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

[Dick Tuck]

The law is not general in nature like Social Security but specific. Therefore, it does not apply and the government concedes this point. There are more cases in the 80’s that limit the general welfare clause. They are complicated and I do not wish to explain it for that reason. All you need to know now is that the Obama Administration is not arguing it for that very purpose. It does not apply. And trust me, if they thought it would add merit to their argument they would have used it. But they aren’t. They wouldn’t throw away a tool that could perhaps secure themselves victory. They are, however, arguing the taxing power.

How would this be any different from the changes Reagan made to Social Security and Medicare, forcing self-employed to pay those taxes? To the contrary, the hard argument to make would be to claim something is a fine or penalty, when you are actually receiving something back, i.e. heath insurance.

But the case can still be made using the more subjective "general welfare" clause, and basing it on other law requiring all ERs to give treatment, and the costs being passed on to the rest of us. The fact that those who do carry insurance must pay a penalty for those who don't is a pretty compelling case.

But since this court is so ideological and reactionary, I think the administration was wise to argue it on taxation and interstate commerce.

I don’t see your constitutional question. Moral equivalency is not a constitutional question. Nevertheless, the self-employed are already engaged in commerce. A guy sitting on his couch doing nothing is engaged in nothing. To follow the example of the ACA is to tell the guy on the couch that he must be self-employed so he can be regulated without ever having the intention to be self-employed. Furthermore, the Obama Admin argued the ONLY tools available to them. It’s not that it was a smart choice but the only way it could be legitimately argued. The fact that the government made an unworkable law (That hospitals cannot turn away anyone on the account of their inability to pay), and thereby creating a market failure, doesn’t give them the authority to make an unconstitutional one.

I't not moral equivalency, it's functional equivalency. The courts have been pretty clear about 10th amendment, when there's no INTERstate commerce. A CPA, a lawyer, a dentist or doctor are licensed to practice in a state. Yet, they are still required to pay Social Security and Medicare tax, even if they're working just for themselves.

As for what you claim is an unworkable law regarding hospitals not turning anyone away, I've seen clear abuses, such as give em an aspirin and bus them to skid row. Yet libertarians and conservatives have long claimed that a significant cause of our high cost of healthcare is due to people who couldn't pay their medical bill. That argument, in conjunction with this one, is sheer cognitive dissonance.

 

[Publius1787]

How would this be any different from the changes Reagan made to Social Security and Medicare, forcing self-employed to pay those taxes? To the contrary, the hard argument to make would be to claim something is a fine or penalty, when you are actually receiving something back, i.e. heath insurance.

But the case can still be made using the more subjective "general welfare" clause, and basing it on other law requiring all ERs to give treatment, and the costs being passed on to the rest of us. The fact that those who do carry insurance must pay a penalty for those who don't is a pretty compelling case.

But since this court is so ideological and reactionary, I think the administration was wise to argue it on taxation and interstate commerce.

I don’t see your constitutional question. Moral equivalency is not a constitutional question. Nevertheless, the self-employed are already engaged in commerce. A guy sitting on his couch doing nothing is engaged in nothing. To follow the example of the ACA is to tell the guy on the couch that he must be self-employed so he can be regulated without ever having the intention to be self-employed. Furthermore, the Obama Admin argued the ONLY tools available to them. It’s not that it was a smart choice but the only way it could be legitimately argued. The fact that the government made an unworkable law (That hospitals cannot turn away anyone on the account of their inability to pay), and thereby creating a market failure, doesn’t give them the authority to make an unconstitutional one.

I't not moral equivalency, it's functional equivalency. The courts have been pretty clear about 10th amendment, when there's no INTERstate commerce. A CPA, a lawyer, a dentist or doctor are licensed to practice in a state. Yet, they are still required to pay Social Security and Medicare tax, even if they're working just for themselves.

As for what you claim is an unworkable law regarding hospitals not turning anyone away, I've seen clear abuses, such as give em an aspirin and bus them to skid row. Yet libertarians and conservatives have long claimed that a significant cause of our high cost of healthcare is due to people who couldn't pay their medical bill. That argument, in conjunction with this one, is sheer cognitive dissonance.

And the constitutional question is? And please, don’t give me constitutional theories and excuses that the government is not arguing. They aren’t arguing them for a reason.

