Dave Loc: Upstate New York

You have to have insurance to drive only to cover the other guy - you can go naked for your potential loss. In other words, protection of your property is the purpose of that law and a proper role of government.

You have to have insurance to finance a home because the mortgager requires it to cover his risk. Should you find a lender willing to take the risk and loan you the money to buy a house, you are free to do so - but suspect the interest rate, should you find one, would be prohibitive.

You have to have insurance to bid on, or do business with, virtually every other private business in America - I've been managing business for well over 40 years and have never seen any case where that was not true. If you don't understand the reason for that, you have a very limited understanding of business.

oldroy Loc: Western Kansas (No longer in hiding)

I would say that maybe you could look at who took over control of Congress back then. Of course, I am sure you knew all along, too.

oldroy Loc: Western Kansas (No longer in hiding)

My son would be very happy to discuss regulation with you only what he would talk about is EPA and some of the things they have brought on us. He was against the diesel fuel crap from them under Bush and still is. He knows that diesel we have to use now is very hard on engines. He knows that they don't get nearly the mileage they would without some of the regulations EPA has put out. Yep, he will take you and the state of California on any day and prove what he says. Of course, all of his argument will come from experience while all theirs will come from their desire to do something he considers to be pretty nasty but not so good for the nation.

The Dutchman

Alex, over the years I have bid on a number of federal government contracts and they always require a lot more than state or county.
I almost lost the bid on one in WY because I had no minorities in my employee so I hired one to do house keeping duties at the staging area. She cleaned everyone's campers & did our laundry. Worked out really great. And another requirement was I had to pay union scale which was no big deal because my payroll already exceeded union scale.

The Dutchman

Old Roy, back in my trucking days we always had to make sure and have enough fuel on board to get in and out of kalifreakia because of their diesel fuel regs. That low sulfur fuel was a k**ler of engine life.....

alex Loc: michigan now imperial beach californa

that was because you were working across state lines but farmers don't teachers don't so the federal govt. should stay out of their business

The Dutchman

Alex, I have had federal contracts in state and it was the same....

alex Loc: michigan now imperial beach californa

so because you working for the federal goons are required to be covered where ever you work you think it's ok if they treat local farmers and teachers the same

The Dutchman

Alex, I don't think the federal government should be able to dictate anything to farmers as to what they do and how they do it on their own farms. And teachers should only be regulated by the states, not the feds.
Large corporate farmers should no way in hell get any kind of government subsidies...

alex Loc: michigan now imperial beach californa

hey you're making MY argument

straightUp Loc: California

So you're being pedantic? :)

I guess, we can all have different ideas about what insurance is, so here - lemme whip out ...the dictionary again.


So if you're saying that ACA isn't insurance because it's not "implemented" the same way as most other insurance policies then OK, but that's a pretty narrow definition if you ask me... but this is coming from someone who buys "insurance" in casino games - LOL.

One point however... about the statement I highlighted in your quote...

Going with Webster's second definition... I see the provision of free birth control as insurance against a larger population of wellfare recipients and preventative procedures as being insurance against potential epidemics. I consider both of these things as potential threats to my own well-being.


Can you qualify that? Because the evidence I've seen suggests the opposite. I'll have to go back and find the sources but I read that the average overhead for medical insurance is 20% where the overhead for Medicare is only 5%. Not only that but ACA makes it VERY clear that one of the reasons the public option can guarantee lower rates because the administrators will be paid much less than the industry average (which is typical of the government anyway)



OK... I'm going to forward an argument here. Again, I will warn you that I am about to discuss an original idea that doesn't fit into any of the canned liberal arguments you may have heared before, so please keep your mind open.

Again... 21st century. Not the 19th century when our constitution was authored... I believe the "spirit" of the constitution is timeless, but some of the details are outdated. Of course the authors were insightful enough to recognize this potential which is why the authors were intentionally vague on the details while providing the Judicial Branch with the power to "interpret" so as to make the Constitution adaptable to the times.

That being said... one of the ugly aspects of the 21st century is the advances in biotechnology and it's potential for military applications. We are already at the point where designed micro-organism are promising destructive properties that far surpass anything we have in our arsenals that people typically classify as weapons and this destructive potential comes at a fraction of the cost, it's delivery systems can be virtually undetectable AND... missles, tanks, ships, jets, soldiers, satellites, artillery and every last pound of ordinance is useless in our defense against it.

If we are going to provide for our common defense in the 21st century we HAVE to get over this ridiculous attachment to the details of a 240 year old document and realize that medical facilities may soon be our most effective line of national defense against threats that simply did not exist in 1789. I therefore put forth the notion that healthcare, including mandatory assessment and vacination will be a critical part of our national defense.

So, just understand how I might feel when confronted with that old argument that healthcare should not be a concern for the federal government. To me that statement makes as much sense as the Constitutional provisions for the defense against non-exisitent Indians.

Times change. The founders of this nation understood that. Why, oh why can't today's so-called "Constitutionalists"? In a nation of 314 million v***s t***smiting bodies, yes... Healthcare IS a national concern and free preventative treatment IS a form insurance.

Now, I'm not nessesarily saying that a national medical defense system has to be provided by the government. But I'm not the one saying that traditional military forces have to be provided by the government either. But since everyone just assumes that the government should provide for our defense just because the Constitution says so then what basis do we have for discriminating against what could well be the most effective defense weapon we have?

My opinion is that any private sector defense system, military OR medical has the potential danger of being bought out... maybe even by the enemies. As long as the system is economically driven that will be a risk. So maybe keeping our defense systems tied to the government and therefore (theoritically) accountable to the people is a good idea.

In summary: I think it's time for people to get over their old saggy arguments, come to terms with today's realities and realize that providing for the common defence and promoting the general Welfare in the 21st century means healthcare is now a Constitutional concern.

(Huh... I think I just heard a muffled applause from the graves of Hamilton, Adams and Jefferson)

;)

oldroy Loc: Western Kansas (No longer in hiding)

I think those three were rolling around in their graves at all the foolishness you were spreading around and maybe laughing at your leaner talk.

straightUp Loc: California

LOL... They're probably trying to figure out what "biotechnology" is and how we are expected to defend ourselves against it with l***hes and saws.

oldroy Loc: Western Kansas (No longer in hiding)

So now you are pointing out that those three men who were so instrumental in setting up what has governed us successfully for over 200 years somehow just became something less than they have been seen as being all this time. Was there such a thing as biotechnology when they lived and did any of them study it?

straightUp Loc: California

Roy... that was the point of my joke... There WAS no biotechnology in their day. There was no healthcare either and medicine was in the undeveloped stage of l***hes, saws, beads and rattles.