Culture Crisis instead of Health Care Crisis

good question. One of the reasons i eventually left. i know, 15 years...i am a slow learner. i really loved the job. I think all jobs have their advantages and disadvantages.i was willing to put up with that one. it did however make me feel undervalued as a person and as a contributor to his bottom line and bank acount. he was just a cheap SOB who only cared about himself and his bottom line,and i put up with it until i could take no more.

Thanks dave, that was definately an honest response, IMHO. I believe sometimes we reap what we sow and it does take a lot to step-up in an uncertain hour.

That also applies to consumerism, the market will determine the correct path. If someone is selling a product for more than a competitor, the competitor wins. The same would apply to insurance, make it portable.

DFW5Traveler, I don't know where you get your legal sources, but they are woefully lacking, especially the description of the power granted under the Commerce Clause. Your summary is probably correct up to the late 19th century, but it is literally about 100 years behind. It also completely ignores the effect of the "necessary and proper clause" read in conjunction with the Commerce Clause. And your reference to "original intent" suggests that you are reading something that is by reactionary legal minds like Robert Bork, Scalia, or someone of their ilk, not mainstream legal scholars.

In short, your "summary" is not a summary or current law at all, but some wet dream of what the wing nuts wish the law was.

I am certainly not a lawyer but did you just say that one of the sitting Supreme Court Justices is out of the mainstream? Or is this a DIFFERENT Scalia?

Nope, same one. Clarence Thomas is probably even more outside the main stream. The two other rock ribbed conservatives on the Court, Roberts and Alito, are somewhat more in the legal mainstream, although quite conservative. But they are much more big business conservatives than radical reactionaries who really want to completely overturn most of the 20th century's jurisprudence since 1934 (although a case like Parents Involved v. Seattle School District makes you wonder about them, too).

And in fairness, there have been a few liberal justices who were somewhat outside the legal mainstream. Justice Douglas was that sort of justice on a number of issues. I can't think of any since, but his view on the First Amendment, for example, were clearly outside even accepted liberal interpretations of the portions of that amendment with freedom of speech.

Are you an attorney and what makes you think that only an attorney has the ability to understand the written language? No, I'm not an attorney, but i can read. It's called history and precident. And what changes were made to the Constitution since the 19th century? By the way didnt' the progressive movement start at the end of the 19th Century? Weren't the first 2 openly progressive presidents T Roosevelt and W Wilson? If you were a political subversive and wanted to change a society, how would you do it? Would you start with a physical revolution or would you infiltrate the learning institutions and begin a silent revolution by teaching your ideology?

The Constitution is not a living document as the progressives would have us believe. Read the Federalist papers and Thomas Payne's Common Sense. To change the Constitution requires Constitutional Conventions and ratifications for national law. The enumerated powers are the limits placed on the government, because the framers knew that:

• "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men." - Lord Acton, 1887
• "Unlimited power is apt to corrupt the minds of those who possess it; and this I know, my lords, that where laws end, tyranny begins." - William Pitt, 1770

To lay the groundwork for an increasingly successful attack on our Constitution, the subversives must demean and criticize the authors. As then Senator Joe Biden demonstrated during the Clarence Thomas hearings, "the framers' ideas about natural law must be trivialized or they must be seen as racists."

Just like they now teach all the founders were slavers. It is fact that they were not all slavers. For example, in 1774, Benjamin Franklin and Benjamin Rush founded America's first antislavery society; John Jay was president of a similar society in New York. When Constitution signer William Livingston heard of the New York society, he, as Governor of New Jersey, wrote them, offering:

I would most ardently wish to become a member of it [the society in New York] and... I can safely promise them that neither my tongue, nor my pen, nor purse shall be wanting to promote the abolition of what to me appears so inconsistent with humanity and Christianity... May the great and the equal Father of the human race, who has expressly declared His abhorrence of oppression, and that He is no respecter of persons, succeed a design so laudably calculated to undo the heavy burdens, to let the oppressed go free, and to break every yoke.

I can only say that there is not a man living who wishes more sincerely than I do to see a plan adopted for the abolition of it (slavery). Originally Posted by George Washington;

In short, your "summary" is not a summary or current law at all, but some wet dream of what the wing nuts wish the law was. Originally Posted by TexTushHog

I like that you are now resorting to cacophony and name calling, it shows that you have no real argument. Thank you for validating my posts.

I was called a discriminator for sharing information about my company. Just think if you are actually arguing with him.

No judge to slap him down in here so he can say what he likes.