 

[The Rabbi]

One has to wonder if Papa Obama now realizes that
it might not have been a good idea to try and publicly criticize the SCOTUS
at his State of the Union address. Besides being improper and lacking any class,
it served him no purpose to publicly humiliate them.


Something tells me that his narcissistic personality won't allow him to see
what a stupid idea this was now

Alito Shakes Head When Obama Criticizes Campaign Finance Decision - YouTube

Sounds like you are accusing our Supreme Court of being unprofessional and allowing their personal feelings about our President affect their decision-making on Constitutional issues.

I dont think sainthood is a requirement of being a justice.

 

[saveliberty]

Many insurance companies only operate within a state. Had Obamacare addressed that, interstate commerce clause may have had a bit more traction. This crosses over into demanding individual states give up their state's rights. Further, it crosses a line from regulating existing commerce to creating commerce where there was none to be regulate

A poorly constructed program rushed to passage is going to suffer the consequences.

 

[oreo]

It's not going to be overturned.

49 states force drivers to purchase auto insurance ( New Hampshire being the lone exception ).

If that is Constitutional, then so is the health insurance mandate.

You are confusing state law with federal law--and this is exactly why Romneycare was never challenged in Mass.

This will be the most undoubtedly interesting case within the next 20 years. Can the Federal Government under the commerce clause force it's citizens to pay for something. If they can it won't be long before they can force other purchases upon us also.

 

[Liability]

President Obama said the mandate penalty is NOT a "tax:" [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AAmtNCtdWeo]President Obama Tells Judas Stephanopoulos Health Insurance Mandate IS NOT Tax Increase - YouTube[/ame]

But, President Obama's Administration has ALSO said that the penalty is a valid exercise of Congressional TAXING authority:

On the first day of health care reform arguments before the Supreme Court, two justices needled a top Obama lawyer for simultaneously calling the fine that will be paid under the law for not purchasing insurance a “penalty” and a “tax.” The confusion arises because of the administration’s argument that the power to enforce the individual mandate is rooted in Congress’ taxing power — but that the mechanism itself is designed to be a penalty, not a revenue-generating policy.

-- Obama Lawyer Laughed at In Supreme Court - Obamacare - Fox Nation

When they get caught in such glaring contradictions, they say silly shit like the phrase “tax penalty” and the dutiful handmaiden liberal mainstream media (the Administration's propaganda media) declare that the contradictory blather is actually "nuanced," in order to pretend that the contradictions are actually deep and meaningful and honest.

They aren't. They are what they appear to be. Contradictions. Doubletalk. Gibberish.

The remark underscores the fine line the White House is walking in its argument. On one hand, it says the backstop is not a tax, because that could subject it to the Anti-Injunction Act — the focal point of Monday’s arguments — and delay a ruling to at least 2015. On the other, they claim that the power to impose a penalty derives from Congress’ broad taxing power. That’s in part because calling it a tax makes defending the mandate easier — Congress’ power to levy taxes is less in question than its power to require people to do things.

-- Obama Lawyer Laughed at In Supreme Court - Obamacare - Fox Nation

 

[Liability]

It's not going to be overturned.

49 states force drivers to purchase auto insurance ( New Hampshire being the lone exception ).

If that is Constitutional, then so is the health insurance mandate.

FALSE.

A driver's license is a privilege, not a right. CONDITIONING that privilege on a requirement that drivers must have liability insurance is thus a valid exercise of STATE government authority.

If the FEDERAL government, by contrast, seeks to impose some hitherto unheard of requirement that citizens purchase HEALTH insurance, the question is ON WHAT privilege are they making it a condition? Is it the "privilege" of living? Can't be. That's not a "privilege." It's a right.

So your would-be analogy is a non starter. It's false.

You fail.

Vici. You don't see. But logic and facts do conquer.

 

[Vidi]

It's not going to be overturned.

49 states force drivers to purchase auto insurance ( New Hampshire being the lone exception ).

If that is Constitutional, then so is the health insurance mandate.

FALSE.

A driver's license is a privilege, not a right. CONDITIONING that privilege on a requirement that drivers must have liability insurance is thus a valid exercise of STATE government authority.

If the FEDERAL government, by contrast, seeks to impose some hitherto unheard of requirement that citizens purchase HEALTH insurance, the question is ON WHAT privilege are they making it a condition? Is it the "privilege" of living? Can't be. Taht's ot a "privilege." It's a right.

