Trump accused the Freedom Caucus of 'saving' Obamacare. Its leader said it's not over.

[bigheadfred]

So do I, but I don't think that's what all of them want.  Trump really was all over the place prior to the election.  There were times when he sounded like he wanted government-provided insurance, and other times when he castigated it.

At this point, I think he would sign any deal that would pass Congress.  That puts the onus on the GOP factions to come together with the best plan they can, because that will inevitably be more conservative than what the Dems would produce.

My point is they have had the time to put together something that would fix obamacare or replace it. Where are the alternative bills by the FC or any other power group in Congress? There aren't any. They don't exist. Now the talk, of course, is they need to get to work now that healthcare is back on the table. WHEN WAS IT EVER OFF THE TABLE OR NOT AN ISSUE?

I include them all because they have done NOTHING over the past years to change anything. And with all their vast resources they SHOULD have. They all want single payer. It will improve their positions of power, increase their portfolio values, increase overall control over the populace.

The biggest tell of all. Anything they do/don't do  DOES NOT AFFECT THEM.

[INVAR]

That puts the onus on the GOP factions to come together with the best plan they can, because that will inevitably be more conservative than what the Dems would produce.

Government run health insurance and healthcare IS NOT CONSERVATIVE in any way shape or form.

You remind me of the Chrislam folks - the self-identifying Christians that tell us that it is 'Christian' to accept Islam and embrace the Koran as another voice from God.

[INVAR]

But our lives under half of ObamaCare will be better than our lives under full-strength ObamaCare, and the longer we can live under that before moving left again, the better.  ... I'll take a 10% chance of success over a 0% chance of success ten times out of ten.  Not to mention that our lives will be better under that half step back then they would if we took no step back at all.

Heh.  You allowed yourself to be sold, and accepted the premise you are chattel.  All you are doing now is haggling over the price of your slavery.

Hope your chains rest lightly.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Once you've allowed yourself to be sold, all that remains is for how much.

That's a great argument if you're starting with a clean slate.  The problem is we're not -- we're already been "sold", and ObamaCare already is the law of the land. 

So the idea that you're going to stand immovable just freezes us right where we are.  The question is in which direction do we move from here.  We can move further towards statism, we can be stubborn and end up right where we are, or we can start taking steps back in the direction of liberty.  The refusal to agree to any movement that doesn't instantly result in complete liberty is simply an excuse to remain right were we are, or worse.

[INVAR]

That's a great argument if you're starting with a clean slate.  The problem is we're not -- we're already been "sold", and ObamaCare already is the law of the land.

So if this were an invasion by an enemy, your position is one that insists we accept occupation - and compromise with the enemy's agenda and plans in the vain hopes we can retain what is left.

The question is in which direction do we move from here. 

We do not accept occupation.  We plan to resist and refuse to compromise or otherwise surrender our position to the enemy.  All you are doing is transferring your flag to their side and calling their invasion on our liberty legit.

No thanks.  I reject the premise altogether.

We can move further towards statism, we can be stubborn and end up right where we are, or we can start taking steps back in the direction of liberty.

You take no steps towards liberty by accepting occupation as legitimate and worthy to parlay and compromise in the hopes you can have less pressure of their boot on your neck.

The refusal to agree to any movement that doesn't instantly result in complete liberty is simply an excuse to remain right were we are, or worse.

Patrick Henry said it best.

[roamer_1]

I believe there was a character like you in the Bible.  He washed his hands of the whole thing.

Maybe that's being a lily livered coward?

Are you so disconnected from the past? One need look only to the Clinton years to see Republicans fight this EXACT scourge tooth and nail, and I was in it, up to my chin.

If you are so bound and determined to have it, I can't stop you. It can't be stopped when the people who are supposed to stop it, who are supposed to hate it... refuse to stand, and accept it in-part instead.

But I need not help you do it, and I will not.
The cowardice is in the appeasement.
You'll have your chains, as long as they're not too heavy.
It makes me sick.

[Smokin Joe]

You may well be right about that -- it's impossible to predict the outcome with certainty.  But our lives under half of ObamaCare will be better than our lives under full-strength ObamaCare, and the longer we can live under that before moving left again, the better.

