Hi Everyone,

I'd like to make a correction to my post. The medication that is prescribed to late stage breast cancer patients to help them live for a longer time that the Federal Gov has decided is too expensive is named Avastin, and NOT Avandia. I apologize for the mistake!

Hi Jordan,

If Obamacare has been gutted and its basic premise and sustenance proclaimed "unconstitutional," why is it that the Obama Administration has already begun to implement Obamacare and its "rationing?" They have already taken Avandia off the market for patients with advanced breast cancer (Avandia helps them live years longer). Because they have done so, there are many, many women who have been given a death sentence whereas with Avandia, they could have lived on for several more years. The Obama Administration believes that Avandia is too expensive and not worth it to keep producing. He certainly doesn't value human life at any stage. How are they able to continue to implement something that is declared unconstitutional? Are they going to even bother to listen, or will they continue to defy the American people, the Constitution, court judgments, and the law itself, and keep on plowing us over? Will they stop at anything? Or, do we just have to wait until 2012?

It would be better to continue as we have, letting the poor and uninsured attend emergent care centers and the entire U.S. (myself included) populous footing the bill with nickles and dimes, than to accept Obamacare.

This yoke is so burdensome that it will destroy this nation, pure and simple.

1 - The Fed NEVER relinquishes seized power

2 - The trauma from the cost will cripple our economy and cause our debtors (mainly China) to call in our debt (which of course we already cannot pay back).

3 - Near future consequences would be the administration mandating or otherwise regulating your eating habits, your private lifestyle, your parenting, your paycheck, your religious beliefs ... all of these would soon follow (to a greater degree than they have already).

And some would call me and mine sheeple - geeeeez.

Mary, the power you speak of was taken not given.

With regard to talking points, is there something wrong with agreeing with something when you think it's correct?

With regard to the religion argument - yes, unfortunately, there is a prerequisite for even being able to understand ... His Name is the Holy Spirit - without Him you just won't, it's not your fault. That doesn't change Veritas.

Sadly though, within the Church only about 2 to 3% even tithe - which is OUR fault - but the premise remains, the government has moved into the scope and realm where the Church's business has not been dutifully performed.

I do not as much condemn the Fed's desire to take over health care (since this is to be expected from a sinful, fallen humanity - power hunger, that is) as I do decry the relinquishment of responsibilities by my brethren, which I would argue has put us in this position in the first place.

In short, in the parable of the good Samaritan, the Samaritan was not a part of the governing body, he was one man - a common man, who cared for the man out of righteousness and compassion, not compulsion and law.

It truly is a worldview debate. Regardless, what would we do if the Fed suddenly decided - within this health care structure - to mandate something you loathe, will it then be ok to accept it since it's for your own good?

Absolute power corrupts and the Fed needs no help there.

This just sounds like Republican talking points. What does this have to do with religion?
--------------------------------------
True that.
Of all the possible objections to the Obamacare Plan, being Unchristian is the least of them. If anything, it's TOO Christian.

This just sounds like Republican talking points. What does this have to do with religion?

It is a bad idea to force every American to buy private health insurance. That's just a giveaway to insurance corporations. It should be handled as we handle the provision of interstate highway access. We purchase this with our federal taxes every year. Who wants the interstate highway system to become an enormous system of toll roads?

Matthew7vrs7:
"When a religious people adhere to the founding documents, tithe cheerfully out of love and demonstrate the charity Christ spoke of, those who have heart attacks by the side of the road will be cared for by the people, not the government."

How would that work in the world of modern medicine? Would the religious people fund many private, religious hospitals so plentifully that all comers would be accepted instantly (as is necessary to save a heart attack victim), with no payment requirement or requirement to prove the ability to pay? How would we go about making this happen, other than wishin' and hopin'? Is it at all rational to expect this transformation of human nature? The fact is, even Americans who claim to be devout Christians believe that they are entitled to a high standard of living that must be maintained at the cost of lessening their charitable donations. Would they freely donate more than they're paying for health insurance right now to pay for medical care for anyone who needed it?

MARYP123,

"In 1922, it was used to justify the regulation of the meat packing industry in Chicago. In 1964, it was used to force private hotel owners/restaurant owners to serve black patrons."

