(02-16-2012 01:04 PM)HuskieFan84 Wrote:  So say you get mugged and / or stabbed or shot, injured to the point you're near death and can't communicate your wishes in regards to health care. Your wallet and any id proving you have health insurance is gone. You probably look like crap, considering you just got the **** kicked out of you or worse, so they have no real reason to assume you can ever pay the exorbitant hospital fees coming your way.

You want them to just leave you and deny you care? That's essentially what I'm hearing, but I just want to make sure we're on the same page.

No, I'm saying I don't believe the government should compel them to treat someone if it then gives governement the ability to get in further into my life, per Max's argument.

What the government should compel, versus what I believe someone should do are two different things.

For example, you are very strongly against drug laws. That is not the same as saying you are pro-drug use. You are simply saying that government shouldn't compel people to not buy drugs. You aren't saying I should use.

I'm also not saying that I think hospitals should necessarily not treat people. I think it is terrible that a hospital being compelled to treat someone suddenly then creates interstate commerce.

Government creates the problem that the left wants to solve by more governmental involvement in our lives.

Redwingtom Wrote:And if they treat you and you don't have insurance, where do you think their cost goes? To everyone else through higher procedures which result in higher insurance rates!

And, when they treat you under your taxpayer subsidized, or entirely paid for, insurance, where do you think that cost goes? Back to me anyway.

Insurance doesn't create more funds, regardless of how much liberals wish it did.

(02-16-2012 01:04 PM)HuskieFan84 Wrote:  So say you get mugged and / or stabbed or shot, injured to the point you're near death and can't communicate your wishes in regards to health care. Your wallet and any id proving you have health insurance is gone. You probably look like crap, considering you just got the **** kicked out of you or worse, so they have no real reason to assume you can ever pay the exorbitant hospital fees coming your way.

You want them to just leave you and deny you care? That's essentially what I'm hearing, but I just want to make sure we're on the same page.

THats the Republican way-just let 'em die.

IMO, desiring immediate medical attention is different than demanding your student loans to be forgiven, lifetime welfare beneifts, a $20 minimum wage, or dozens of other leftwing talking points. If you have a stroke or are shot, an ambulance needs to scoop you up and you need urgent care. Even if that person has $0 to his name, you cannot let him perish. You just can't. And someone will need to pick up the bill. I do understand liberals' concerns about the US health system; it's not like we have a picture perfect system.

On the other end of the scale, in those countries with nationalized health care you run into the obvious trouble points: waste and abuse (common in "free" public services), added levels of inefficient bureaucracy, "wait times" for even simple procedures are lengthened from weeks to months, rationing, etc.

And then you have Michael Moore and others glowing about Cuba, not aware (or aware, but misinforming) that only the connected party apparachiks, tourists, and foreign dignitaries get the top-notch medicine and resort looking hospitals, while most of the rest of Cuba gets third-world care and the dirtiest, dilapidated hospitals known to man.

So what's the best system?

(02-16-2012 01:53 PM)Motown Bronco Wrote:  IMO, desiring immediate medical attention is different than demanding your student loans to be forgiven, lifetime welfare beneifts, a $20 minimum wage, or dozens of other leftwing talking points. If you have a stroke or are shot, an ambulance needs to scoop you up and you need urgent care. Even if that person has $0 to his name, you cannot let him perish. You just can't. And someone will need to pick up the bill. I do understand liberals' concerns about the US health system; it's not like we have a picture perfect system.

On the other end of the scale, in those countries with nationalized health care you run into the obvious trouble points: waste and abuse (common in "free" public services), added levels of inefficient bureaucracy, "wait times" for even simple procedures are lengthened from weeks to months, rationing, etc.

And then you have Michael Moore and others glowing about Cuba, not aware (or aware, but misinforming) that only the connected party apparachiks, tourists, and foreign dignitaries get the top-notch medicine and resort looking hospitals, while most of the rest of Cuba gets third-world care and the dirtiest, dilapidated hospitals known to man.

So what's the best system?

Just out of curiosity, where have you seen anyone demand a $20 minimum wage?

