Thank you, Steven

[PhiLandShiR 18]

Unlike you, I'm not delusional. Hint - take more meds.

No one who is, thinks so either... hint hint....

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Hysterical nonsense. We have the U.S. Constitution that protects our rights. Should you ever feel that the Fed Gov't is encroaching your constitutional rights, you can fight it through the Supreme Court. We have a representational democracy - meaning that we elect representatives to act on our behalf. They are accountable to us, the voters. President Obama and the Democrats are fulfilling one of their campaign promises - to reform health care. The people spoke in November 2008 and our representatives honored that. No piece of legislation will ever be unanimous, so unless you have a gripe over the constitutionality of this piece of legislation, you're just full of hot air.

Spoken like a true big government sychophant. You wouldn't know unconstitutionality if it came to your door and took everything you have. It comforts you.

No one who is, thinks so either... hint hint....

Take the hint . . .

[one...two...tree 2,762]

You show me where they are actually reforming health care here.

This does NOTHING but add burden to the current system.

The people didn't elect Obama for this, and you know it.

For one, no one can be denied coverage based on a pre-existing condition. That should be something everyone is in favor of. But if you want a bullet point of what reforms this bill does, I can post one if you like.

Also, this bill reduces the deficit - the CBO has validated that.

And yes, the Democrats gained significant majorities in both the House and Senate, and Obama was elected President based on specific agenda such as health care reform. Go back and read the polls leading up to the elections and pay close attention to the specific issues that were most popular among voters.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Spoken like a true big government sychophant. You wouldn't know unconstitutionality if it came to your door and took everything you have. It comforts you.

Reality begs to differ. Social Security has been around for more than 60 years and is constitutional, as is Medicare. But feel free to challenge the constitutionality of this health care bill if you believe it is constitutionally different than Social Security or Medicare. It will be interesting to see what kind of legal arguments come from this.

[mawilson 2,133]

No piece of legislation will ever be unanimous, so unless you have a gripe over the constitutionality of this piece of legislation, you're just full of hot air.

This piece of legislation is definitely unconstitutional. One could argue that it's covered

by the Interstate Commerce clause in the Constitution; however, ironically, health insurance

cannot be traded across state lines

[PhiLandShiR 18]

I think you'd sit in better company with him.

After all you don't seem to give a damn about the Constitution/Declaration of Independence.

When government becomes out of control..... Well, if you understand the latter document, you know the rest.

Hummm.... no.... I just don't see it like you do. And thats the problem. You want everyone to see things just like you do. The world would be so much better, for you, if everyone saw everyting, just like you do...

Not everyone feels so persecuted as to think the government is 'out of control'. Its doing exactly what we voted for it to do. That may be good or it may be bad. It all depends on which side of the fence we are on...

Our government is working as designed. Governed by those very documents you spoke of. You have the right to take any matter to the courts that you feel is not adhering to the structure defined by them. Please state which parts of our Constitution or Bill of Rights is not being followed?

[mawilson 2,133]

It will be interesting to see what kind of legal arguments come from this.

Oh there will be plenty. Just wait and see.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

For one, no one can be denied coverage based on a pre-existing condition. That should be something everyone is in favor of. But if you want a bullet point of what reforms this bill does, I can post one if you like.

So allowing people to basically pay nothing and get tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of dollars in coverage is a good thing? I think not.... Until the COST issue is addressed this is very very erroneous.

Also, this bill reduces the deficit - the CBO has validated that.

They validated nothing and made a guesstimate on what was presented to them (which was NOT the actual bill).

Even if it did reduce the deficit, you have to ask yourself HOW. Oh I'll tell you how. By taxing the ** out of everyone.

And yes, the Democrats gained significant majorities in both the House and Senate, and Obama was elected President based on specific agenda such as health care reform. Go back and read the polls leading up to the elections and pay close attention to the specific issues that were most popular among voters.

Democrats won in '06 by preaching fiscal responsibility. They have failed miserably in that.

Obama won because people had just been hit hard by a bad economy and he spoke well. People cared about jobs, spending, defecits, etc... Health care was down on the list, but as I said. THIS is not health care reform, this is the same ole thing with more people burdening the system.

[PhiLandShiR 18]

This piece of legislation is definitely unconstitutional. One could argue that it's covered

by the Interstate Commerce clause in the Constitution; however, ironically, health insurance

cannot be traded across state lines

If it can't be traded across state lines, then its not at issue with the Interstate Commerce clause in the Constitution now is it??

So please explain how it could be 'definitely unconstitutional' if the clause you quote, does not even apply?!?!

[mawilson 2,133]

If it can't be traded across state lines, then its not at issue with the Interstate Commerce clause in the Constitution now is it??

So please explain how it could be 'definitely unconstitutional' if the clause you quote, does not even apply?!?!

Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that the government can force you to buy stuff.

[PhiLandShiR 18]

So allowing people to basically pay nothing and get tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of dollars in coverage is a good thing? I think not....

Yes it is, because without it, these people will cost us hundreds of MILLIONS of dollars, not thousands, in cost at the ER's across the country.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that the government can force you to buy stuff.

Or punish you if you don't.

[Ban Hammer 14,668]

so if i understand this right, the left does not believe in creationism - except for that by the government.

the left believes in darwinism, except when it comes to that pesky part about natural selection.

so if you have crappy genes and develop some life ending disease, then the left will put aside their touting of darwinism in favor of you getting all your medical bills paid, even though one could say it's darwin at work.

[PhiLandShiR 18]

Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that the government can force you to buy stuff.

Nor does it say we are required to pay taxes but we still do...

Nor does it say that we are required to pay for outrageous health care coverage for elected politicians... for life!! but we still do...

Nor does it say a lot of things that happen at the governmental levels...

There is lots of flex in our governments founding concepts. Its not meant to be cast in stone. The Founding Fathers knew this and included words that could flex and move to cover changes in the future. Thats what makes it so nice.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that the government can force you to buy stuff.

Social Security? Medicare?