  How can you even assert that? Half of a half assed program that has wreaked destruction through the middle class, through small businesses, has obliterated opportunities that will not return and you assert keeping any part of it will be better?
The Federal Government has no business in the health insurance business. Period. Having it meddling in it a little will not stay at that level. No program  in which the federal Government has asserted authority has remained with "just a little bit" of authority: Bureaucracies grow by expanding, and that expansion is what improves the status, pay, and what is considered "success" of the bureaucracy. Without growth, there will be no increase in importance, something determined by the size of the department or agency--even more than the mission of that agency. If you keep it, it will grow.

And I'd point out that the Democrats only managed to get ObamaCare when they controlled the House, the Senate, and the Presidency all at the same time.  So we may well be able to hold only whatever lessening of the statist burden we can get for quite a awhile.

But we can't get rid of it holding all three?

"I'll only have a drink now and then..." "Dude, I can quit any time...any time I want to, it's not like I'm an addict or anything..." "I'm not addicted to power and your money, I'll just make a little rule here and there, to fine tune stuff..."

To some of us those lines will sound familiar. They are the sound of addicts in denial.
For some it's drugs, or booze, or sex, or maybe collecting beanie babies, but the flame that brought the moths to Washington, D.C. is POWER. And power is addicting. Those moths are destroying the very fabric of this nation.
Now that the Republicans have it, they want it just as bad as the Democrats.

 It's like watching old friends go crazy with gold fever in a camp.

The Democrats may have stolen that authority but now that the Republicans have had a taste, they're going to keep it.

Wild-eyed at the thought of relinquishing it, they even attack the people who don't want it.

They're infected with Beltway Fever, and they have it so bad they are willing to leave trillions of dollars of unfunded mandates hanging over our economic future like a wall cloud over a trailer park.

The storm is coming.

If you are a fiscal libertarian, you have witnessed the coup that grabbed 1/7th of the US economy and made it a virtual government agency, under the kind ministrations of the folks who tax us, with volumes of rules even they don't understand and can't consistently (from employee to employee) answer questions about...

Where is the fiscal libertarianism in that? That's far closer to fascism, where the central government controls the means of production.

Wake the hell up.

You can't leave part of the tumor, you can't just leave the roots of the kudzu, or just a few viruses running around the body because it won't stay small, it will grow, it will metastasize, it will destroy. But all just shrinking it will do is delay until the Democrats can get back in power at best.
 
Cut it out, Dig it up, kill all the virus, or the problem will be back.

Plus, if/when they do get that level of control again, they'll be starting lower down the socialist mountain than they would have been otherwise.

No, they won't.

They will have 'established law' saying the Federal Government can run health insurance/care, they will have a SCOTUS decision which said they can penalize/tax people for breathing if they don't buy in, and they'll have all the bolt-on chrome the Republicans will add to make tyranny taste better; those spoonfuls of sugar to make the medicine go down.

They'll have the power to do as they damned well please because all the framework will be in place, court decisions in the bag, and besides, The Republicans did it, too..
Checkmate.

The only way to back the ACA down is to remove it. All of it, and do so through legislation, not the sort of pen and phone government by executive fiat Trump has been overturning with his pen and phone, because next time, someone else will have the pen and phone. That isn't how laws are supposed to be made in this country and you know it.

Look -- I agree with you.  I'm a pretty hardcore libertarian on the economy, and think the Supreme Court has been wrong on the commerce clause since the late 30's.  The problem is that most Americans simply are not yet comfortable with that.  Before we can convince them that very little government is best, we have to show them that less actually works.  If we can restore more of the free market, even if not completely, that's going to give the free market more credibility in the eyes of the voters, and so we can push further next time.  I know there's no guarantee that will happen, but as a practical matter, that's the only chance we've really got.  Because the truth is that the percentage of the population who believes as you and I do on the substance probably is below 25%.   

If enough Americans supposedly didn't think the free market worked before, how is getting half way back to that with disrupted socialist programs making a mess of things going to convince them less government is more? Make a clean break. Quit cold turkey. It's the only way.