Scroll down to Post #1, Demand 1: http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/wate...-manifest/

(02-16-2012 02:02 PM)Motown Bronco Wrote:  Scroll down to Post #1, Demand 1: http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/wate...-manifest/

I was just curious. I think it should be $10 but $20 is a bit overkill. One can live decently at that wage(as a single with no kids). It believe it would decrease the number of people on welfare and other government programs.

(02-16-2012 01:14 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  

(02-16-2012 01:04 PM)HuskieFan84 Wrote:  So say you get mugged and / or stabbed or shot, injured to the point you're near death and can't communicate your wishes in regards to health care. Your wallet and any id proving you have health insurance is gone. You probably look like crap, considering you just got the **** kicked out of you or worse, so they have no real reason to assume you can ever pay the exorbitant hospital fees coming your way.

You want them to just leave you and deny you care? That's essentially what I'm hearing, but I just want to make sure we're on the same page.

No, I'm saying I don't believe the government should compel them to treat someone if it then gives governement the ability to get in further into my life, per Max's argument.

What the government should compel, versus what I believe someone should do are two different things.

For example, you are very strongly against drug laws. That is not the same as saying you are pro-drug use. You are simply saying that government shouldn't compel people to not buy drugs. You aren't saying I should use.

I'm also not saying that I think hospitals should necessarily not treat people. I think it is terrible that a hospital being compelled to treat someone suddenly then creates interstate commerce.

Government creates the problem that the left wants to solve by more governmental involvement in our lives.

That example makes no sense.. I'm against the drug war because it wastes billions of dollars to make our country a more dangerous place to live, and has been proven time & time again to be counter productive.

I haven't seen any studies that show providing emergency care is creating a black market that leads to the horrendous consequences of the war on drugs.

To your last point, there's seriously not a more glaring example of the government creating a problem than the war on drugs. Talk about hypocrisy, FFS.

(02-16-2012 01:02 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  

Max Power Wrote:  I would agree, unless I'm missing something. If we repealed the law forcing hospitals to treat you, that might solve the problem. But that repeal wouldn't last long because people would be dying from treatable illnesses because hospitals would search their wallet and say "Whoops, no insurance card." Or they'd run your credit card and say "Whoops, declined." Which sounds a lot worse than forcing people to buy insurance.

I love this. Libs, starting with FDR, bend like Gumby to whore the commerce clause to cover everything and anything, which clearly was not original intent.

And, I am still puzzled why you are so willing to willing give your liberty and self-determination away to a nanny state. It is really sad, actually, that you feel you need someone to take care of you.

Health care isn't a right. In order to provide health care, time/resources must be taken from someone else.

I believe we, as a society, me as a Catholic, should endeavor to make sure my fellow man receives help when he needs it. I do not believe government should try to do everything, as it can't, and when it tries, it fails miserably.

Then you disagree with your Pope?

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2010/1...ealthcare/

Quote:At an international papal conference on health care yesterday at the Vatican, Pope Benedict XVI and other Catholic church leaders said it is the “moral responsibility of nations to guarantee access to health care for all of their citizens, regardless of social and economic status or their ability to pay.” Saying access to adequate medical care is one of the “inalienable rights” of man, the pope said, “Justice in health care should be a priority of governments and international institutions”:

The pope lamented the great inequalities in health care around the globe. While people in many parts of the world aren’t able to receive essential medications or even the most basic care, in industrialized countries there is a risk of “pharmacological, medical and surgical consumerism” that leads to “a cult of the body,” the pope said.

“The care of man, his transcendent dignity and his inalienable rights” are issues that should concern Christians, the pope said.

Because an individual’s health is a “precious asset” to society as well as to himself, governments and other agencies should seek to protect it by “dedicating the equipment, resources and energy so that the greatest number of people can have access.”

In a separate statement, Vatican Secretary of State Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, said, “Justice requires guaranteed universal access to health care,” adding that minimal levels of medical care are “a fundamental human right.” “Governments are obligated, therefore, to adopt the proper legislative, administrative and financial measures to provide such care,” the cardinal explained, saying that, “The governments of richer nations with good health care available should practice more solidarity with their own disadvantaged citizens.”

I think I agree with your pope more than you do!

As for "original intent," the "original intent" of the framers of the Bill of Rights was that it only applies to white, property owning males. They lived in a much different time when medicine involved leaches and magic amulets, and 90% of the country lived on family farms and rarely if ever left their own county, let alone state. The Second Amendment wasn't envisioned to have limits, but at the same time they could have never fathomed nuclear weapons. The principles in the Constitution necessarily adapt to the times. Following the "original intent" traps us in the 18th century.

