The Dems can argue that the mandate is meant to protect other people, whether you buy the argument is another story though. For example, they could argue that requiring each person buy insurance will spread the overall cost of health care to more people, thus protecting those who currently pay for health care from the higher costs that result when the overall cost is spread to a smaller pool of people.

Also, some are arguing that this is not a mandate at all, but rather it’s an excise tax that everyone who does something has to pay; the thing these people have to do is “to not purchase health insurance.”

For myself, I have always felt that an excise tax was something that was charged to a person who chose to do some affirmative action, rather than something he or she is charged because he or she chose to not act, but I’m not sure I could adequately defend that there is a difference between the two.

I hope someone can argue it well enough to defeat such practices, because if it passes it will set a precedent that may open the door for the national government to have nearly unlimited regulatory power. Like if you don’t buy a hybrid vehicle or the book “My Two Mommies,” you get taxed. After all, we have to protect everyone from the dangers fossil fuel emmissions, and the violence that results from sexual oreintation intolerance.

And as proof he used the various parliamentary shenanigans proposed by Reid/Pelosi to circumvent the Congress’ own rules to push the Hell-th Care bill through, a bill which nearly 60% of Americans do not want now in any form. But since the American people are the enemy, they must be taught a lesson.

Recall that the bottom 40% of Americans who do not pay taxes might constitute the base of the Democrats and of NObama’s support. This is why I think polls will never show NObama’s popularity in the 30% area. A squishy 15-20% obviously form what I call “the wavering minority of the middle’” which tipped things last year, so that a radical leftist agenda – framed as “moderate centrism willing to compromise” – could be in power.

And will this bottom 40% care about Constitutional questions? I suspect not: it is the Wavering Minority in the Middle who need to be convinced, and then take action.

Did you just hear the lady named Susan on Rush asking what she could do NOW to throw out the RINOs?

I predicted he would say nary a word about becoming a precinct committeeman. And I was right.

All he said was “by calling here today your ‘doing it.’”

And to keep calling Reid and Steny Hoyer.

Here’s the answer to her questions, as you all know:

www.theprecinctproject.wordpress.com

http://theprecinctproject.wordpress.com/2009/08/28/becoming-a-precinct-committeeman-step-by-step/

Please spread the word.

Even Rush won’t talk about the specifics. He did say we have to “take back the Republican Party.” But he didn’t say HOW to do it.

I was allowed to speak for about 10 minutes last night to a Tea Party group over in Mesa, AZ about the paramount need fo these nice conservatives to become Republican Party precinct committeemen. I think these people are now “ripe” for receiving this information and acting on it. They are beginning to awaken to the idea that running around to parties and protests and forming groups is all well and good, but it’s not necessarily going to either change the outcome of the 2010 elections or change the behavior NOW of the congresscritters. They want to know what to DO. When I explain that by signing up NOW to become a PC is the BEST thing to do to achieve those two goals, they are now receptive.

There were about 65 people there and only four of them, me included, were PCs. Now I think all of them will become PCs.

Thank you.

ColdWarrior

www.theprecinctproject.wordpress.com

And if you don’t, there is no requirement anywhere that you buy auto insurance. Even if you drive someone else’s car, it is the owner that carries the insurance.

As to my paying for others to use E.R.s, etc. I already do that with my taxes, and even that is an unwarranted burden if I didn’t cause the E.R. visit. You can argue logically that it might cost me less to have a universal plan in place ( and that is, indeed, open to argument), but you have no right to force me to have it.

But why concern ourselves with the Constitution now? We’ve abrogated it for years. Even the process we are going through in debating this issue is fought with unconstitutionality. Just ask Humana (and any of the other carriers of Senior Advantage plans) if they feel their free speech rights have been abridged.

Any liberal using the mandate to purchase auto insurance in order to drive as an example for mandatory health insurance is a total idiot. The simple fact is that one does not have to purchase auto insurance to drive.

Rather, if an individual can demonstrate financial ability to meet the minimum liability amounts required by the state (ie through a bond), then one can “drive drive drive till daddy takes the t-bird away” legally and with blessing from the state.

I’d say at least half of them libs don’t even realize the difference between collision and liability portions of their policy. Collision coverage is required by the lender, the liability portion is a mandate by the state.

Mandatory health insurance is a TAX; no matter how one looks at it.

Obamacare, there are a lot of links on the interwebs…

http://www.thefoxnation.com/conservatives/2009/09/23/conservatives-say-theyll-sude-stop-obamacare