Summit Treestands
BOOM ! There it is ...
Community
Contributors to this thread:
JTV 13-Sep-17
Woods Walker 13-Sep-17
Shuteye 13-Sep-17
ben h 13-Sep-17
Rocky 13-Sep-17
Woods Walker 13-Sep-17
freeglee 13-Sep-17
ben h 13-Sep-17
MT in MO 13-Sep-17
Glunt@work 13-Sep-17
Bowbender 13-Sep-17
Whitey 13-Sep-17
ben h 13-Sep-17
kentuckbowhnter 13-Sep-17
Woods Walker 13-Sep-17
Anony Mouse 13-Sep-17
TD 13-Sep-17
Mike in CT 13-Sep-17
Atheist 13-Sep-17
Woods Walker 13-Sep-17
Bowbender 13-Sep-17
Woods Walker 13-Sep-17
Anony Mouse 13-Sep-17
JTV 13-Sep-17
JTV 13-Sep-17
Woods Walker 13-Sep-17
Woods Walker 13-Sep-17
Woods Walker 13-Sep-17
HDE 13-Sep-17
Thumper 14-Sep-17
Glunt@work 14-Sep-17
Thumper 14-Sep-17
Atheist 14-Sep-17
Woods Walker 14-Sep-17
Atheist 14-Sep-17
Mike in CT 14-Sep-17
Woods Walker 14-Sep-17
Atheist 14-Sep-17
Woods Walker 14-Sep-17
JTV 14-Sep-17
Mike in CT 14-Sep-17
JTV 14-Sep-17
freeglee 14-Sep-17
Stalker 14-Sep-17
JTV 14-Sep-17
Atheist 14-Sep-17
Bentstick81 14-Sep-17
Woods Walker 14-Sep-17
Owl 14-Sep-17
Woods Walker 14-Sep-17
Anony Mouse 14-Sep-17
JTV 14-Sep-17
Spike Bull 15-Sep-17
Bowbender 15-Sep-17
Grey Ghost 15-Sep-17
JTV 15-Sep-17
Mint 15-Sep-17
HA/KS 15-Sep-17
Stalker 15-Sep-17
Anony Mouse 15-Sep-17
Atheist 16-Sep-17
Woods Walker 16-Sep-17
Woods Walker 17-Sep-17
Anony Mouse 17-Sep-17
Anony Mouse 18-Sep-17
ben h 19-Sep-17
Mike in CT 19-Sep-17
ben h 20-Sep-17
Woods Walker 20-Sep-17
Mike in CT 21-Sep-17
Spike Bull 21-Sep-17
HA/KS 21-Sep-17
HA/KS 21-Sep-17
Spike Bull 23-Sep-17
HA/KS 23-Sep-17
Spike Bull 23-Sep-17
Bowbender 23-Sep-17
Spike Bull 23-Sep-17
Bowbender 23-Sep-17
Spike Bull 23-Sep-17
From: JTV
13-Sep-17

JTV's Link
Yep, BernieCare .... Socialist Congressman Bernie Sanders introduces Single Payer health bill ..... He is calling it "Medicare for all"..... 1/3 of the dems seem to support it.... Pelosi and Schumer are holdouts on it ..... Repubs are saying this will divide the Dems like the health debate has divided the GOP ... see link .....

From: Woods Walker
13-Sep-17
Oh Lord......more "FREE" sh*t.......I can't afford anymore "FREE" sh*t!

From: Shuteye
13-Sep-17
A reporter asked Sarah Huckabee why the president didn't support Bernie's plan. Sarah said that the American people didn't support Bernie's plan or he would be in the white house. That gal is quick on her feet.

From: ben h
13-Sep-17
Every industrialized country in the world except the US has discovered that it's cheaper to have health care provided to their citizens at some level and those that want superior service can get private insurance to cover the extra expense. I am baffled that the US prefers to pay far more than other countries, almost like it's a badge of honor. The US' metrics don't support it's better care here either, just more costly. I do not support Obama Care as it has driven the cost even higher and is a complete gift to insurance companies.

We've endorsed some "socialist" view points for hundreds of years, why is healthcare so sacred for our society? Everyone is pretty much okay with people driving on the roads or freeways, or having a fire department, or god forbid providing education through high school for everyone.

From: Rocky
13-Sep-17
Allow the health care market to operate within the boundaries of the free enterprise system. "Providing". Provide for yourself or perish. The undertaker would not be as busy as you are led to believe.

The Rock

From: Woods Walker
13-Sep-17
NOTHING our government does is cheap. When you combine total inefficiency with bullsh*t PC crap and not a CLUE as to how to run anything that's what you'll get, every time. They have a damn near perfect track record of screwing things up to prove it.

You think healthcare is expensive now? Just wait until the government runs it. And that's not even taking into account how much freedom you lose as an individual when you're beholden to bureaucrats for your well being. I'd rather die a free man than be their slave, and make no mistake about it, that's EXACTLY what you'll be.

From: freeglee
13-Sep-17
BenH Boom!!! Valid Ponts!! You Win argument is over the rest are Dismissed!!!

From: ben h
13-Sep-17
Woods, I generally agree with you, except for in this instance with the US' retarded system we already pay more than double the price of any industrialized nation. Every other nation has both a public and a private health care system. You're more than free to spend as much as you want on health care, so you're not beholden any one or anything. The US system only has the private health care and as a result we're totally beholden to insurance companies and laws that mandate we pay them. That's a taste of "freedom" I can do without and can be a slave to pay less money.

My dad is a dentist and he quit accepting insurance, because they were too costly and difficult to work with and didn't pay enough for services. I think in the 90's he had 2 offices and 4 Dr's working full time with this approach as it was actually cheaper for patients to just pay him. This is sort of the "free market" that Rocky mentions above and I agree that in a perfect world this would be the best option. The problem is we don't live in a "free market" and haven't for decades. We are a civilized nation and do not deny care to people or "put them down" if they can't pay. We already pay for the care of those that can't pay by increased insurance premiums and hospital bills. If we could do that for a lower cost, I have no idea why this concept wouldn't have universal support independent of it being a socialist ideal.