So your would-be analogy is a non starter. It's false.

You fail.

Vici. You don't see. But logic and facts do conquer.

ummmmm....so access to health care is a right?

and you missed the point I was making. see a few posts later where I clarify that no they arent the same, but the power is equatable.

 

[Vidi]

Well how so? What do you have on your mind? There is plenty the government can do both legislatively and in the realm of enforcement.

I'm asking if you believe that Congress has the power to act beyond their Constitutional enumerated powers to protect the rights of citizens?

Sure, when habeas corpus has been suspended in times of rebellion. Hmmmm but that is within Constitutional authority. No, Congress cannot exceed their enumeration without that specific act. Thats why we have the 10th Amendment.

So Congress cannot act to prevent oppression of the natural people by corporate people provided that oppression is Constitutional and legal?

 

[The Rabbi]

It's not going to be overturned.

49 states force drivers to purchase auto insurance ( New Hampshire being the lone exception ).

If that is Constitutional, then so is the health insurance mandate.

FALSE.

A driver's license is a privilege, not a right. CONDITIONING that privilege on a requirement that drivers must have liability insurance is thus a valid exercise of STATE government authority.

If the FEDERAL government, by contrast, seeks to impose some hitherto unheard of requirement that citizens purchase HEALTH insurance, the question is ON WHAT privilege are they making it a condition? Is it the "privilege" of living? Can't be. Taht's ot a "privilege." It's a right.

So your would-be analogy is a non starter. It's false.

You fail.

Vici. You don't see. But logic and facts do conquer.

ummmmm....so access to health care is a right?

and you missed the point I was making. see a few posts later where I clarify that no they arent the same, but the power is equatable.

What orifice did you pull that out of?
Health care is not a right. It is not a privilege either. It is a good/service that is sold. Like shoe shines.
The power is not equatable. States and the fed gov do not have the same power.

 

[Vidi]

It's not going to be overturned.

49 states force drivers to purchase auto insurance ( New Hampshire being the lone exception ).

If that is Constitutional, then so is the health insurance mandate.

You are confusing state law with federal law--and this is exactly why Romneycare was never challenged in Mass.

This will be the most undoubtedly interesting case within the next 20 years. Can the Federal Government under the commerce clause force it's citizens to pay for something. If they can it won't be long before they can force other purchases upon us also.

I don't know about "force to pay" but actual money doesn't have to change hands.

For example, in a case where a woman was growing marijuana for her own personal use, Justice Scalia write that though the pot was not for sale, it was "an instant " from sale and therefore the market, and therefore fell under the Commerce Clause.

I suppose one could say something similar about Health Care. Because a person could be injured at any moment, they could be considered "an instant" away from entering the market and thus the Commerse clause could be applied.

BUT <------- Notice the big but...I'm not a lawyer. I'm just throwing the thought out there.

 

[Publius1787]

I'm asking if you believe that Congress has the power to act beyond their Constitutional enumerated powers to protect the rights of citizens?

Sure, when habeas corpus has been suspended in times of rebellion. Hmmmm but that is within Constitutional authority. No, Congress cannot exceed their enumeration without that specific act. Thats why we have the 10th Amendment.

So Congress cannot act to prevent oppression of the natural people by corporate people provided that oppression is Constitutional and legal?

What&#8217;s the difference between natural people and corporate people? Income? Your rights do not cease on the basis of how little or how much money you earn. Are you making the argument that corporations are not people? That&#8217;s an easy myth to dispel, legally, morally, historically, and practically. I can go back in the annals of congress and look up the debate on chartering a national bank and show how the founding fathers viewed corporations if you would like. Remember our discussion about that "general welfare clause?" It&#8217;s a double edged sword for liberals who want to use it for everything under the sun. If they had just left it alone as both Madison and Jefferson contested corporate influence in politics would be considerably less. Without that clause being taken to an nearly infinite extent, congress couldn&#8217;t engage in corporate or specific welfare. In the liberty seizing nasty liberal pursuit of social welfare they also opened up the nasty box of liberty seizing corporate welfare. Neither is consistent with the Constitution or the intentions of the founding fathers at the convention. Both social welfare and corporate welfare corrupts the political process as James Madison contended at the convention. That&#8217;s why the term &#8220;general welfare&#8221; was intended only to exercise the enumerated powers in a manner that effected everyone and every state generally and not one person, one business, one area, or one state at the expense of another. If the words &#8220;general welfare&#8221; were meant to be an infinite grant of power then there would be no need to enumerate specific powers. So, you got your way with the interpretation of the &#8220;general welfare clause&#8221; and now people complain about the unintended consequences? Sorry, Jefferson and Madison warned about this well over 200 years ago but progressives like FDR refused to listen. Now you&#8217;re reaping what you sew.

