SCOTUS/Healthcare: For those of you who want a sneak peak of the Oral Arguments.

[Flopper]

1792? What fool didn't already own a firearm? Basically citizens were the militia for common defense.

I seriously doubt that all citizens owned firearms and were a member of the militia. Some didn't even support the revolution.

 

[saveliberty]

What I read from your statement was you cant argue against my point so youve thrown in a red herring.

You've made an unreasonable request that has nothing to do with my statement that Private Health Insurance is already rationed and it would be if it were regulated or not...IN FACT, if it were completely unregulated, I would wager a years wages, it would be MORE rationed to increase the profits of the health insurance companies.

No YOU used unregulated private insurance companies as an example of something like it exists. You lose. The better comparision would be current insurance practices on service availability to Obamacare in a budget bind. See, that is why the board Obamacare created exists, to ration care further than it would start out.

You mean IPAB? That board? That doesn't even begin to function for another two years?

And again with the red herring.

If both systems are rationed care, then arguing for or against either one on that basis is irrelevant.

2 + 2 =/= StarFish

I guess the one that refuses treatment is the only one that matters. Obamacare died today. Didn't you get the memo?

 

[Liability]

Rest in Pieces, ObamaCare.



Edit.

I apologize for the typo.

I meant to say Rust.

 

[saveliberty]

1792? What fool didn't already own a firearm? Basically citizens were the militia for common defense.

I seriously doubt that all citizens owned firearms and were a member of the militia. Some didn't even support the revolution.

Still have to defend yourself against Indians and the French Flopper. Revolution doing a lot around 1792?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

1792? What fool didn't already own a firearm? Basically citizens were the militia for common defense.

I seriously doubt that all citizens owned firearms and were a member of the militia. Some didn't even support the revolution.

Most People were required to be in the militia and if you were in the militia you were also required to own a firearm.

 

[Neotrotsky]

In 1792, just three years after ratifying the constitution, Congress passed a law requiring every able-bodied male to purchase a firearm. If congress can pass a law requiring the purchase of gun, then surely they can pass a law requiring the purchase health insurance. In fact, during John Adams presidency, merchant seaman were required by insurance. Draftees into the military have been required to purchase items such drivers licenses, and even weapons. This is certainly not the first time the government has forced people to make purchase.

Note, in all the cited examples, specific groups were selected, not everyone.

Guns are in the Constitution, healthcare, nope.

The mandate does not include everyone. Among the exceptions undocumented immigrants, American Indians, those in prison and those with certain religious objections.

Too funny the left has been pushing this bogus argument for years. The Left talking point memos must be rehashing all the old crap
in response to the gov't's terrible showing in the SCOTUS, this week.

Even Slate mag says:

It's pretty flimsy. The constitutionality of the insurance mandate relies on the so-called Commerce Clause, which grants Congress the power "To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes." The Militia Act (actually two bills passed within a week of one another in May 1792), on the other hand, depends on the Militia Clause, which authorizes the government to "provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia." Because the two mandates have such different foundations, the constitutionality of one is essentially independent of the other.

Separate clauses aside, the Militia Act of 1792 would still be poor precedent for the insurance mandate, because Congress never enforced, or even meant to enforce, the law at the federal level. Lost in the health-care inflected discussion of the bill is its initial purpose: To standardize state militias and to authorize the president to call them into action. The government expected each state to achieve standardization through locally issued regulations, and to handle the gun-toting provision independently.​

Perhaps Slate is now part of the evil right wing cabal



The Militia clause in the constitution
Article 1; section 8, clauses 15 and 16 of the federal constitution, granted Congress the power to "provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia"

the Founding Fathers actually following the words of the constitution
I know what a crazy idea