Buying meat is an option. Traveling for many is a option. The problem with this new regulation is that it force people to do something they might want to avoid. It is hard to find another case of the commerce clause forcing people to engage in economic activity that they might want to avoid. It is a huge new aggrandizement of federal authority.

MONTANA_MILES

Ronald Reagan . . .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRdLpem-AAs

Reagan, though dead, still speaks with startling clarity, doesn't he?

Would that we had a Ronald Reagan somewhere in our current crop of bumbling, incompetent politicians.

But, alas, character is no longer king.

Ronald Reagan . . .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRdLpem-AAs

Matthew:

Ok, but what about health insurance?

The commerce clause has been used for many decades to give powers to the federal government that perhaps weren't foreseen by the founding fathers. In 1922, it was used to justify the regulation of the meat packing industry in Chicago. In 1964, it was used to force private hotel owners/restaurant owners to serve black patrons. In the first example, because meat was shipped across state lines regularly, it was closely enough related to interstate commerce to warrant federal regulation. In the second example, because hotels and restaurants serve patrons who are traveling across state lines, interstate commerce was implicated and the federal government could step in.

I think that those are two (of several more) examples of the broad scope of powers thought to be given to the federal government by the commerce clause. Maybe you think the federal government shouldn't have stepped in in those examples. I agree that its a bit of a stretch. But the fact is, thats how its been used, and thats the current state of the law. Certainly if examples like those are thought to affect interstate commerce, then whether or not a person has health insurance as they travel from state to state affects interstate commerce. Someones going to have to pay for uninsured people traveling across state lines...

@ maryp123 - I couldn't disagree more. There was never a 'broad scope' of powers given to the federal government under any clause. The fed's sole reason for existence is to be like an impenetrable wall with regard to our borders, to implement a military force to protect said boundaries, to institute laws based on the morals of our culture, to protect personal property, the pursuit of contentment, and to facilitate the fight for liberty we are guaranteed by our founding documents - to empower the people ... NOT the government.

When the government is of/by/for the people and it's leaders respect/fear her citizens, democracy is a fruitful tree, abounding in wealth, prosperity and contentment. When the leaders do not fear/respect the people, tyranny springs forth and chokes out liberty and death is assured.

You see, Mary, our government has - with force, might I add - shoe-horned it's way into the position only the Lord can ever fill. When a religious people adhere to the founding documents, tithe cheerfully out of love and demonstrate the charity Christ spoke of, those who have heart attacks by the side of the road will be cared for by the people, not the government. If a man dies and leaves his widow with children she can't raise alone, the Church - by doctrine - steps into the Gap.

Our problem is that once citizens realize they can vote for themselves a generous handout from the public coffers, they refuse to be responsible and never become mature.

May the Lord have mercy on our nation - I fear wrath is not far off.

The problem is, we're human. We can't "choose" to participate in the health care system. Eventually, something is going to happen to you and you're going to need to see a doctor.

Although you might choose to have a car and have therefore entered the stream of commerce and can be forced to purchase car insurance, you don't choose to have a heart attack, or break your leg. Whether you like it or not, you've entered the "stream of commerce" in terms of the health industry automatically.

If we had a system where you got left by the side of the road to die if you had an accident and had no insurance, then yes- it would be economically viable to not mandate that everyone carry health insurance. Interestingly however, if you don't have health insurance, you don't get left by the side of the road to die - you get picked up and other people end up paying for what you haven't paid for. Why not mandate that everyone carry an insurance policy? I think its simply logical, and falls well within the very broad scope of powers given to the federal government by the commerce clause.

Jordan, I couldn't agree with you more. Judge Hudson speaks political prophecy in that a monster only grows when you feed it, and absolute power, absolutely corrupts.

I am curious though, why we have not taken it to the pro-choice communi(sts)ty using their own platform. After all, if a woman's right to have an abortion is a constitutionally protected choice freedom (and, "how dare anyone tell her what do with her own body"), who is the President's captive Congress to now act in polar contradiction to their own doctrine by mandating that we submit our bodies to Obamacare?