 

[Publius1787]

It's not going to be overturned.

49 states force drivers to purchase auto insurance ( New Hampshire being the lone exception ).

If that is Constitutional, then so is the health insurance mandate.

You are confusing state law with federal law--and this is exactly why Romneycare was never challenged in Mass.

This will be the most undoubtedly interesting case within the next 20 years. Can the Federal Government under the commerce clause force it's citizens to pay for something. If they can it won't be long before they can force other purchases upon us also.

I don't know about "force to pay" but actual money doesn't have to change hands.

For example, in a case where a woman was growing marijuana for her own personal use, Justice Scalia write that though the pot was not for sale, it was "an instant " from sale and therefore the market, and therefore fell under the Commerce Clause.

I suppose one could say something similar about Health Care. Because a person could be injured at any moment, they could be considered "an instant" away from entering the market and thus the Commerse clause could be applied.

BUT <------- Notice the big but...I'm not a lawyer. I'm just throwing the thought out there.

If you were to apply that to the ACA it would be the equivalent of saying that she was forced to grow marijuana. Little bit of a difference there. You see, they were regulating a voluntary act and not compelling them to engage in that action. The ACA forces you to engage in commerce or the act of commerce. Big difference.

 

[Vidi]

You are confusing state law with federal law--and this is exactly why Romneycare was never challenged in Mass.

This will be the most undoubtedly interesting case within the next 20 years. Can the Federal Government under the commerce clause force it's citizens to pay for something. If they can it won't be long before they can force other purchases upon us also.

I don't know about "force to pay" but actual money doesn't have to change hands.

For example, in a case where a woman was growing marijuana for her own personal use, Justice Scalia write that though the pot was not for sale, it was "an instant " from sale and therefore the market, and therefore fell under the Commerce Clause.

I suppose one could say something similar about Health Care. Because a person could be injured at any moment, they could be considered "an instant" away from entering the market and thus the Commerse clause could be applied.

BUT <------- Notice the big but...I'm not a lawyer. I'm just throwing the thought out there.

If you were to apply that to the ACA it would be the equivalent of saying that she was forced to grow marijuana. Little bit of a difference there. You see, they were regulating a voluntary act and not compelling them to engage in that action. The ACA forces you to engage in commerce or the act of commerce. Big difference.

No, Scalias statement was because the majuana was "an instant" away from sale, the Commerse Clause applied. Therefore, of a person is "an instant" away from needing medical attention, then it can also be placed under the commerce clause.

I'm just clarifying the statement as I think you misunderstood my point, not the law.

 

[Publius1787]

I don't know about "force to pay" but actual money doesn't have to change hands.

For example, in a case where a woman was growing marijuana for her own personal use, Justice Scalia write that though the pot was not for sale, it was "an instant " from sale and therefore the market, and therefore fell under the Commerce Clause.

I suppose one could say something similar about Health Care. Because a person could be injured at any moment, they could be considered "an instant" away from entering the market and thus the Commerse clause could be applied.

BUT <------- Notice the big but...I'm not a lawyer. I'm just throwing the thought out there.

If you were to apply that to the ACA it would be the equivalent of saying that she was forced to grow marijuana. Little bit of a difference there. You see, they were regulating a voluntary act and not compelling them to engage in that action. The ACA forces you to engage in commerce or the act of commerce. Big difference.

No, Scalias statement was because the majuana was "an instant" away from sale, the Commerse Clause applied. Therefore, of a person is "an instant" away from needing medical attention, then it can also be placed under the commerce clause.

I'm just clarifying the statement as I think you misunderstood my point, not the law.

I haven&#8217;t required medical attention in 4 years. That&#8217;s hardly an instant. Plus, the growing or marijuana is a voluntary action that can be regulated. The buying of health insurance is also a voluntary action that can be regulated. However, you cannot force the initial action as a condition of being human. To do so is to say that you place conditions on the singular basis where all rights and liberties are derived from. LIFE! There are few duties listed in the Constitution and all of them are a requisite of preserving liberty. Jury duty is one and military service is another. Can they be abused? Yes. However, individual liberty cannot survive without them. They are also specifically singled out.