From: MT in MO
13-Sep-17
The US does not only have private health care.

Ever heard of Medicare/Medicaid?

Both programs are gov't managed and sponsored.

Neither program is self sustaining and both are going broke.

Obamacare, whether intentional or not, tried to make everyone equally miserable just like those that are on Medicaid today.

Medicaid is 100% Socialist Medicine. Medicare not so much since seniors do pay a premium, but I don't know all the details about that yet...I will soon be finding out though...getting old...at 65 I will be FORCED to go on Medicare.

I will still be able to buy additional medical insurance on the private market too...Just like ben h wants...and all that was already there without Obamacare...

Edited Note: Also, I keep hearing we pay more for medical care than anyone else in the world. Well, before Obamacare the only people covered by socialist medicine were those on Medicaid and Medicare and we were/are paying more than anyone else already...and yet these same people who make these claims say if we put everyone on these already proven bankrupt plans it will make costs go down...What?

From: Glunt@work
13-Sep-17
One close version we already have is IHS (Indian Health Service). We give free health care to Native Americans. From what I have read, they aren't very pleased with it aside from the cost.

We pay for 15,000 employees, many hospitals and smaller facilities and it costs about $5 billion a year.

From: Bowbender
13-Sep-17
Ben H

"Every industrialized country in the world except the US has discovered that it's cheaper to have health care provided to their citizens at some level and those that want superior service can get private insurance to cover the extra expense."

So, I get to pay higher taxes PLUS a premium for the same level of care I currently get? In want ****ing universe does that make sense?

From: Whitey
13-Sep-17
Ben H , the explanation lies in why people outside the US with the means come to the US for medical procedures. 1. They want the best Drs. 2. They want the best methods, practices. We need to get back to a free enterprise system . Giving up and saying the rest of the world doesn't do it this way not why the pilgrims fled Europe.

Never , ever , not once in my life have I seen better service from a govt. employee vs a private employee offering the same service. Never ever have I seen a govt program cheaper than a private program offering the same results.

From: ben h
13-Sep-17
Glunt, that's $333k per person per year, which supports my argument that we should just either pay them $8k/year and they can get their own insurance, or we can just have some sort of government sponsored hospitals that they can use essentially free of charge. I don't like the idea of giving something for nothing, but faced with paying $4k/ year like most countries or $8k/ year like we do, I'd still take the $4k deal. How it gets paid out through taxes or insurance, is irrelevant to me, because at the end of the day, it's just money as far as my account is concerned.

MT, I did neglect to mention Medicaid or Medicare as public forms of insurance. Like you, I do not participate in either program and know next to nothing about them. I do know that on the aggregate, in the US we pay more than DOUBLE any other industrialized nation, which leads me to believe, generally speaking we could really improve on that number and our current system is probably the worst out there and it's far from a "free Market" despite our belief or dream that we're a free country.

13-Sep-17
I would rather die than be a deadbeat.

From: Woods Walker
13-Sep-17
"We are a civilized nation and do not deny care to people or "put them down" if they can't pay."

Oh yeah? Let the government take over full control and you see how fast that very thing will start to happen. The other big problem with this is that based on how Obamacare was initiated, designed sold and implemented ....on darn near 100% LIES....their credibility rating is ZERO. I believe NOTHING they say about healthcare. The government people that control this are either incompetent, unqualified morons, or lying thieves. Either way, I want NOTHING to do with ANYTHING they want to do to manage or control healthcare. How do we know that THIS time they won't lie? We can't. And they WILL.

If you want to trust them go right ahead. Leave me out of it. I'll either take care of myself or die. But at least I'll die on MY terms and not theirs.

From: Anony Mouse
13-Sep-17
For routine care, most Canadians are very happy with their medical care system. For non- routine health issues, the waiting period is such that many are willing to pay and come to the US.

I have a New Zealand virtual friend who is still fighting his government medical services for a shoulder issue and it has been over seven years. Even with medical specialists advocating for him, he is still fighting the medical bureaucrats.

From: TD
13-Sep-17
Cool. I'll just do what everyone else will do. Not pay for any insurance and let "others" pick up my tab when I get sick. Same as on Obamacare now, but on steroids with single payer. I know people who cut back to part time to qualify for the subsidy..... with the subsidy they work half as much and still make the same income because the other poor working saps are paying them to do so. Set a minimum level and a great many people will live down to it.

Anybody who thinks they can get as good or better services for half the money now while eliminating competition among insurances is likely on medical marijuana..... that's close to the same BS they sold us on Obamacare.

Obamacare is a prime example of letting the government get yet more involved. They will then TELL you what (crappy) coverage you will have and what you will pay for it. There will be no options, because such a system cannot survive with options. As mentioned above...... spreading the misery.... everything will suck..... but some are ok with it because it will suck equally for everyone.....

Next in trying to hold down costs (with there being no competition) they will mandate what they will pay for each procedure and will limit total payments. People in the medical field will be getting out of it in droves. Already a good many don't deal with Medicare or Medicaid because of such limits in the system. You think you see enough Indian and Pakistani doctors now? They will be the norm. Getting put off and run around through the system? SOP.

Medical research will grind to a halt. What new medical innovations have come from these "industrialized" countries with costs 50% less than what we pay? Where does the vast majority of medical innovation and technology come from now?

There ARE measures that can reduce costs. Competition across state lines. Tort reform on many kinds of medical malpractice suits. (meaning 15 tests taken where one is all that is needed but they have to CYA.) Making more things elective (can anyone explain why Viagra would be covered in a health plan? Much less a sex change?)

Lets get out of Obamacare, drop the completely unnecessary bureaucracy created (and funded) specifically for it..... identify TRUE measures that would reduce medical costs and try those first. I'd like to see what those in the hands on medical fields say would reduce costs and have the insurance industry, drug companies and the lawyers shut up and sit on the sidelines for a while.