There are no guarantees, and it is entirely possible that you are right  But it is also possible that this is just the first step in the right direction, and at least, it puts us one step closer to where we want to be than walking away with nothing.   I'll take a 10% chance of success over a 0% chance of success ten times out of ten.  Not to mention that our lives will be better under that half step back then they would if we took no step back at all.

If you want to jump a crevasse, a step in the right direction isn't enough. It's almost certain death.
You have to make the jump. All of it.

We were repeatedly told the GOP needed the House, and needed the Senate, then needed the White House to get rid of this Socialist Coup. We did our part, and now we are being told that isn't enough. Well that's it, Bill, it's do or die time for the GOP.

I may be wrong, but if it doesn't get done by 2018, I predict the GOP will lose their majority in at least one of those houses, and maybe all three.

[Smokin Joe]

That's a great argument if you're starting with a clean slate.  The problem is we're not -- we're already been "sold", and ObamaCare already is the law of the land. 

So the idea that you're going to stand immovable just freezes us right where we are.  The question is in which direction do we move from here.  We can move further towards statism, we can be stubborn and end up right where we are, or we can start taking steps back in the direction of liberty.  The refusal to agree to any movement that doesn't instantly result in complete liberty is simply an excuse to remain right were we are, or worse.

Nope. We are where we need to be. The reason the GOP has morphed left is that has been the default direction it has been going, even before the negotiations start.

Y'all would make miserable horse traders. We want what we want, If we could ask for even more, we would, but you guys are more mobile with your 25% gone and 30% gone and 50% gone stuff. (That's getting warmer, as we used to say). I have seen 80% Ronald Reagan quotes, but y'all aren't even close yet.

Not budging here. Repeal it. Then if something needs to be addressed, work with the States to get that done.

[bigheadfred]

Back when I was 11 I was struggling with going to church. It wasn't church. It was the people. I thought how can they not understand this? Then I realized they understood alright. They didn't care. I quit going to church and never went back.

When I was 17 we did an exercise in a class in school that involved money and trust. Trust each other and everyone gets something. No one got anything because they didn't trust each other. I thought well it is money and the love of money is the root of all evil. So I avoided the pitfalls of loving money.

It really was hammered home when I was 35. In a legal matter. My 'peers' threw me to the wolves to save themselves. They couldn't stand for freedom, liberty, or truth. This isn't a supposition on my part. THEY ADMITTED IT.

I have traveled some and my perception is that the world is full of vampires and zombies. The majority of people aren't worth being around. I don't interact with them. On a subsistence level.

TIME is what lets you percieve the Creation. The opposite of that is EMIT. The light, energy, essence of your self you return to the Creator.

So to some when I say I stand fast, and appear to be doing nothing, and that I am accomplishing NOTHING my reply is simple. I stand unmoveable and unmoved as the change winds blow. I EMIT that steadfastness back to the Creator because that is what HE EMITS to me. Love, strength, courage, freedom, liberty, and TRUTH. That is the TRUST I have. Not in man or the inventions of man.

I was born with FREE WILL. I EMIT that back to the Creator. Freely given as it is freely given. HIS will be done.

Anyone else who can't do that is untrustworthy. They will betray themselves, those around them and the Source. To SAVE themselves. uh huh They can suck rocks. Of the brimstone variety.

That is the majority in government. That is the majority of the people.

[Smokin Joe]

Back when I was 11 I was struggling with going to church. It wasn't church. It was the people. I thought how can they not understand this? Then I realized they understood alright. They didn't care. I quit going to church and never went back.

When I was 17 we did an exercise in a class in school that involved money and trust. Trust each other and everyone gets something. No one got anything because they didn't trust each other. I thought well it is money and the love of money is the root of all evil. So I avoided the pitfalls of loving money.

It really was hammered home when I was 35. In a legal matter. My 'peers' threw me to the wolves to save themselves. They couldn't stand for freedom, liberty, or truth. This isn't a supposition on my part. THEY ADMITTED IT.

I have traveled some and my perception is that the world is full of vampires and zombies. The majority of people aren't worth being around. I don't interact with them. On a subsistence level.