You have no duty to buy health insurance for no other reason than the fact that the government made a law that created a market failure. That would be placing a condition on living and breathing. Even when you are sick you have not lost a shred of individual liberty. You still maintain the same rights as everyone else. You cannot force people to enter in to commerce. You cannot make commerce to regulate where there was none in the first place.

 

[Vidi]

Sure, when habeas corpus has been suspended in times of rebellion. Hmmmm but that is within Constitutional authority. No, Congress cannot exceed their enumeration without that specific act. Thats why we have the 10th Amendment.

So Congress cannot act to prevent oppression of the natural people by corporate people provided that oppression is Constitutional and legal?

What’s the difference between natural people and corporate people? Income? Your rights do not cease on the basis of how little or how much money you earn. Are you making the argument that corporations are not people? That’s an easy myth to dispel, legally, morally, historically, and practically. I can go back in the annals of congress and look up the debate on chartering a national bank and show how the founding fathers viewed corporations if you would like. Remember our discussion about that "general welfare clause?" It’s a double edged sword for liberals who want to use it for everything under the sun. If they had just left it alone as both Madison and Jefferson contested corporate influence in politics would be considerably less. Without that clause being taken to an nearly infinite extent, congress couldn’t engage in corporate or specific welfare. In the liberty seizing nasty liberal pursuit of social welfare they also opened up the nasty box of liberty seizing corporate welfare. Neither is consistent with the Constitution or the intentions of the founding fathers at the convention. Both social welfare and corporate welfare corrupts the political process as James Madison contended at the convention. That’s why the term “general welfare” was intended only to exercise the enumerated powers in a manner that effected everyone and every state generally and not one person, one business, one area, or one state at the expense of another. If the words “general welfare” were meant to be an infinite grant of power then there would be no need to enumerate specific powers. So, you got your way with the interpretation of the “general welfare clause” and now people complain about the unintended consequences? Sorry, Jefferson and Madison warned about this well over 200 years ago but progressives like FDR refused to listen. Now you’re reaping what you sew.

Natural people can be citizens. Corporate people are corporations and a corporation can never be a citizen.

And while I may not agree with Corporate personhood, it's been long established that under the law, corporations ARE people. So no I'm not arguing that.

I'm asking to what extent does Congress have the power to protect one group of people from oppression from another?

If they are limited by the Constitution and that oppression is seen as Constitutional, then what?

ETA: btw, I agree with pretty much everything you just posted there.

 

[Publius1787]

So Congress cannot act to prevent oppression of the natural people by corporate people provided that oppression is Constitutional and legal?

What’s the difference between natural people and corporate people? Income? Your rights do not cease on the basis of how little or how much money you earn. Are you making the argument that corporations are not people? That’s an easy myth to dispel, legally, morally, historically, and practically. I can go back in the annals of congress and look up the debate on chartering a national bank and show how the founding fathers viewed corporations if you would like. Remember our discussion about that "general welfare clause?" It’s a double edged sword for liberals who want to use it for everything under the sun. If they had just left it alone as both Madison and Jefferson contested corporate influence in politics would be considerably less. Without that clause being taken to an nearly infinite extent, congress couldn’t engage in corporate or specific welfare. In the liberty seizing nasty liberal pursuit of social welfare they also opened up the nasty box of liberty seizing corporate welfare. Neither is consistent with the Constitution or the intentions of the founding fathers at the convention. Both social welfare and corporate welfare corrupts the political process as James Madison contended at the convention. That’s why the term “general welfare” was intended only to exercise the enumerated powers in a manner that effected everyone and every state generally and not one person, one business, one area, or one state at the expense of another. If the words “general welfare” were meant to be an infinite grant of power then there would be no need to enumerate specific powers. So, you got your way with the interpretation of the “general welfare clause” and now people complain about the unintended consequences? Sorry, Jefferson and Madison warned about this well over 200 years ago but progressives like FDR refused to listen. Now you’re reaping what you sew.

Natural people can be citizens. Corporate people are corporations and a corporation can never be a citizen.

And while I may not agree with Corporate personhood, it's been long established that under the law, corporations ARE people. So no I'm not arguing that.

