You and what legal army?

[wwww]

So in all this health care debate, I've not heard even once the question about whether Congress has the power to cause people to purchase insurance. I don't know where this is, other than what I consider a ludicrous interpretation of the Commerce Clause. "Regulation of commerce" must mean, I would have to say, commerce that actually exists, not

Comments

[wiseacre]

The Oath also forbids euthenasia and abortion, two practices that are legal in at least some of the USA. Physicians are also supposed to provide financially for their teachers throughout their lives. Furthermore, there is no provision requiring that care be given. You might like to read it before trying to use it as support for your argument.

I don't know much about the consitutional machinations of health insurance revision in the USA, you may be right on that. It's irrelevant, though, since the whole thing will collapse under Obama's ineptitude.

[wwww]

Thanks for that link.

I have my suspicion that the Obama administration already suspects this, and is willing to run roughshod over the issue, not caring particularly whether this causes a permanent change and, alternately, perfectly willing to sandbag the insurance industry if it doesn't. It's foul play, and it's going to bite them back somehow.

[ex_salvarsa]

In truth, the insurance industries need some aggressive sandbagging, not that Obama&co. is up to it. I don't see the bill passing the Senate without going through a meat grinder first.

In the case of an opt-out, I believe the current bill allows the gubmint to assess a 2.5% tax on gross income. Penalties for non-payment would be treated as tax evasion with hardship allowances only for people well below the poverty line.

It's clearly not socialism, where you may eventually get something for your money, but simple confiscation.

Before we kill all the lawyers, we really ought to do something about all those pesky investment bankers, followed by the insurance cabal.

[wwww]

Since I wrote the original post, this argument has become central to a number of actual legal challenges to the plan, not that I had anything to do with it. The core of these arguments is a lack of power to regulate in the manner Congress did, whether or not it was a good idea. The analogy about building safety can at best give a good reason to act, not the power to act

Hi

[alljustforone]

I agree with you. I for one think health care and education should be free to all, even if not all to the same standard. But it shouldn't be poor standard for some and high standard for others who would prefer to pay. It should be good standard and high standard for everyone, as every person is entitled, by right of birth and existence, to health of mind and body and spirit. As regards the mind -- education, as regards the body -- health care -- and as regards the spirit -- the Word of God, or the Bible, is freely available. More than that, God offers salvation in Jesus, the gift of God which is eternal life, freely to all