I think he's right though. The constitutional arrangemenT is that while states have plenary power and can regulaTe and impose just about any mandates they like, the Feds have only the enumerated powers given in the text ... WiTh two extra amendments added to underscore the argument thAt the federalists were making that people should vote to ratify because it had been trusses up Tightly by the constitution, and would not turn into Leviathan.

The collapse of the mandate is a good thing because it Means we will waste far less time on this platypus oF a "reform" and have to deal with Universal Medicare or some variation thereof, whiCh is both more efficient and constitutional.

First they force us into this goofy system, then they want to kill it because it's goofy

I think we need universal health care, but forcing us to buy into the current screwed system is just dumb. It just caters to the insurance companies. What incentive to they have to make it more affordable if the feds say everyone has to buy it?
Maybe the feds (ie: taxpayers) should buy interest in the healthcare/insurance companies instead of banks and auto manufacturers.

There was so many things wrong with the bill that it showed clearly how dysfunctional congress and government has become. And now with such enormous sums at stake the only thing they seem to produce is chaos followed by more chaos.

Where is the genuine reform and remedy for anything at any level?

I can't think of a single example.

He has a very good argument. If the feds can use the commerce clause to force everyone to buy health insurance they can use it to force us to buy anything. Not only do we need reasonable health care reform but we also need an overhaul of the commerce clause.

I'd be all for a Oregon sales tax or Fed VAT/sales tax if a condition was that anyone armed (concealed or open carry) at time of purchase was exempt from the sales tax.

"...and have to deal with Universal Medicare or some variation thereof, whiCh is both more efficient and constitutional."

How exactly is single payer/universal medicare more efficient (You want the likes of PDX city hall running your healthcare?) and constitutional? But then, I see the "obamacare" law as nothing but government healthcare with nominal "private" options. The gov in that case is setting prices, options, regulations and just hiring private companies to handle the admin.

JS, every industrialized democracy in the world (bar one) has figured out how to provide universal health coverage for far LESS than we spend, and obtain better results. You can chant your dittohead talking points all you want, but the bottom line is that health insurance is like fire companies -- the cheapest way to get the best results is to recognize that health, like protection from fires, is a public good. Eliminate the 1/3 of our gargantuan "health" budget wasted on DENYING care and making insurance parasites rich and we could cover everyone immediately.

I saw first-hand how well 100% socialized medicine works, and believe me, the people who enjoy that system would revolt if you proposed taking it away: I refer, of course, to the men and women in the US armed services. They live in a 100% socialized health care system and it works great for all concerned - the medical types get to practice medicine, there are no insurance parasites bleeding the system, no one gets paid to search through records and find reasons for denying someone coverage after they turn out to be really sick, it's 100% portable, and it's efficient.

Try this, a quick cure for ignorance:

http://www.amazon.com/Healing-America-Global-Better-Cheaper/dp/0143118218/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1292786970&sr=1-1

George the rest of the world doesn't have socialized medicine. There are a variety of systems. The rest of the world does approach medicine different than we do in that most countries allow midwives to deliver most of the births and deal with death in much different manner than we do in the U.S.

Midwives cost about 1/5 what OB/GYNs do. In the Netherlands 30% of births are at home. Here in the U.S. some people have been charged with child endangerment for having home births.

I would have to look the numbers up but something 30% of medicare funds are spent on patients in their last year of life.

I also saw the type of medicine the military practices and I would not describe it the way you do.

So much for a cure for ignorance.

Oh good god did you pick the wrong example to prove to me socialized medicine works. The VA med system is the one to emulate? Yeah, sorry I saw first hand how the VA and the State of Oregon treated my WW2 vet grandfather after his stroke. The only way he got good care was my mother riding their asses. The state would help out but not foot the full bill until they had to. This was a man who fought on Guadalcanal and got blown up off a ship fighting for his country. I'm sure big daddy G will treat us all so well.

"no one gets paid to search through records and find reasons for denying someone coverage after they turn out to be really sick".

Except you know, "gulf war syndrome", side effects with anthrax vaccines, or depleted uranium shells exposure. Don't get me started on how we treat our vets/soliders when it comes to paternity laws.

Except, we have laws that require treatment for all when they enter an emergency room. Now, regardless what the tightright might say, those laws are for a very good reason - anybody could enter an emergency room and be unable to produce proof of insurance (unconscious, no wallet, etc.).

SO, if you're going to require that treatment, that means we ALL get that benefit, regardless whether we ever use it. That insurance that we ALL have NOW, guaranteed treatment, is what we're being "forced" to pay for. There is no corollary benefit with guns, so the analogy totally fails.

This argument should fail in court. The requirement is no different than Social Security, and it has held up.

Conservatives know they don't have the popular support for their real agenda - no government regulation or safety net whatsoever - just unchecked power of corporations manipulating the market. We tried that in the late 19th/early 20th centuries and it led to bloodshed and depression.

I said nOthing about the VA, I referred to the system of care for the people they care about keeping well ... Active duty.

Read the book I cited ... You will see that there are lotS of approaches that are superior to ours, many not single payor, but all much more effectI've than our approach.

Way to go "Cooch!" Stir it up.

One out of Three Americans already has "socialized" healthcare - because they are government employees, spouses/children thereof, military and spouses/children thereof, or on Medicare, Medicaid, the various childrens' healthcare programs, or are jail/prison inmates.

That said, they all in one way or another chose that option.

I have no problem allowing others to choose to enter into a national healthcare system (I personally believe that there would be cost savings attained by the elimination of the profit margin, a streamlining/consolidation of much of the bureaucracy involved in the current healthcare system - although government would probably be sure to screw that one up!, and by restricting the program to cover preventative care, illnesses, and emergency care - but exclude health care required as a result of automobile wrecks, workplace injuries, sporting events, injuries incurred in extraordinary active - "thrill" events where there is a high risk for injury where the event is for personal pleasure and completely avoidable). Basically, if you get sick it'll be covered, but if you are injured - if it was avoidable it won't be covered, and auto wrecks and workplace injuries will still be covered through private insurance) but it shouldn't be mandatory, and it should be run by the states and not the federal government.

Even in the U.K., the "National Health Service" is actually run by the four countries - England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland - and your coverage is portable if you travel to another country. Likewise healthcare in Canada is run by the provinces.

When I see my insurance dollars pay for television advertising (just how many billboards does Legacy and Providence need? Do I really need to hear Kaiser Permanente commercials every 5 minutes on TV or radio?) or sports stadium naming rights (Safeco Field) it certainly raises a question as to whether the private sector is doing the job right...

I'd rather we were all forced to buy a handgun rather than this nasty Obamacare. Remember, a well armed society is a polite society.

Way to go N.O.! Perfect summary - health care: nasty! Guns: polite!