Why can't we have an opt-out clause

Republicanism is not against all regulation. We do recognize the need from some regulatory control. But it should be minimal, only enough to get the job done. You don't need a Sherman Tank if a flyswatter will do. Every legislation will invariably present both intended and UN-intended consequences. Less is more.

And to your point about "horse-trading", here's some unsolicited advice... if you're not sickened by the lack of integrity in what amounts to raw bribery with taxpayer dollars... maybe it's time to do a little soul-searching. Just because something is commonplace doesn't mean it's acceptable.

__________________

“I've spent my last penny on a cat-skin windcheater, I've just broken a priceless turnip, and now I'm about to be viciously slaughtered by a naked Tunisian sock merchant.
Well, all I can say, Baldrick, is that's the last time I dabble in politics."

From my latest Social Security statement of last summer, through 2008 I've paid an estimated $107,247 in Social Securities taxes and another $25,838 in taxes for Medicare. Additionally, my employers have matched that amount of dough and placed it into the system. Thus I'm not all that comfortable with any opt-out proposal that's on the basis of state. I would favor an opt-out choice by individual.

Absolutely, Samson. Regulate with your vote.

Rightwinger - yep, I made those points about the Constitution on another thread. Nobody wanted to hear it. Oh well. Regarding health care, should we move the lazy Americans move to Iraq to get health care?

Murph - I didn't say it was acceptable. I said it SUCKS. And the previous level of health insurance regulation wasn't enough to protect subscribers from abuses. Hence the need for reform.

There is no such thing as the greater good. It might sound like a really good religious concept but in reality the total good is equal to sum of all individual goods and that can't be greater than the sum of its parts. It is simple math.

No their isn't

- Congress has the power to regulate commerce among the states witch is trade between them or the movement across state lines.

- No clause under congressional powers are listed that says that. The general welfare clause states that all taxes collected are for the benefit of the United States which is referring specifically to the federal government. It did not say general welfare of the people.

Bullshit. The regulation of commerce among the Several States was designed to allow free trade among them and disallow one state from putting tariffs on another. We didn't ALL just fall off the turnip truck. Congress has been ABUSING this clause for many years now to the point where Nancy Pelosi believes that her power to regulate healthcare is "essentially unlimited" :
Commerce Clause Gives Federal Government the Power to Do Everything|Tenth Amendment Center Blog

Further, we've already been back and forth about the General Welfare Clause. It hasn't been used in YEARS and the only way Barack Obama is going to get it to stand is if he coerces the Supreme Court like FDR did in his court-packing scheme to get Social Security through. Personally, I don't think that in the age of instant information, he'll have nearly as much luck.
In fact, he'll be lucky if he doesn't end up with SS and Medicare/Medicaid being overturned.

__________________

“I've spent my last penny on a cat-skin windcheater, I've just broken a priceless turnip, and now I'm about to be viciously slaughtered by a naked Tunisian sock merchant.
Well, all I can say, Baldrick, is that's the last time I dabble in politics."

The tenth amendment actually gives you an opt-out since all powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved for the state and the PEOPLE.

Who is going to pay for your Social Security when you start to draw on it? That $214,000 will be gone in seven to ten years. If people "opt out" ther will be nothing for you

__________________
.

A CEO, a Conservative and a Liberal walk into a room. There are ten cookies on the table. The CEO takes nine and whispers to the Conservative.......Liberals trying to take your cookie

No it doesn't....it hasn't for over 70 years but in ihopehefails dream world, I guess it does

__________________
.

A CEO, a Conservative and a Liberal walk into a room. There are ten cookies on the table. The CEO takes nine and whispers to the Conservative.......Liberals trying to take your cookie

How about have social security bonds in your name? Every dollar you pay into it gives you some kind of saving bond that can be redeemed later so if you did not pay into it you don't get anything back.

Then live where you stand, Kitty. If it's not okay... then don't support people who engage in it. That's all I'm saying.

We didn't have to throw the baby out with the bathwater on health insurance reform. And what was done, doesn't solve the problem because it doesn't deal with the reality of the costs of medical treatment. It doesn't deal in the economic realities of supply and demand. We needed MORE doctors, more hospitals, more prescription drugs, more insurance choices... more, more, more of everything but government bureaucracy. When supply is plentiful, costs come down.

But that's not what we got. What we got was another 16,500 IRS agents and 159 new bureaucracies.

Check out this article from the Telegraph UK. That's our future. A future where party politicians have maxed out the welfare system and make their cuts behind the backs of citizens so as to keep them in the dark until AFTER they're reelected.
Hospital wards to shut in secret NHS cuts - Telegraph

It is LONG PAST the time when Americans need to lay down their ears and say "No more" to the deceit, to the pandering, to the propagandizing of our elected "representatives". 'Cause they're NOT representing us. That's not who we are.

__________________

“I've spent my last penny on a cat-skin windcheater, I've just broken a priceless turnip, and now I'm about to be viciously slaughtered by a naked Tunisian sock merchant.
Well, all I can say, Baldrick, is that's the last time I dabble in politics."

Hell yes, typical Conservative. Privatize the profits, socialize the losses

Gee Murph...

If you feel so strongly, maybe you should take it up with the courts. Seems they have been ruling against you for over a hundred years. Social Security and Medicare overturned? Hasn't worked in 70 and 40 years respectively. But....you can always dream

Good luck with your lawsuit

__________________
.

A CEO, a Conservative and a Liberal walk into a room. There are ten cookies on the table. The CEO takes nine and whispers to the Conservative.......Liberals trying to take your cookie

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

That seems to suggest that powers not given to the federal government are reserved for the people.

The ninth amendment then goes on to say

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

I'm assuming that rights and powers the government has can't step on rights retained by the people.