From: Mike in CT
13-Sep-17

Mike in CT's Link
Whenever I see comments like Ben's about the performance of the US Healthcare system compared to socialized countries (or the rest of the world for that matter) I can pretty much pin down the source of the comparative information and can definitely assign it to the category of nonsense.

Excerpt from a link (there are many that point out the same fallacy (thinking the US Healthcare system is as bad as some paint it to be) that anyone inclined for an accurate assessment can easily find.

"But like virtually every other study that trashes the U.S. healthcare system, Commonwealth's rankings rely on questionable assumptions, like giving weight to those systems that treat people equally rather than well. At the same time, Commonwealth ignores the problems that countries with socialized healthcare systems have actually treating people once they're sick."

As someone who's spent most of his adult life in the clinical, research and industry sides of the healthcare market frankly I'm amazed at how easily some of these claims are latched onto as gospel truths with a fervor that would rival the most devout evangelical......

Repeat after me; "there's no such thing as a free lunch."

From: Atheist
13-Sep-17
I've said it before, why is it that Nations with socialized medicine NEVER try to repeal or replace it? Because it works. Healthcare is a human right for all humans. Not only those that can afford it. PERIOD. And if you don't agree, please stop calling yourself a Christian. Christ was a hippy liberal that would've given healthcare , food and housing to all for free. The kind of guy that many here would call a libtard.

From: Woods Walker
13-Sep-17
Show me in the Constitution where it says that healthcare is a right. You can't. All you can do is make sh*t up. YOU may think it's a "human right", so if you do then YOU pay for everyone else and keep your ****ing hands out of MY pocket. I will take care of my family. NOT the friggin' government.

If you want to live in a socialist sh*t hole then go to Europe and live in one, and take Bernie The Bolshevik with you. I do NOT, and will die on my feet trying to keep it that way.

And I really don't give a crap what you call me.

From: Bowbender
13-Sep-17
"Christ was a hippy liberal that would've given healthcare , food and housing to all for free. The kind of guy that many here would call a libtard."

Christ sacrificed himself for all mankind, a brutal death on the cross. Show me a liberal that would do that.

From: Woods Walker
13-Sep-17
A liberal would put someone ELSE on a cross. And I get a kick of how a self described atheist thinks he knows about Christ. That's about as ridiculous as a career politician (like Obama) thinking he knows how business and free enterprise work.

From: Anony Mouse
13-Sep-17
Death panels... basically health care will be rationed as a cost containment method. Those with chronic conditions may only receive palliative care rather than a more costly treatment. Rationing will increase waiting times to see specialists.

The wealthy will get better care as they can afford to go outside the system.

Quality of medical practitioners will decline as financial incentatives as a government employee will mean importing doctors from third world countries.

Like Mike, I spent my career in the field of medical laboratory science and saw what happened as more and more government was inserted into hospital practices. Cuts have been made where the public was not aware that affected medical care.

A good example is that autopsies today are rarely done...eliminating not only teaching opportunities, but also understanding of disease process.

From: JTV
13-Sep-17
Hey dickweed, yea you, Atheist (aka PaulZ, Freefruity, Resist and a host of other fake registrations), Healthcare is NOT a right... where in my constitution does it say one is promised healthcare ?? ... Damn dude, your a friggin' ignorant fool, really are ...

From: JTV
13-Sep-17
Here, let me put this here so you can read it, because your to damn ignorant to click on a link ...sheesh !!

No Health Care in the Constitution By Larrey Anderson Nancy Pelosi was recently asked by a reporter, ""Madam Speaker, where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate?"

She replied, "Are you serious? Are you serious?"

Yes Madam Speaker, we are serious. At least, I am. In my opinion, our Constitution is the most profound political document ever written. Many Americans besides me would really like a "serious" answer to that reporter's question.

Democrat House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer at least made an attempt at an answer. He was also asked where in the Constitution was Congress granted the power to mandate that a person must buy a health insurance policy.

Hoyer's answer:

Well, in promoting the general welfare the Constitution obviously gives broad authority to Congress to effect that end. The end that we're trying to effect is to make health care affordable, so I think clearly this is within our constitutional responsibility.

News flash for Congressman Hoyer: "general welfare" is mentioned only twice in the Constitution. The phrase appears once in the Preamble, but the Preamble gives the legislative branch no authority whatsoever.

"General welfare" is also mentioned once in Article I, Section 8. Here is what it actually means in that section.

The powers of the legislative branch are stated in the Constitution. The powers specifically granted to the Congress are spelled out in Article I, Section 8. Since it isn't that long of a section -- and there aren't that many powers -- I will reproduce the entire enumerated powers of the Congress in the first endnote below[i].

The words "general Welfare" show up in the first line of Article I, Section 8: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States ... [Emphasis added.]

Notice that the Constitution doesn't say the "general welfare of the citizens of the United States." It says "general Welfare of the United States." This clause only gives the Congress the power to raise money to defend the country and pay for the day-to-day operations of the government. It says nothing at all about building bridges to nowhere, or paving bike paths, or spending money on any other kind of pork barrel project -- including health care. Read the rest of Article I, Section 8 below. The exact powers of the Congress are listed there.

That's it. That is all the constitutional power that Nancy and Steny have. I know this because the people who wrote the Constitution stuck on two pesky amendments. I like to call them the "And we really mean it!" amendments. Here they are: Amendment 9 The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment 10 The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. The exact wording of the 10th Amendment is important. Here, the "United States" clearly means the federal government. The powers of the United States (according to the Constitution) are not the same as the powers of its citizens ("the people"), nor are they the same as the powers of the individual states.

So the phrase, in Article I, Section 8, "general Welfare of the United States" only applies to the inner workings of the federal government. The Framers could not have made the point any clearer. Pelosi and Hoyer have no power over the citizens' health care because they are given that power nowhere in the Constitution.

The words "health" or "health care" appear nowhere in the Constitution[ii].