(02-16-2012 01:16 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  

Redwingtom Wrote:And if they treat you and you don't have insurance, where do you think their cost goes? To everyone else through higher procedures which result in higher insurance rates!

And, when they treat you under your taxpayer subsidized, or entirely paid for, insurance, where do you think that cost goes? Back to me anyway.

Insurance doesn't create more funds, regardless of how much liberals wish it did.

But at least when you have insurance you're paying into the pot via premiums and co pays.

HuskieFan84 Wrote:That example makes no sense.. I'm against the drug war because it wastes billions of dollars to make our country a more dangerous place to live, and has been proven time & time again to be counter productive.

I haven't seen any studies that show providing emergency care is creating a black market that leads to the horrendous consequences of the war on drugs.

To your last point, there's seriously not a more glaring example of the government creating a problem than the war on drugs. Talk about hypocrisy, FFS.

No, it is exactly the same. Your argument is that the government's involvement, the war on drugs, makes the situation worse than it would be if they were not involved.

Clearly, if the argument is made that the federal government mandating hospitals provide emergency care also allows government into my private life, then yes, the cure is worse than the sickness. I'm not willing to surrender my liberty.

And, where did I say I was necessarily for the war on drugs?

You are so cute when you talk hip, FFS.

(02-16-2012 02:52 PM)Max Power Wrote:  

(02-16-2012 01:02 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  

Max Power Wrote:  I would agree, unless I'm missing something. If we repealed the law forcing hospitals to treat you, that might solve the problem. But that repeal wouldn't last long because people would be dying from treatable illnesses because hospitals would search their wallet and say "Whoops, no insurance card." Or they'd run your credit card and say "Whoops, declined." Which sounds a lot worse than forcing people to buy insurance.

I love this. Libs, starting with FDR, bend like Gumby to whore the commerce clause to cover everything and anything, which clearly was not original intent.

And, I am still puzzled why you are so willing to willing give your liberty and self-determination away to a nanny state. It is really sad, actually, that you feel you need someone to take care of you.

Health care isn't a right. In order to provide health care, time/resources must be taken from someone else.

I believe we, as a society, me as a Catholic, should endeavor to make sure my fellow man receives help when he needs it. I do not believe government should try to do everything, as it can't, and when it tries, it fails miserably.

Then you disagree with your Pope?

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2010/1...ealthcare/

Quote:At an international papal conference on health care yesterday at the Vatican, Pope Benedict XVI and other Catholic church leaders said it is the “moral responsibility of nations to guarantee access to health care for all of their citizens, regardless of social and economic status or their ability to pay.” Saying access to adequate medical care is one of the “inalienable rights” of man, the pope said, “Justice in health care should be a priority of governments and international institutions”:

The pope lamented the great inequalities in health care around the globe. While people in many parts of the world aren’t able to receive essential medications or even the most basic care, in industrialized countries there is a risk of “pharmacological, medical and surgical consumerism” that leads to “a cult of the body,” the pope said.

“The care of man, his transcendent dignity and his inalienable rights” are issues that should concern Christians, the pope said.

Because an individual’s health is a “precious asset” to society as well as to himself, governments and other agencies should seek to protect it by “dedicating the equipment, resources and energy so that the greatest number of people can have access.”

In a separate statement, Vatican Secretary of State Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, said, “Justice requires guaranteed universal access to health care,” adding that minimal levels of medical care are “a fundamental human right.” “Governments are obligated, therefore, to adopt the proper legislative, administrative and financial measures to provide such care,” the cardinal explained, saying that, “The governments of richer nations with good health care available should practice more solidarity with their own disadvantaged citizens.”

As for "original intent," the "original intent" of the framers of the Bill of Rights was that it only applies to white, property owning males. They lived in a much different time when medicine involved leaches and magic amulets, and 90% of the country lived on family farms and rarely if ever left their own county, let alone state. The Second Amendment wasn't envisioned to have limits, but at the same time they could have never fathomed nuclear weapons. The principles in the Constitution necessarily adapt to the times. Following the "original intent" traps us in the 18th century.

