated (your assumption to the contrary notwithstanding). But Congress' power to tax is very broad, and extends to things that are beyond what it is authorized to regulate directly under the Commerce Clause. This is another reason Lopez isn't exactly on point, as Lopez was decided solely with regard to Congress' Commerce Clause powers.

 

Excellent rebuttal! Once I'm done with work for the day I shall begin mine. Thank you for engaging this in the manor you did, it's much appreciated

[westvirginia]

I'm saying it's plain as day that it's against the rights of man as elucidated by Locke/Jefferson/et.al, bushwhacker's ad homeniem attacks to the contrary. You PLAINLY cannot force some people to do some things (or NOT do some things) in a society and call yourself free. Period.

 

There are two issues in play: (1) whether the statute is constitutional (which states may challenge); and (2) the states' inability to pass contradictory laws in the mean time. I was only speaking to the latter. But it is not uncommon for people to blur the distinction between the two, especially when they feel very strongly about what the end-result should be.

 

As to whether Obamacare is unconstitutional or not, I don't know. I hope it is defeated (your assumption to the contrary notwithstanding). But Congress' power to tax is very broad, and extends to things that are beyond what it is authorized to regulate directly under the Commerce Clause. This is another reason Lopez isn't exactly on point, as Lopez was decided solely with regard to Congress' Commerce Clause powers.

[yo mama]

I'm saying it's plain as day that it's against the rights of man as elucidated by Locke/Jefferson/et.al, bushwhacker's ad homeniem attacks to the contrary. You PLAINLY cannot force some people to do some things (or NOT do some things) in a society and call yourself free. Period.

We do not have absolute freedom. Never have, never will. We merely have certain inalienable rights, some of which the government is explicitly forbidden from monkeying with.

[Square]

I'm saying it's plain as day that it's against the rights of man as elucidated by Locke/Jefferson/et.al, bushwhacker's ad homeniem attacks to the contrary. You PLAINLY cannot force some people to do some things (or NOT do some things) in a society and call yourself free. Period.

Isn't the US ranked something like 15th - 20th in the actual "freedom rankings". Can't remember where I saw them from, but it was something like that. We're not really THAT free of a country. It's been like that for awhile and seems to be trending downward.

 

I'm kind of ticked at you for not showing up in my TSA airport thread. I figured if anybody would be mad about government forced searches that really aren't making us any safer, it'd been WV. But maybe my estimate of your position on that issue was off.

 

Back to healthcare, like many I'm not in love with what passed but I'm also not thrilled with the same healthcare system we've had. 50-60% of bankruptcies are caused by medical bills and the current system costs more than any other country (and continues to get more expensive every year) while providing mediocre results in many measurable categories. So I'm stuck with government overhaul would suck, but the current system isn't going to change itself so maybe the government has to force some kind of change.

[westvirginia]

Sorry dude, didn't see it. Been going through hell to get off a special, non-addicting pain med that costs $1200/mo without insurance and looking for a job when not then laying in my traction table. I'm just feeling good enough to be around people lately. FWIW, My car/fly dollar vs time formula is now WAY skewed in favor of the car. Unless gas goes back to $4 gal, then I'll just sit at home and exchange bowel movement pictures with Cliaz.

 

Isn't the US ranked something like 15th - 20th in the actual "freedom rankings". Can't remember where I saw them from, but it was something like that. We're not really THAT free of a country. It's been like that for awhile and seems to be trending downward.

 

I'm kind of ticked at you for not showing up in my TSA airport thread. I figured if anybody would be mad about government forced searches that really aren't making us any safer, it'd been WV. But maybe my estimate of your position on that issue was off.

 

Back to healthcare, like many I'm not in love with what passed but I'm also not thrilled with the same healthcare system we've had. 50-60% of bankruptcies are caused by medical bills and the current system costs more than any other country (and continues to get more expensive every year) while providing mediocre results in many measurable categories. So I'm stuck with government overhaul would suck, but the current system isn't going to change itself so maybe the government has to force some kind of change.

[westvirginia]

Absolute? I'm talking total freedom from coercion, and yes, we did until the Whiskey rebellion was put down by ole' General George. Those ARE the unalienable rights of man.

 

And square, I do remember seeing something about a freedom report like this?

We do not have absolute freedom. Never have, never will. We merely have certain inalienable rights, some of which the government is explicitly forbidden from monkeying with.