So according to the 9th and 10th Amendments, the "right" of health care must be guaranteed and paid for by each individual state. For example, Massachusetts has made access to health care a "right." According to the Constitution, the citizens of a particular state can do that. Massachusetts can make government-mandated health care a "right."

Whether or not the citizens of Massachusetts can afford to pay for that "right" is turning out to be quite a problem. But that is a dilemma for the people of the state of Massachusetts to work out. If the folks in Massachusetts don't want to pay for the "right" to government-mandated health care, then they can elect some different politicians and repeal the law -- or they can move to a state the does not guarantee a "right" to government-mandated health care.

If a particular state does not provide a government-mandated "right" to health care, the choice to provide (or not to provide) for our own health care is up to each of us. Health care is our choice, but it is not a "right" if it has not been made a right by an individual state.

At least that's what the Constitution says. Seriously.

Larrey Anderson is a writer, a philosopher, and submissions editor for American Thinker. His award-winning novel is The Order of the Beloved. His latest book is the memoir, Underground : Life and Survival in the Russian Black Market.

[i] Section 8 - Powers of Congress

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

[ii] Ironically, the word "care" appears once in the Constitution -- in Article II, Section 3. The word applies to the President of the United States and says, "... he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed. ..." [Emphasis added.] Nancy Pelosi was recently asked by a reporter, ""Madam Speaker, where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate?"

She replied, "Are you serious? Are you serious?"

Yes Madam Speaker, we are serious. At least, I am. In my opinion, our Constitution is the most profound political document ever written. Many Americans besides me would really like a "serious" answer to that reporter's question.

Democrat House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer at least made an attempt at an answer. He was also asked where in the Constitution was Congress granted the power to mandate that a person must buy a health insurance policy.

Hoyer's answer:

Well, in promoting the general welfare the Constitution obviously gives broad authority to Congress to effect that end. The end that we're trying to effect is to make health care affordable, so I think clearly this is within our constitutional responsibility.

News flash for Congressman Hoyer: "general welfare" is mentioned only twice in the Constitution. The phrase appears once in the Preamble, but the Preamble gives the legislative branch no authority whatsoever.

"General welfare" is also mentioned once in Article I, Section 8. Here is what it actually means in that section.

The powers of the legislative branch are stated in the Constitution. The powers specifically granted to the Congress are spelled out in Article I, Section 8. Since it isn't that long of a section -- and there aren't that many powers -- I will reproduce the entire enumerated powers of the Congress in the first endnote below[i].

The words "general Welfare" show up in the first line of Article I, Section 8: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States ... [Emphasis added.]

Notice that the Constitution doesn't say the "general welfare of the citizens of the United States." It says "general Welfare of the United States." This clause only gives the Congress the power to raise money to defend the country and pay for the day-to-day operations of the government. It says nothing at all about building bridges to nowhere, or paving bike paths, or spending money on any other kind of pork barrel project -- including health care. Read the rest of Article I, Section 8 below. The exact powers of the Congress are listed there.

That's it. That is all the constitutional power that Nancy and Steny have. I know this because the people who wrote the Constitution stuck on two pesky amendments. I like to call them the "And we really mean it!" amendments. Here they are: Amendment 9 The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment 10 The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. The exact wording of the 10th Amendment is important. Here, the "United States" clearly means the federal government. The powers of the United States (according to the Constitution) are not the same as the powers of its citizens ("the people"), nor are they the same as the powers of the individual states.

So the phrase, in Article I, Section 8, "general Welfare of the United States" only applies to the inner workings of the federal government. The Framers could not have made the point any clearer. Pelosi and Hoyer have no power over the citizens' health care because they are given that power nowhere in the Constitution.

The words "health" or "health care" appear nowhere in the Constitution[ii].

So according to the 9th and 10th Amendments, the "right" of health care must be guaranteed and paid for by each individual state. For example, Massachusetts has made access to health care a "right." According to the Constitution, the citizens of a particular state can do that. Massachusetts can make government-mandated health care a "right."

Whether or not the citizens of Massachusetts can afford to pay for that "right" is turning out to be quite a problem. But that is a dilemma for the people of the state of Massachusetts to work out. If the folks in Massachusetts don't want to pay for the "right" to government-mandated health care, then they can elect some different politicians and repeal the law -- or they can move to a state the does not guarantee a "right" to government-mandated health care.

If a particular state does not provide a government-mandated "right" to health care, the choice to provide (or not to provide) for our own health care is up to each of us. Health care is our choice, but it is not a "right" if it has not been made a right by an individual state.

At least that's what the Constitution says. Seriously.

Larrey Anderson is a writer, a philosopher, and submissions editor for American Thinker. His award-winning novel is The Order of the Beloved. His latest book is the memoir, Underground : Life and Survival in the Russian Black Market.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/no_health_care_in_the_constitu.html#ixzz4scVZAhTe Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

From: Woods Walker
13-Sep-17
"Death panels... basically health care will be rationed as a cost containment method. Those with chronic conditions may only receive palliative care rather than a more costly treatment. Rationing will increase waiting times to see specialists."

Bingo! What a country this will be when politicians get to determine who get's to live or die. And guess what........the people who are connected will live longer than the rest of us! And don't forget that when it's the government "providing" health care then they will also use it as a weapon to get us to vote the way they want and otherwise extort from us whatever they want. In short they will OWN us. And they will lie/deny ALL of this like they've already done with Obamacare from it's inception.

WHY would anyone with a functioning brain believe well established liars in the government??? They've yet to tell the truth about anything regarding Obamacare.

From: Woods Walker
13-Sep-17

Woods Walker's embedded Photo
Woods Walker's embedded Photo

From: Woods Walker
13-Sep-17

Woods Walker's embedded Photo
Woods Walker's embedded Photo

From: HDE
13-Sep-17
Healthcare is not a human right. Nobody is obligated to splint a broken bone or perform an appendectomy.

The only time they might be is if they want a silly license to practice medicine.

And since atheist threw it out there, Christ can give free healthcare in the form of healing because it's His ro give.

From: Thumper
14-Sep-17

"Healthcare is not a human right. Nobody is obligated to splint a broken bone or perform an appendectomy."