TIME is what lets you percieve the Creation. The opposite of that is EMIT. The light, energy, essence of your self you return to the Creator.

So to some when I say I stand fast, and appear to be doing nothing, and that I am accomplishing NOTHING my reply is simple. I stand unmoveable and unmoved as the change winds blow. I EMIT that steadfastness back to the Creator because that is what HE EMITS to me. Love, strength, courage, freedom, liberty, and TRUTH. That is the TRUST I have. Not in man or the inventions of man.

I was born with FREE WILL. I EMIT that back to the Creator. Freely given as it is freely given. HIS will be done.

Anyone else who can't do that is untrustworthy. They will betray themselves, those around them and the Source. To SAVE themselves. uh huh They can suck rocks. Of the brimstone variety.

That is the majority in government. That is the majority of the people.

Well said, Fred!   

[Idaho_Cowboy]

Thanks for the responses @Smokin Joe  and @INVAR Darned if I can find anything to argue against there. I certainly agree we need to get ride of Obama care in it's entirety. So far historically every time the Republicans have done a half measure in the right direction they stop right there. Just like when they work out some deal in the house and of course the democrats never hold up their end so we end up getting more spending and more regulation.

The problem as I see it is this: If the Republican Party cannot form a coalition against Obamacare and the moderates are willing to side with the democrats on single payer (no doubt in exchange for an empty promise on some other issue) we are going to be stuck even worse off then we are now. This is what happens when the representatives of the people decide they are rulers not representatives.

[INVAR]

The problem as I see it is this: If the Republican Party cannot form a coalition against Obamacare and the moderates are willing to side with the democrats on single payer (no doubt in exchange for an empty promise on some other issue) we are going to be stuck even worse off then we are now.

You are missing a vital point to consider.  ObamaCare was and is designed to get the government's nose into every aspect of our lives by asserting authority in mandating healthcare decisions; it's purpose is to collapse the existing health insurance market and pave the way via misery and suffering for the public to cry out for Single Payer - which the government through ObamaCare is already then in a position to impose.

We are going to be stuck with Single Payer and even worse off than we are now REGARDLESS of what "deal" is struck to tweak the misery of O'care.  If ObamaCare is left to exist in any way shape or form, the ultimate purpose for it's existence will still carry out it's payload.  The only difference will be the timeframe when it will happen. We can push it off on our kids if we like and massage the current hybrid of fascism and free market for awhile - but then our kids will suffer Universal Single Payer for certain.  Laws of economics were breached.  Socialism only lasts until you run out of other people's money. Then overt Communism takes over to FORCE everyone into compliance.

We are going to die from this cancer, unless we excise it completely.

This is what happens when the representatives of the people decide they are rulers not representatives.

That happened some time ago to much applause. 

[Smokin Joe]

You are missing a vital point to consider.  ObamaCare was and is designed to get the government's nose into every aspect of our lives by asserting authority in mandating healthcare decisions; it's purpose is to collapse the existing health insurance market and pave the way via misery and suffering for the public to cry out for Single Payer - which the government through ObamaCare is already then in a position to impose.

Correct! In the 1980s, there were motorcycle 'safety' studies done which harped on "The Public Cost of Motorcycle Trauma". Regardless of the serious flaws in that study, the complaint was that accidents cost the public money, so the public had the right to demand that people on motorcycles wear what the public thought would make them safe (without letting the people actually riding motorcycles decide). That concept suffered when in the debunking of the 'study' the alleged costs were shown to be inflated, not only by bad math, but by assuming all injuries could have been prevented by a helmet (even though helmet use by the accident victims had not been ascertained).

Still the idea that the public could determine private behaviour if the public had to pick up any part of the tab had been emplaced. The next step was to actually get the public's skin in the game. This is the back door to regulating everything from automobiles (power, engine displacement, speed, emissions, you name it) to firearms, to what you eat on Saturday night when you are watching TV, and even how much of that you do, because despite the stretch, someone somewhere can make a case that your doing what you do will cause someone somewhere to have to pay for your medical bills which result--and if you don't think it will cost anything, someone will concoct a study to prove it.
It is the back entrance to a totalitarian government. 