A.) Yes. I disagree with the Pope. Healthcare is not a right.

B.) Where was "original intent" mentioned? I honestly might have missed it.

C.) Speaking of Original Intent. Do you believe the architects of the Commerce Clause had Obamacare in mind when they wrote it? I doubt it.

(02-16-2012 02:55 PM)Max Power Wrote:  

(02-16-2012 01:16 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  

Redwingtom Wrote:And if they treat you and you don't have insurance, where do you think their cost goes? To everyone else through higher procedures which result in higher insurance rates!

And, when they treat you under your taxpayer subsidized, or entirely paid for, insurance, where do you think that cost goes? Back to me anyway.

Insurance doesn't create more funds, regardless of how much liberals wish it did.

But at least when you have insurance you're paying into the pot via premiums and co pays.

Reread my post. "Who" is paying? For the "poor," I pay for their health care through higher premiums, or I pay for their healthcare through higher taxes, subsidizing their premiums. And, before you go down that road, there is not evidence that preventative care actually saves money. Does quality preventative health care improve one's life? Would seem to. Does it lower cost? Nope, not one iota.

Max Power Wrote:I think I agree with your pope more than you do!

As for "original intent," the "original intent" of the framers of the Bill of Rights was that it only applies to white, property owning males. They lived in a much different time when medicine involved leaches and magic amulets, and 90% of the country lived on family farms and rarely if ever left their own county, let alone state. The Second Amendment wasn't envisioned to have limits, but at the same time they could have never fathomed nuclear weapons. The principles in the Constitution necessarily adapt to the times. Following the "original intent" traps us in the 18th century.

Please do not speak for me and call anyone my pope.

Correct, I do disagree with him.

Besides, I do not believe that government taking over the healthcare system is helps my fellow man in any fashion. It isn't merciful, it isn't charitable, and it isn't helpful. In fact, it will only make life worse for everyone.

A right is something fundamental, granted to us by our Creator. Healthcare clearly does not fit that description.

Original intent gives us consistency, so that the Constitution does not become a flavor of the month document, like you wish it to be.

The intent of the Founders in regulated interstate commerce was to prevent tariffs and the such between the states, not for the federal government to become all knowing and overreaching. You cannot logically, fairly and honestly extend regulating interstate commerce to covering healthcare.

(02-16-2012 03:01 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  

(02-16-2012 02:55 PM)Max Power Wrote:  

(02-16-2012 01:16 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  

Redwingtom Wrote:And if they treat you and you don't have insurance, where do you think their cost goes? To everyone else through higher procedures which result in higher insurance rates!

And, when they treat you under your taxpayer subsidized, or entirely paid for, insurance, where do you think that cost goes? Back to me anyway.

Insurance doesn't create more funds, regardless of how much liberals wish it did.

But at least when you have insurance you're paying into the pot via premiums and co pays.

Reread my post. "Who" is paying? For the "poor," I pay for their health care through higher premiums, or I pay for their healthcare through higher taxes, subsidizing their premiums. And, before you go down that road, there is not evidence that preventative care actually saves money. Does quality preventative health care improve one's life? Would seem to. Does it lower cost? Nope, not one iota.

I thought we were talking about the mandate. The mandate in practice will only apply to people >133% of the poverty level, because everyone below that line will have Medicaid (as expanded under Obamacare), so they don't need to buy anything. The mandate is in place so middle class people who can afford health insurance do buy it, and pay into the insurance pot instead of spending it on plasma TVs or whatever. If you're barely above the Medicaid line, you get your premium mostly subsidized, and so on on a sliding scale. It insures (!) that the people who can pay do.

(02-16-2012 03:05 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  

Max Power Wrote:I think I agree with your pope more than you do!

As for "original intent," the "original intent" of the framers of the Bill of Rights was that it only applies to white, property owning males. They lived in a much different time when medicine involved leaches and magic amulets, and 90% of the country lived on family farms and rarely if ever left their own county, let alone state. The Second Amendment wasn't envisioned to have limits, but at the same time they could have never fathomed nuclear weapons. The principles in the Constitution necessarily adapt to the times. Following the "original intent" traps us in the 18th century.

Please do not speak for me and call anyone my pope.

Correct, I do disagree with him.