I disagree, so did the founding Fathers of this country.

"Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" is a well-known phrase in the United States Declaration of Independence. The phrase gives three examples of the "unalienable rights" which the Declaration says have been given to all human beings by their Creator, and which governments are created to protect."

From: Glunt@work
14-Sep-17
Its ok to believe health care is a right. The problem is when people believe forcing others to pay for your healthcare is somehow a right. Having firearms is for sure a right. Should it be ok for me to force my neighbors to pay for the new Sig I have my eye on?

From: Thumper
14-Sep-17
Glunt, can't have the sig, you only get a High Point....:)

From: Atheist
14-Sep-17
1) the constitution was written when people barely lived to 40. Healthcare wasn't a consideration for anyone. But let's growth your argument t. There's nothin about public education or taking care of the environment in the constitution either. But you've all benefited from that. (Well some of you benefitted from a public education, anyway). That tired lie about healthcare not in the constitution is bogus. Taking care of the general welfare covers healthcare.

From: Woods Walker
14-Sep-17
Bullshit. If you want to live in a communist/socialist state then move to one, and take Bernie with you. Neither one of you belong in a country like this.

From: Atheist
14-Sep-17
Hey WW I got news for you. That monthly auto insurance you pay for? It's going to people who had an accident. That home owners insurance you pay? Yup. Just went to someone else's home. So you can say that you don't want to pay for someone else's health but it's moot. You're paying a gay soldiers paycheck too while you're at it. Let me know when the headache subsides ok?

From: Mike in CT
14-Sep-17
Lou,

Only a liberal could muster up the logic that on one hand healthcare wasn't a concern when the Constitution was written but the founders "intended" for the general welfare clause to cover it!

Right; they specifically referenced something that was not a concern-only if you have the functional IQ of a pretzel......

From: Woods Walker
14-Sep-17
No one FORCES you to buy auto insurance. If you don't want to have a car then you don't have to have it. Obamacare is the "breathing" tax. If you are alive, then you must pay it or the IRS will take your home. There's no choice, and no option. I know that's a big wet dream for you and Bernie, but like I said, it'd best suit you in the communist country of your choice, and it WON'T be American as long as I and people like me are above ground. I will NOT be a government dependent.....ever.

From: Atheist
14-Sep-17
America will have a single payer system. In your immediate future. So maybe it's YOU who should consider moving?

From: Woods Walker
14-Sep-17
Over my dead body. Come and try to take it. And Bernie can be first.

But based on everything else that's transpired with Obamacare and the like, why should I or anyone else believe a single thing that the people who support this communist bullshit say about it??? It's ALL been based on pure lies. Just like most of what you promote. Everything that came out of Obama's mouth on this was a lie. And you're lying now, because that's all you've got. When people know the truth about you communists then you're toast. Either that or you're a moron for believing the lies they tell you.

From: JTV
14-Sep-17
This is the absolute failure of the education system when they produce idiots like this Atheist dolt ... the clownboy has absolutely no idea what he is typing or talking about ....

Once again, because your a friggin' dunce..... THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT GIVE A RIGHT TO HEALTH CARE ... period !! ....... The words "health" or "health care" appear nowhere in the Constitution. .. If a particular state does not provide a government-mandated "right" to health care, the choice to provide (or not to provide) for our own health care is up to each of us. Health care is our choice, but it is not a "right" if it has not been made a right by an INDIVIDUAL state ... the onus is NOT on the federal government...

From: Mike in CT
14-Sep-17
Jeff,

When contemplating the meaning of "general welfare" in the Constitution one would do well to consult the writings of one of the leading FF's, James Madison; an excerpt from his many musings on the subject alone shatters the myth of the liberal ilk: "With respect to the two words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators."

To the strict Constructionist (or Originalist if you prefer) the meaning could not be any plainer; what's antithetical is the liberal bastardization (attempted and thankfully not successful) of a marvelous framework into the mythical "living, breathing document", i.e. a document that can be changed by executive fiat at a whim or one to be skirted when the law proves an inconvenient obstacle to efforts to effect social engineering.

Of course for those who do not believe in equality of opportunity but rather want equality of outcome this is a necessary evil if that goal is to be possible. The histrionic wailing when confronted with this harsh reality arises from a position bereft of facts and supported only by the crumbling sands of raw emotion-"it feels good".

The awakening of many to this obvious disconnect is and will continue to be why the left suffers loss after loss after loss. It is also the genesis of the internet trolls; those with heads empty of original thought, hearts empty of morality and doomed to an inevitable fade into oblivion.

The best part is we have front row seats......

From: JTV
14-Sep-17
Yep, I understand, 'theist wont....that wooooshing sound is this going right over 'theist's head ... BTW, when I was in School, we actually studied the constitution, it was one of my favored subjects ....now the "youth" studies "transgenders" and what bathrooms they should use ... smh ...

From: freeglee
14-Sep-17
Atheist is a nonstop worker!!! I am So proud to see him hear Representing Reality!!

F=÷× you guys and your alternate Universe!!!!

From: Stalker
14-Sep-17
"America will have a single payer system. In your immediate future. "

Just like Hillary was going to be our next president!!! LMFAO

After 2018 elections democrats will be nothing but a fart in the wind!!

From: JTV
14-Sep-17
What did you say FreeFruity ??

From: Atheist
14-Sep-17
Stalker, you might want to look up what happened in Oklahoma recently. And single payer is coming simply because your impotent party couldnt put a dent in Obamacare, let alone repeal or replace it. Healthcare is a right recognized by a majority of Americans. Period.

From: Bentstick81
14-Sep-17
Oh no! We have two of them on here now. Can't wait for the other dip$hits get on here.

From: Woods Walker
14-Sep-17

"Healthcare is a right recognized by a majority of Americans. Period."

And just because you say it doesn't make it true liar. PERIOD!