We are going to be stuck with Single Payer and even worse off than we are now REGARDLESS of what "deal" is struck to tweak the misery of O'care.  If ObamaCare is left to exist in any way shape or form, the ultimate purpose for it's existence will still carry out it's payload.  The only difference will be the timeframe when it will happen. We can push it off on our kids if we like and massage the current hybrid of fascism and free market for awhile - but then our kids will suffer Universal Single Payer for certain.  Laws of economics were breached.  Socialism only lasts until you run out of other people's money. Then overt Communism takes over to FORCE everyone into compliance.

We are going to die from this cancer, unless we excise it completely.

That happened some time ago to much applause.

[INVAR]

Correct! In the 1980s, there were motorcycle 'safety' studies done which harped on "The Public Cost of Motorcycle Trauma". Regardless of the serious flaws in that study, the complaint was that accidents cost the public money, so the public had the right to demand that people on motorcycles wear what the public thought would make them safe (without letting the people actually riding motorcycles decide). That concept suffered when in the debunking of the 'study' the alleged costs were shown to be inflated, not only by bad math, but by assuming all injuries could have been prevented by a helmet (even though helmet use by the accident victims had not been ascertained).

Still the idea that the public could determine private behaviour if the public had to pick up any part of the tab had been emplaced. The next step was to actually get the public's skin in the game. This is the back door to regulating everything from automobiles (power, engine displacement, speed, emissions, you name it) to firearms, to what you eat on Saturday night when you are watching TV, and even how much of that you do, because despite the stretch, someone somewhere can make a case that your doing what you do will cause someone somewhere to have to pay for your medical bills which result--and if you don't think it will cost anything, someone will concoct a study to prove it.
It is the back entrance to a totalitarian government.

As C.S. Lewis rightly observed:

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."
- C. S. Lewis

THAT becomes even worse when public monies are being used to assuage need and subsidize provisions.  The Soviet Union will have afforded more liberty to it's subjects than where we are going.

But it is mankind's nature to sell itself into slavery and bondage.  It wants security and handouts, not liberty.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Heh.  You allowed yourself to be sold

You are as "sold" as any of the rest of us.  Your principles don't change the fact that the exact same laws that apply to the rest of us still apply to you, whether you "accept" them or not.

Which you do, incidentally.

[INVAR]

You are as "sold" as any of the rest of us.  Your principles don't change the fact that the exact same laws that apply to the rest of us still apply to you, whether you "accept" them or not.

Spoken like a true slave. 

I wonder if you would utter these same words if and when "laws" are passed to prohibit your religion and any exercise of it?  Or political speech?  Or private property rights?

My guess would be yes.

If the Congress passed a ban on any practice of the Christian religion or it's existence in the middle of the night - and SCOTUS came up with a magical twist of convoluted logic to hand them the authority to do so, your position I imagine would be the same as it is here.

You would be insisting that such "laws" are "laws" that apply to everyone, except of course those granted exemption because they are the constituencies of the Beast.  I imagine as in this case, you would petition us to compromise our principles of resistance so that you can have whatever breadcrumbs of permissions they promise you.

For some of us, disobedience to tyrants is obedience to God.  I know that concept is absurd to you, but it is a primary principle of a good chunk of us.

The difference between you and I is that what I call tyranny, you call "law".

[Smokin Joe]

You are as "sold" as any of the rest of us.  Your principles don't change the fact that the exact same laws that apply to the rest of us still apply to you, whether you "accept" them or not.

Which you do, incidentally.

Well, then Apply them to the people who wrote them, and then exempted themselves. How about some of that "equal protection" stuff?
We have maintained since the Magna Carta that none is immune to the law, and that was a part the Congress wrote in for themselves.

Repeal it.

[INVAR]

You are as "sold" as any of the rest of us.

Well, then Apply them to the people who wrote them, and then exempted themselves. How about some of that "equal protection" stuff?
We have maintained since the Magna Carta that none is immune to the law, and that was a part the Congress wrote in for themselves.