A right is something fundamental, granted to us by our Creator. Healthcare clearly does not fit that description.

Original intent gives us consistency, so that the Constitution does not become a flavor of the month document, like you wish it to be.

The intent of the Founders in regulated interstate commerce was to prevent tariffs and the such between the states, not for the federal government to become all knowing and overreaching. You cannot logically, fairly and honestly extend regulating interstate commerce to covering healthcare.

That won't stop him from trying. Max is the poster boy for liberalism/socialism.

(02-16-2012 03:07 PM)Max Power Wrote:  

(02-16-2012 03:01 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  

(02-16-2012 02:55 PM)Max Power Wrote:  

(02-16-2012 01:16 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  

Redwingtom Wrote:And if they treat you and you don't have insurance, where do you think their cost goes? To everyone else through higher procedures which result in higher insurance rates!

And, when they treat you under your taxpayer subsidized, or entirely paid for, insurance, where do you think that cost goes? Back to me anyway.

Insurance doesn't create more funds, regardless of how much liberals wish it did.

But at least when you have insurance you're paying into the pot via premiums and co pays.

Reread my post. "Who" is paying? For the "poor," I pay for their health care through higher premiums, or I pay for their healthcare through higher taxes, subsidizing their premiums. And, before you go down that road, there is not evidence that preventative care actually saves money. Does quality preventative health care improve one's life? Would seem to. Does it lower cost? Nope, not one iota.

I thought we were talking about the mandate. The mandate in practice will only apply to people >133% of the poverty level, because everyone below that line will have Medicaid (as expanded under Obamacare), so they don't need to buy anything. The mandate is in place so middle class people who can afford health insurance do buy it, and pay into the insurance pot instead of spending it on plasma TVs or whatever. If you're barely above the Medicaid line, you get your premium mostly subsidized, and so on on a sliding scale. It insures (!) that the people who can pay do.

A.) Why shouldn't they be able to buy what they want?

B.) It FORCES people who already pay to pay more for people who already get healthcare.

(02-16-2012 03:00 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(02-16-2012 02:52 PM)Max Power Wrote:  

(02-16-2012 01:02 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  

Max Power Wrote:  I would agree, unless I'm missing something. If we repealed the law forcing hospitals to treat you, that might solve the problem. But that repeal wouldn't last long because people would be dying from treatable illnesses because hospitals would search their wallet and say "Whoops, no insurance card." Or they'd run your credit card and say "Whoops, declined." Which sounds a lot worse than forcing people to buy insurance.

I love this. Libs, starting with FDR, bend like Gumby to whore the commerce clause to cover everything and anything, which clearly was not original intent.

And, I am still puzzled why you are so willing to willing give your liberty and self-determination away to a nanny state. It is really sad, actually, that you feel you need someone to take care of you.

Health care isn't a right. In order to provide health care, time/resources must be taken from someone else.

I believe we, as a society, me as a Catholic, should endeavor to make sure my fellow man receives help when he needs it. I do not believe government should try to do everything, as it can't, and when it tries, it fails miserably.

Then you disagree with your Pope?

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2010/1...ealthcare/

Quote:At an international papal conference on health care yesterday at the Vatican, Pope Benedict XVI and other Catholic church leaders said it is the “moral responsibility of nations to guarantee access to health care for all of their citizens, regardless of social and economic status or their ability to pay.” Saying access to adequate medical care is one of the “inalienable rights” of man, the pope said, “Justice in health care should be a priority of governments and international institutions”:

The pope lamented the great inequalities in health care around the globe. While people in many parts of the world aren’t able to receive essential medications or even the most basic care, in industrialized countries there is a risk of “pharmacological, medical and surgical consumerism” that leads to “a cult of the body,” the pope said.

“The care of man, his transcendent dignity and his inalienable rights” are issues that should concern Christians, the pope said.

Because an individual’s health is a “precious asset” to society as well as to himself, governments and other agencies should seek to protect it by “dedicating the equipment, resources and energy so that the greatest number of people can have access.”

In a separate statement, Vatican Secretary of State Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, said, “Justice requires guaranteed universal access to health care,” adding that minimal levels of medical care are “a fundamental human right.” “Governments are obligated, therefore, to adopt the proper legislative, administrative and financial measures to provide such care,” the cardinal explained, saying that, “The governments of richer nations with good health care available should practice more solidarity with their own disadvantaged citizens.”