I'm asking to what extent does Congress have the power to protect one group of people from oppression from another?

If they are limited by the Constitution and that oppression is seen as Constitutional, then what?

ETA: btw, I agree with pretty much everything you just posted there.

I'm not quite sure what you mean. The states have the police power. There are few federal i.e. congressional exceptions. Which of those exceptions do you allude to?

 

[Vidi]

FALSE.

A driver's license is a privilege, not a right. CONDITIONING that privilege on a requirement that drivers must have liability insurance is thus a valid exercise of STATE government authority.

If the FEDERAL government, by contrast, seeks to impose some hitherto unheard of requirement that citizens purchase HEALTH insurance, the question is ON WHAT privilege are they making it a condition? Is it the "privilege" of living? Can't be. Taht's ot a "privilege." It's a right.

So your would-be analogy is a non starter. It's false.

You fail.

Vici. You don't see. But logic and facts do conquer.

ummmmm....so access to health care is a right?

and you missed the point I was making. see a few posts later where I clarify that no they arent the same, but the power is equatable.

What orifice did you pull that out of?
Health care is not a right. It is not a privilege either. It is a good/service that is sold. Like shoe shines.
The power is not equatable. States and the fed gov do not have the same power.

Do you have the right to live?

 

[Vidi]

What’s the difference between natural people and corporate people? Income? Your rights do not cease on the basis of how little or how much money you earn. Are you making the argument that corporations are not people? That’s an easy myth to dispel, legally, morally, historically, and practically. I can go back in the annals of congress and look up the debate on chartering a national bank and show how the founding fathers viewed corporations if you would like. Remember our discussion about that "general welfare clause?" It’s a double edged sword for liberals who want to use it for everything under the sun. If they had just left it alone as both Madison and Jefferson contested corporate influence in politics would be considerably less. Without that clause being taken to an nearly infinite extent, congress couldn’t engage in corporate or specific welfare. In the liberty seizing nasty liberal pursuit of social welfare they also opened up the nasty box of liberty seizing corporate welfare. Neither is consistent with the Constitution or the intentions of the founding fathers at the convention. Both social welfare and corporate welfare corrupts the political process as James Madison contended at the convention. That’s why the term “general welfare” was intended only to exercise the enumerated powers in a manner that effected everyone and every state generally and not one person, one business, one area, or one state at the expense of another. If the words “general welfare” were meant to be an infinite grant of power then there would be no need to enumerate specific powers. So, you got your way with the interpretation of the “general welfare clause” and now people complain about the unintended consequences? Sorry, Jefferson and Madison warned about this well over 200 years ago but progressives like FDR refused to listen. Now you’re reaping what you sew.

Natural people can be citizens. Corporate people are corporations and a corporation can never be a citizen.

And while I may not agree with Corporate personhood, it's been long established that under the law, corporations ARE people. So no I'm not arguing that.

I'm asking to what extent does Congress have the power to protect one group of people from oppression from another?

If they are limited by the Constitution and that oppression is seen as Constitutional, then what?

ETA: btw, I agree with pretty much everything you just posted there.

I'm not quite sure what you mean. The states have the police power. There are few federal i.e. congressional exceptions. Which of those exceptions do you allude to?

I'm gonna have to ask you the same question I'm asking Rabbi:

Do we have a right to live?

 

[Liability]

It's not going to be overturned.

49 states force drivers to purchase auto insurance ( New Hampshire being the lone exception ).

If that is Constitutional, then so is the health insurance mandate.

FALSE.

A driver's license is a privilege, not a right. CONDITIONING that privilege on a requirement that drivers must have liability insurance is thus a valid exercise of STATE government authority.

If the FEDERAL government, by contrast, seeks to impose some hitherto unheard of requirement that citizens purchase HEALTH insurance, the question is ON WHAT privilege are they making it a condition? Is it the "privilege" of living? Can't be. Taht's ot a "privilege." It's a right.

So your would-be analogy is a non starter. It's false.

You fail.

Vici. You don't see. But logic and facts do conquer.

ummmmm....so access to health care is a right?

and you missed the point I was making. see a few posts later where I clarify that no they arent the same, but the power is equatable.

"Access" to health care is a "right?"

Since when?

It is a blessing. It is a thing to be desired. In this land, it is bestowed upon folks by law.

But a "right?" No.

And no; they are not only not the same --at all -- they are also not equatable.