Repeal it.

What I find amusing is that if indeed we are 'sold' as claimed here, the difference is some having willingly surrendered to become a slave, versus resisting and refusing to accept it.

I guess some have just made peace with being ruled by tyrants and accepting their usurpations as legitimate.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Spoken like a true slave.  I wonder if you would utter these same words if and when "laws" are passed to prohibit your religion and any exercise of it?  Or political speech?  Or private property rights?  My guess would be yes.

That's a nonsensical response that doesn't even attempt to address the point.

Most of us, presumably, live in this country.  Those of us who do not likely live in ones that are even more statist.  So unless you are openly refusing to pay your taxes, openly defying laws with which you disagree, and taking up armed opposition to government acts you deem uncontroversial, your self-righteousness is nothing but a big bag of hot air.  It accomplishes nothing, changes nothing, and suggests nothing more than a keyboard warrior who talks a tough game but actually complies meekly with everything demanded of him.  You are no more and no less a "slave" than are any of us upon whom you look down because all of those laws remain on the books and are applied to you as well.  What exactly have you accomplished, personally, to undo ObamaCare or any of the other governmental actions of which you complain?

The reality is that we all live in representative republics where the course of public policy is determined by elections.  Which means that we are all required to live under laws and policies in which each of us only has a 1/140,000,000 share of control.  Neither high-minded rhetoric or braggadocio changes that reality, either for yourself or for anyone else.

If the Congress passed a ban on any practice of the Christian religion or it's existence in the middle of the night - and SCOTUS came up with a magical twist of convoluted logic to hand them the authority to do so, your position I imagine would be the same as it is here.

You have quite an imagination.  One that always elevates yourself to a position of greater nobility of spirit than everyone else.  Congratulations!

You would be insisting that such "laws" are "laws" that apply to everyone, except of course those granted exemption because they are the constituencies of the Beast.  I imagine as in this case, you would petition us to compromise our principles of resistance so that you can have whatever breadcrumbs of permissions they promise you.

Again, nice imagination.  Since this is a public message board, I'll simply say that there are some government requirements with which I do not comply, and leave it at that.

For some of us, disobedience to tyrants is obedience to God.  I know that concept is absurd to you, but it is a primary principle of a good chunk of us.

Well, this really gets to the heart of it, doesn't it?  Because you've characterized ObamaCare as such a loss of liberty that it makes us into slaves.  So...what have you done about it?  I try to keep up with  the news, but perhaps I missed your one-man armed assault on the Congress and the President when ObamaCare was signed into law.  I must have missed the same thing when your tax dollars were stolen from you to pay for things like Medicaid that lack constitutional foundation, or support for NPR, or the EPA taking land unconstitutionally, or any of the myriad of other government actions you have cited to call the rest of us slaves and living in a statist society.  You have done nothing.

Didn't you mention Patrick Henry?  Well, @INVAR , you don't have liberty -- you've been telling us for a long time that it has been taken from us.  So how are you still alive?  Or do you simply hide behind a keyboard and play tough guy, while not actually living the path you claim to walk?  By your own words, your decision to obey these tyrants means you have disobeyed God.

See, those of us who are still trying to fight back don't have that inconsistency.  We understand the difficult reality of living in a Republic, and so do our utmost to reverse/resist policies with which we disagree in the only means presently open to us -- trying to win elections and move as far as is politically possible in the desired direction.  But you --- you'll yell "give me liberty or give me death", but actually do nothing substantive about it. 

Except talk/write about how you refuse to accept the exact things your very existence proves you accept every single day.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

@Smokin Joe

Repeal it.

I would if I could.  But I'm not in Congress, and even if I was, I'd still only have one vote.

Why don't you repeal it?

[Smokin Joe]

Why don't you repeal it?

Is that all you have, Bill? If I could, i would, and I wouldn't stop repealing things there.

You keep arguing against the repeal of Obamacare. Oh, a nibble here, a smidgen there, but still refuse to acknowledge the basic premises lethal to Liberty which will become enshrined or enabled if the rest remains.

First, the idea that the Federal Government has any place in the provision or distribution of health insurance.

