Consumers should be able to select whatever coverage they so choose, whether that means emergency-only coverage, or comprehensive coverage for anything including bandaids.

If they can afford to pay for it, fine. Let them buy coverage that will have a nurse show up and kiss their bruise if they so choose. Just don’t ask the American taxpayers to cover it for them!

One of the reasons that the Democrat’s healthcare bill is not the enforcement of a “right” is that it violates the rights of the medical practitioners and facility owners. Saying a person has a right to treatment they cannot afford forces the doctors to give up a portion of their rights, that is, their right to property (the materials they use and the knowledge stored in their heads).

It is unfortunate that so many believe they have a right to a portion of another person’s life. This is the same type of thinking that was used to justify the looting after Katrina. It is the same mentality that justifies illegal music downloads (and the excessive fines leveled upon the downloading individuals). It is the mentality that justifies minimum wages (and now the bonus/salary “clawbacks” the TARP administrators are considering).

You have a right only to your own life and property, and can give it up at whatever rate you feel is appropriate. Artificially forcing someone to accept less than they desire for their property or services is theft, at any level, for any purpose and by through any intermediary.

I don’t like tolls where the government puts the money into its general fund, but tolls to pay for the construction and/or maintenance of the road are, to me, more “free market” than any gas tax.

“In one description, known to grammarians as an ablative absolute construction, the Second Amendment has been considered formed with an opening justification phrase, followed by a declarative clause where the opening phrase modifies the main clause much as an adjective would modify a noun. Under this interpretation, the opening phrase is considered essential as a pre-condition for the main clause. This was a grammar structure that was common during that era. This grammatical description is considered by some to be consistent with the concept of the Second Amendment as protecting a collective right to firearms for members serving in a select militia.” from Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

…the Founding Fathers spoke at length about the militia. Tenche Cox is one of my favorites on the subject:
“Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American … the unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.”

But ALL of the Founders agreed. The militia is everyone. The left ignores the historical evidence and obfuscates the amendment so that they can incrementally infringe on the very right guaranteed and explained for us.

The Second Amendment is not the only portion of the Constitution treated this way. Look at what they do in the name of the “General Welfare” clause!

Now, much like their use of the two words, General Welfare, they create a new right, so obviously intended to be guaranteed to the American People.

Lies, plain to see to me, but the lies are picked up and repeated and off we go, to the public option or co-ops or socialized government run health care. Those who want to believe it will, just like the surprise so many Obama voters are feeling now. What surprise? You didn’t see it coming? We told you! Stupid.

Health Insurance is a product or commodity. It is meant to be privately purchased and privately owned. Just like any other product or commodity. The constitution does not guarantee us a right to own that which we cannot afford.

So what the government should do is eliminate the barriers to interstate purchase of health insurance. Remove most mandatory coverage’s so that consumers can choose the minimum level of coverage according to their economic situation. Both of these steps would make individual policies more affordable.

Consumers should select insurance coverage for ONLY those things which could not be for, out of pocket, or from a health savings account

That’s my story, and I’m sticking to it!

It is amazing to see that, regardless of the issue, liberals ALWAYS violate the very same right they claim to be upholding.

The best way to tell real from phony is to ask, who has to initiate force to violate the right? If you have to force someone into some action (such as taxes) in order to achieve your “right” then its an FDR style right. Rights as defined in the constitution require only that others refrain from interfering (hence the term negative liberty).

The simple fact is that Congress is not authorized to provide medical insurance to anyone, in any form, no matter how reasonable a plan is developed.

Every member of Congress has a stack of copies of the Constitution to pass out to visiting constituents. Too bad those congresscritters have never availed themselves of the opportunity to read and understand the law of the land.

It’s really not that difficult. It’s a short document, quite concise. For the more dunderheaded, I suggest starting by reading the 10th Amendment, and working backwards.

But the 2nd Amendment is oddly worded for that to be the case.