From: Owl
14-Sep-17
I'd be happy to have a free market again. All we've had is crony capitalism in the healthcare market with Medicare and Medicaid dictating pricing. Corporatism at its worst. And Obamacare only made it worse.

Look at all the problems the VA is having. Vets ignored or tied up in red tape dying for lack of care. There's your single payer model in America. Imagine how more exponentially and disasterously inept that will be for over 330 million souls. It's evil to wish that on folks.

From: Woods Walker
14-Sep-17
That's because communists ARE evil Owl.

From: Anony Mouse
14-Sep-17
The Democratic Push for Single-Payer Could Hand Trump a Second Term

Today is single-payer day. Bernie Sanders is introducing the Medicare for All Act of 2017, and this time he’s no lone socialist crying in the progressive wilderness. A total of 15 Democratic senators are backing his bill, including most of the top Democratic contenders for the presidency. As the Washington Post’s Aaron Blake observed yesterday, “The dam is breaking.” The New Republic, among others, is even arguing that single-payer is becoming the newest “litmus test” for the party’s presidential hopefuls, and given the speed with which the far Left transforms fringe ideas into moral mandates, I’m not surprised.

Sober-minded Democrats should be terrified. They just might be handing Trump two terms. There are three reasons why.

First, and most obviously, single-payer health care comes with an extraordinary tax bill. The very instant voters saw their take-home pay plunge — often by an amount that far exceeds their traditional employee contribution to their employer-provided insurance — they would realize that “free” health care isn’t free. For now, Sanders is concealing how he’ll pay for his bag of goodies, but any single-payer plan would be crushingly expensive. Here’s the Washington Post editorial board, on June 18 this year, describing the costs:

When Sen. Bernie Sanders (I.,Vt.) proposed a “Medicare for all” health plan in his presidential campaign, the nonpartisan Urban Institute figured that it would raise government spending by $32?trillion over 10 years, requiring a tax increase so huge that even the democratic socialist Mr. Sanders did not propose anything close to it.

Indeed, Sanders’s 2016 revenue plan was a staggering $18 trillion short and still imposed more than $14 trillion in new taxes. To put this in context, the current total national debt — accumulated over the previous two centuries of the nation’s existence — is $20 trillion. These numbers are almost too huge for the human mind to grasp, but the mind can certainly grasp a substantially smaller paycheck.

Defenders of single-payer, however, claim that their system will ultimately cost less — pointing to lower costs in other nations. The Washington Post responds:

The public piece of the American health-care system has not proven itself to be particularly cost-efficient. On a per capita basis, U.S. government health programs alone spend more than Canada, Australia, France, and Britain each do on their entire health systems. That means the U.S. government spends more per American to cover a slice of the population than other governments spend per citizen to cover all of theirs. Simply expanding Medicare to all would not automatically result in a radically more efficient health-care system. Something else would have to change.

American government health care is more expensive than European government health care for multiple reasons, but let’s start with this one: Americans don’t live the same lives as citizens in other countries. We’re the most obese major developed nation, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development’s 2017 “Obesity Update,” and our rates of drug use, smoking, and alcohol abuse also differ substantially. Different nations will have different outcomes, and the American experience suggests that government cost savings will be far more elusive than Sanders supporters hope.

Moreover, voters are “richer, whiter, and older” than nonvoters. In other words, they’re the people who are most likely to have stable health plans. Older voters are already on Medicare. Would they want to pay more taxes for no measurable increase in benefits? Employed voters tend to enjoy a menu of employer-provided health plans, and they often like the plans they have. With single-payer, the Democrats couldn’t even pretend that “if you like your plan, you can keep your plan.” By design, more than 100 million of those plans would disappear, to be replaced by one of the world’s most immense government bureaucracies.

But the reasons why the single-payer push helps Trump and the GOP go well beyond the health-care debate itself. This emerging litmus test is symptomatic of a larger problem: The Democratic party is increasingly the wholly owned subsidiary of the progressive base, and the progressive base has become too radical for widespread electoral success.

Read more

From: JTV
14-Sep-17
Atheist/Freefruity always seem to prove what is wrong with the education system we have today ....

15-Sep-17
Good point, JTV, but I don't think even that accounts for all of their stupidity!

From: Bowbender
15-Sep-17

Bowbender's Link
"Healthcare is a right recognized by a majority of Americans."

Really? Find the clause where it says that.

From: Grey Ghost
15-Sep-17
Lots of banter, but precious few solutions, here. Kind of like Congress.

Matt

From: JTV
15-Sep-17
and of course GG, is the savior to all..... he has all the answers ... smh ...

From: Mint
15-Sep-17
The company I work for had other companies in Canada and the UK. My counter part in the UK had to wait over six months to get his wisdom teeth looked at and during that time they became impacted and he still had to wait while the invection got worse until it was so bad he was rushed to the hospital.

With a counterpart in Canada he father was told to see a specialist since a test came back that he had cancer. They gave him an appointment eight months later. She decided to bring him the US and get him to a specialist who ran more detail tests and told him that he needed to be operated on immediately or he would be dead within a month. Two days later the operated on him and saved his life. If he waited in Canada he would be dead.

As many of you know my wife had polycystic kidney disease and I donated my kidney to her. She has to take anti-rejection medicine for the rest of her life.

While we were at the hospital I was talking to a woman on Medicaid about her kidney problems. She had he surgery two years ago and the transplant was successful but Medicaid was not going to pay for her anti-rejection medicine once two years were up. I did some research and if you are on Medicare or Medicaid the government will pay fully for your anti-rejection medicine for only two years ( now three years ). A generic prescription goes for about $150 a month back then but the insane part is that once they lose the kidney then the Government will pay the full cost of dialysis treatment which costs over $5,000 a month. That's how messed up the government is $5,000 vs $150

From: HA/KS
15-Sep-17

HA/KS's embedded Photo
HA/KS's embedded Photo

From: Stalker
15-Sep-17
I think that last photo is of Bernie Sanders summer cottage on Lake Champlain!

From: Anony Mouse
15-Sep-17
BIG BERNIE OOPS!