As for "original intent," the "original intent" of the framers of the Bill of Rights was that it only applies to white, property owning males. They lived in a much different time when medicine involved leaches and magic amulets, and 90% of the country lived on family farms and rarely if ever left their own county, let alone state. The Second Amendment wasn't envisioned to have limits, but at the same time they could have never fathomed nuclear weapons. The principles in the Constitution necessarily adapt to the times. Following the "original intent" traps us in the 18th century.

A.) Yes. I disagree with the Pope. Healthcare is not a right.

B.) Where was "original intent" mentioned? I honestly might have missed it.

C.) Speaking of Original Intent. Do you believe the architects of the Commerce Clause had Obamacare in mind when they wrote it? I doubt it.

A) Okay.

B) By GeorgeBorkFan in the post I quoted.

C) No, I don't think they could have envisioned our society today at all. The free flow of goods and services made possible by the railroads and later insterstate system really expanded interstate commerce, tying just about everything into interstate commerce. Long gone are the days when a family grew its own food on its farm and never traveled more than 5 miles from their birthplace.

(02-16-2012 03:05 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  

Max Power Wrote:I think I agree with your pope more than you do!

As for "original intent," the "original intent" of the framers of the Bill of Rights was that it only applies to white, property owning males. They lived in a much different time when medicine involved leaches and magic amulets, and 90% of the country lived on family farms and rarely if ever left their own county, let alone state. The Second Amendment wasn't envisioned to have limits, but at the same time they could have never fathomed nuclear weapons. The principles in the Constitution necessarily adapt to the times. Following the "original intent" traps us in the 18th century.

Please do not speak for me and call anyone my pope.

Correct, I do disagree with him.

Besides, I do not believe that government taking over the healthcare system is helps my fellow man in any fashion. It isn't merciful, it isn't charitable, and it isn't helpful. In fact, it will only make life worse for everyone.

A right is something fundamental, granted to us by our Creator. Healthcare clearly does not fit that description.

Original intent gives us consistency, so that the Constitution does not become a flavor of the month document, like you wish it to be.

The intent of the Founders in regulated interstate commerce was to prevent tariffs and the such between the states, not for the federal government to become all knowing and overreaching. You cannot logically, fairly and honestly extend regulating interstate commerce to covering healthcare.

Obamacare is not a government takeover the healthcare system by any means. This isn't like Britain, where the government runs the hospitals and employs the doctors. This isn't like Canada, where there is only one payer for healthcare and it's the government. Obamacare simply expands Medicaid and makes people who can afford to do so buy PRIVATE insurance. Hell, it's an idea that came from those commies Richard Nixon and Mitt Romney, and supported by the far right wing Heritage Foundation. Until, that is, Obama supported it. Then it became the devil and socialism. This kills me.

(02-16-2012 03:08 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(02-16-2012 03:05 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  

Max Power Wrote:I think I agree with your pope more than you do!

As for "original intent," the "original intent" of the framers of the Bill of Rights was that it only applies to white, property owning males. They lived in a much different time when medicine involved leaches and magic amulets, and 90% of the country lived on family farms and rarely if ever left their own county, let alone state. The Second Amendment wasn't envisioned to have limits, but at the same time they could have never fathomed nuclear weapons. The principles in the Constitution necessarily adapt to the times. Following the "original intent" traps us in the 18th century.

Please do not speak for me and call anyone my pope.

Correct, I do disagree with him.

A right is something fundamental, granted to us by our Creator. Healthcare clearly does not fit that description.

Original intent gives us consistency, so that the Constitution does not become a flavor of the month document, like you wish it to be.

The intent of the Founders in regulated interstate commerce was to prevent tariffs and the such between the states, not for the federal government to become all knowing and overreaching. You cannot logically, fairly and honestly extend regulating interstate commerce to covering healthcare.

That won't stop him from trying. Max is the poster boy for liberalism/socialism.

Can you right wingers stop using "socialism" as a buzzword for the government doing anything you don't like? Socialism isn't a mandate to buy private health insurance. Socialism isn't a trans fat ban. Socialism is the common ownership of the means of production. I don't support that. Stop calling everything the government does "socialism."