Canadian Doctor Tells Bernie Sanders About Year-Long Wait Times Canadians Experience

NTK: Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) invited Canadian doctor Danielle Martin on “The Bernie Sanders Show” to discuss the benefits of a single-payer health care system. However, Dr. Martin told Sanders about how Canadians experience year-long wait times under their health care system.

“If I have a patient who’s got migraines and I need advice on how to manage it, they might wait several months to see a neurologist for a non-urgent problem,” Martin told Sanders.

Martin informed Sanders that patients who need a non-urgent surgery like a hip replacement or knee replacement would also have to wait several months.

Sanders followed up by asking Martin how long it would take for someone needing a non-urgent surgery to get that surgery.

“It depends on where you are in the country. Sometimes it’s a few months sometimes it’s a year,” Martin responded. “In some places, at sometimes it’s been even longer than that. That people wait for a hip or knee replacement.”

From: Atheist
16-Sep-17

From: Woods Walker
16-Sep-17
Then move to Canada, or better yet Russia or North Korea. Then you can bask in the communism you so crave.

From: Woods Walker
17-Sep-17

Woods Walker's embedded Photo
Woods Walker's embedded Photo

From: Anony Mouse
17-Sep-17
Courtesy of AOS, the ultimate goal of proregressiveism:

"...Welcome one of your newest fellow citizens. Let's say just for the sake of discussion that this is a hypothetical scenario:

46 year old woman. Gets pregnant. No father listed on birth certificate. Unemployed, gets no prenatal care, presents to hospital in labor, baby born slightly premature and very small size. Has Down syndrome. Has significant medical abnormalities. Will probably be hospitalized for weeks to months in intensive care. May need major surgery. Mother speaks not a word of English. Immigration status? Who knows, not allowed to ask. Mom on Medicaid. Baby on Medicaid.

Where is the responsibility of this woman who is old enough to know better? Where is the responsibility of the father who gets his pleasure with no skin in the game? Where is the responsibility of this mother's nation of origin who outsourced her dependency onto us? Where is the concern from our politicians for the taxpayers, the hardworking citizens of this country who are going to pay for this child's medical care for years to come? Where is a simple thank you America, for being kind hearted and generous. But no, the Dreamers have a dream. Screw the taxpayer and his/her dreams. Screw the future of the taxpayer's child and his/her dreams. This woman and her child are entitled to the sweat of your brow, comrade! ..."

From: Anony Mouse
18-Sep-17
What Single-Payer Looks Like: Smokers and Obese Banned from Surgery at British Govt Hospital Thanks to Budget

Just last week, Bernie Sanders rolled out his Medicare for All bill. Sanders and the bill’s advocates railed against the current healthcare system as ineffectual, forgetting (or hoping the public has forgotten) that it’s the product of Democrat ideas and votes.

In Sanders’ fantasy world, single-payer system is the only cure for what ails the American healthcare system. Most of his Democratic Senate colleagues agree. They were wrong about Obamacare and what it would fix and they’re wrong single-payer.

The reality of single-payer’s implementation is incongruent with what it promises to deliver.

Look no further than Britain, who employs a single-payer system, to see what lies ahead if the U.S. chooses to wander down a similar path. There, rationed care is not fear mongering; it’s an unfortunate challenge for the system’s consumers.

Most recently, British government run hospitals have banned hip and knee surgery for smokers and the obese citing budget cuts.

Avik Roy writes at Forbes:

If you’ve been concerned about the fate of veterans’ health care in the U.S., look to its cousin across the pond. A subsidiary of the government-run British National Health Service has decided to bar obese patients and smokers from undgergoing hip and knee operations. “I think we are going to see more and more decisions like this,” said Chris Hopson, the head of NHS Providers told The Telegraph. “It’s the only way providers are going to be able to balance their books.”

The British NHS and the U.S. VA are cousins

The British National Health Service and the U.S. Veterans Health Administration are two of the last remaining socialized health care systems in the world. That is to say, both systems have not only single-payer, government-run health insurance—the government also owns the hospitals and employs the doctors.

When government has that dominant of a role, it has no choice but to prioritize how to spend the money. In May, NHS England disclosed that its health care providers—hospitals, clinics, doctors and the like—had spent £2.45 billion ($3.26 billion) more than they had been allocated.

In North Yorkshire, England, hospital leaders have decided to cut back by denying hip and knee surgeries to smokers who refuse to quit, and those with Body Mass Indices above 30. (If you’re 5’10”, a BMI of 30 is 209 pounds; if you’re 5’5”, it’s 180 pounds.)

“Major surgery poses much higher risks for severely overweight patients who smoke,” said an NHS England spokesman. “So local [providers] are entirely right to ensure these patients first get support to lose weight and try and stop smoking before their hip or knee operation.” The change “saves the NHS and taxpayers millions of pounds.”

No amount of blaming the wealthy or Republicans will alter the math — socialized medicine is simply not sustainable. Roy continues:

Left-wing advocates of the NHS-VA approach argue that rationing isn’t a big deal because in a free-market health care system, health care is “rationed” based on an individual’s ability to pay for it. But that’s balderdash.

In the rest of the economy, when a product or service is too expensive, businesses have the incentive to figure out how to deliver it less expensively. Think how much high-definition TVs cost when they first came out—tens of thousands of dollars—compared to today, when Amazon sells dozens of models for under $100. That economic incentive—to deliver better services with higher quality and lower costs—only exists in the private sector.

The more we can put patients back in control of their own health care dollars, the better. Let’s start with the VA.

From: ben h
19-Sep-17
Been out of town for a bit and haven't responded to a few comments regarding my post(s). I quickly read through many of the posts. I never implied single payer would be as good of service or treatment, but it's available to everyone. Those that want better service, more sophisticated treatments or surgeries for whatever reason, are more than free to pay a private practitioner to do that. I keep hearing how the VA is a great example of what would become to our healthcare system if the "government" gains control which is complete nonsense. Those that want the "free services" the VA offers are subject to how the VA operates; anyone who finds this objectionable can go elsewhere, it'll cost them though.

If what I pay in increased taxes, if we did create a single payer option, is still less than (probably like less than 1/2) what I'm paying now for "capitalistic" insurance, I'm all for single payer, pride be damned. I saw one post where a person had to wait 6 weeks to get his wisdom teeth out and thought this was pretty funny considering everyone knows to pull them when you're about 18-20, so if he waits till his 40's when it becomes a problem it's the "system's" fault. Or a knee replacement that's been bothering you for 10 years and you need to wait 9 months for a replacement.

I have yet to see a single argument of why we should pay more than double the next highest price and typically more like 3-4x the industrialized nations cost for health care and not really have a measurable metric to support this increased cost, other than faster service.

From: Mike in CT
19-Sep-17
The level of ignorance at times is truly breathtaking; wisdom teeth extraction is predicated upon position of the wisdom teeth and the capacity of the person's mouth to house them; not by age. For a guy with a dentist for a father that has to rank as about the most idiotic statement I've ever heard.

Likewise, the comments regarding knee replacement and why would someone wait; for starters, even with the improvements in joint replacement surgery (most notably materials and techniques) they still have a finite lifespan and provided the joint isn't severely arthritic the best course is to delay as to minimize the number of procedures required.

I've yet to see you make an argument in this arena that wasn't either rooted in ignorance or built upon comparative metrics that have more preconceived biases built into them then the average liberal argument.

Frankly, if this is the best you've got to offer stay away longer.......or at least until you make at least a halfhearted effort at becoming better informed.

From: ben h
20-Sep-17
Mike, You're right, I'm a civil engineer not a dentist, so I took my dad and one of his colleagues out to lunch today and discussed wisdom teeth removal. They both stated that typically at approximately age 18-19 they can determine if you have wisdom teeth (some people don't) and if you likely have room for them to just come in. If they are present they are much easier to extract at a young age because as time goes on the roots become longer, the bone hardens and the roots spread. If you do have them they can be removed at any time. Independent of if you do potentially have room for them to come in or not, they still lean for them to be removed early, because they can be a real pain in the ass as time goes on. The point I was trying to make is a 6 week wait list for an "emergency" wisdom tooth extraction if you had some prior dental care you probably had a 1-2 decade heads up that you might need to have them removed has more to do with the patient's lack initiative than the wait list. Of course there are outliers and nothing is 100%.

Likewise with Knees, I know mine are going down hill and at some point will either need work or replacement, probably within the next 15 years, so I think planning for that shouldn't be that difficult. If I did need a replacement quicker there's always the private market.

Going out on a limb, I'm guessing you are in the medical field in some way or another and favor higher medical costs. I'm not in the medical field and I just want lower costs and don't really have an ax to grind who comes up with the idea. Don't get me wrong, we probably have the best care in the world, but at double the cost is it really twice as great? I think we're getting diminishing returns making a "perfect" system to cover outliers and everyone else is paying for it.

Thanks for the welcome back.

From: Woods Walker
20-Sep-17
Having the government run it WILL NOT "lower" a damn thing. It will do just the opposite because they are incapable of managing or running much of anything.

From: Mike in CT
21-Sep-17
ben,

You're half right; I've spent most of my adult life in the healthcare field (clinical, research and industry sides) but I don't favor higher medical costs at all. I've got more than I care for in the way of first-hand knowledge of what higher costs do to the quality of care hospitals provide.

Too much of the time people with little or no clinical backgrounds are making decisions in US hospitals based solely on cost and the greatest task I have the past few years (and this accelerated significantly under the PPACA) is to teach the concept of cost avoidance; spend some today but save BIG tomorrow. One example is a hospital that is making a $205,000 investment they didn't think they could afford; that mindset changed when they saw indisputable evidence of over $3M in cost avoidance (savings) per year each year the equipment will be in use.

The above illustration is a free market providing a solution that yields better quality of care-the government didn't have a damn thing to do with it either.

21-Sep-17
Exactly how I see it, Mike.

The federal government is incapable of doing ANYTHING better than a true free market, though some things are clearly assigned to it by the Constitution.

That is one of the problems I have with this Graham-Cassidy proposal. They want to give block grants to states to run their own health program, which, on the surface, excites the Tenth A spark, but in truth it seems to negate the free market sales of insurance across states lines, stifling competition which we agree is the best way to get better service for cheaper prices.

From: HA/KS
21-Sep-17
"Of course there are out-liars" There certainly are. I thought you had to go to school to become an engineer.

From: HA/KS
21-Sep-17
I consider it an unconstitutional intrusion if the feds force states to allow the sale of health or any other kind of insurance across state lines.

23-Sep-17
It may be, HA, but so was the Louisiana Purchase! You might be French right now if Jefferson was corralled!

From: HA/KS
23-Sep-17
Spike, completely different. The Louisiana Purchase was not telling ANY state how they had to do business.

23-Sep-17
Granted, but it was unconstitutional.

Parle vou France?

From: Bowbender
23-Sep-17
"Granted, but it was unconstitutional."

Opinion or fact? I've read both sides and lean towards James Madison's view, who was in Jefferson's cabinet, that it fell within the executives branches power to negotiate treaties. Always thought Madison had a handle on the Constitution, given the fact he's considered the "Father" of the constitution.

23-Sep-17
I favor the Constitution itself which says that the government does not have the right to own, as in purchase, land other than what is needed for government buildings, etc. I am glad he bought the Louisiana Purchase, it was very smart to do, however, i do believe that the Constitution addresses this directly.

From: Bowbender
23-Sep-17
So it doesn't fall under Article II Section 2 Clause 2 that states the federal government may acquire any land outside of state boundaries and maintain such as long as it's governed as a territory? Again it's your belief, nothing else. The FF thought otherwise. My guess is, they knew what the intent of the constitution was since they wrote it.

23-Sep-17
Perhaps you are correct, Bowbender, as it was outside of state boundaries! I will go read that again, it has been a while! Thanks for the incentive.

  • Sitka Gear