The concept that the Federal government can mandate that people purchase a product just because they are alive, and fine/tax them if they do not.

That the public pays for stuff (which follows from the above), therefore the public can dictate to any individual how they will live and what they can or cannot do because what that individual does or doesn't do will affect what the public pays.

(That concept is the real liberty killer: For instance, guns are dangerous, so no guns. Fast cars are dangerous, so no fast cars. Fat is unhealthy, so everyone weighs in and if their BMI is too high, they go on a state enforced diet (or maybe just food control at the point of sale). It is a totalitarian's dream, based on no better science than "It has ELECTROLYTES!"
and for just one more...
 
That the Congress can exempt itself from laws the rest of us are forced to abide by, creating a 'special' class composed of those in Government who make rules but don't have to live by them, an attitude apparent in other areas as well, but not so much enshrined in law, despite the Equal Protection clause.

And beyond all that, that a SCOTUS justice can rewrite law in order to rule favorably on it.

Any more fundamental principles you'd like to wage war on?

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Is that all you have, Bill? If I could, i would, and I wouldn't stop repealing things there.

Same here.  And as you note, neither of us has that power.

You keep arguing against the repeal of Obamacare.

No, I don't.  I'm not Jazzhead.  I have stated many times that I support the complete repeal of ObamaCare.  And if this Congress can/could pass such a bill and get it to Trump, it should.  My point is not whether repeal is a good idea as a matter of policy, but whether there are enough votes in this Congress to repeal it.  And if there are not, should we support something less than full repeal rather than keeping ObamaCare at full strength, and giving Democrats the next crack at it?

As of now, it appears that head of the House Freedom Caucus actually agrees with me.  Meadows said that if the bill drops community rating, and drops essential health benefits, he'll support the AHCA.  That would be something less than a full repeal that he'd nevertheless support, whereas you have said you won't settle for anything less than a full repeal.

First, the idea that the Federal Government has any place in the provision or distribution of health insurance.

You're not listening.  I agree that the federal government has no place in the provision or distribution of health insurance.  Unfortunately, neither you nor I are dictator, and it appears that the vast majority of our fellow citizens disagree with us.  Even Reagan gave up on trying to get rid of Medicare and Medicaid back in 1980 because there was woefully insufficient support to do so.  So he did what could be done at the time.  If we become one-note Charlies repeating endlessy demands that simply will not be met, we become irrelevant.  So again, if your standard is all or nothing, it is going to be nothing.  You have indicated that to you, "nothing" is preferable to "something."  I disagree. 

Our point of disagreement is not what is desireable, but rather what is achievable at the present time.

[EC]

Gods, this thread is still running?

Maj Bill, you missed out one thing in your last sentence. You mentioned desirable and achievable - what about right?

[INVAR]

That's a nonsensical response that doesn't even attempt to address the point.

It absolutely does address the point.  If you are going bend over and accept tyranny as 'law' in this case, you have surrendered all of your liberty - because as Joe explained - every aspect of your life can now be infringed and imposed upon by diktat of bureaucrats who will ensure costs for universal health care are arrested as the consumer level based on how we live our lives.   It begged the question that if you were willing to surrender that principle, what else are are you going to surrender to as 'law' simply because tyrants in high office deem it so?

So unless you are openly refusing to pay your taxes, openly defying laws with which you disagree, and taking up armed opposition to government acts you deem uncontroversial, your self-righteousness is nothing but a big bag of hot air.

A lot of hot air was spewed by Thomas Paine, Jefferson, Henry, Adams, Franklin and so forth in the years preceding actual armed resistance to the crown's imposition of tyranny.  The war is always first waged in the minds and views of a people as to whether they are going to surrender and subject themselves to being ruled, or to resist.

It accomplishes nothing, changes nothing, and suggests nothing more than a keyboard warrior who talks a tough game but actually complies meekly with everything demanded of him.

I suppose you will assert my 'keyboard warrior' stance accomplishes nothing but braving a storm in a skiff made of paper. 

You are no more and no less a "slave" than are any of us upon whom you look down because all of those laws remain on the books and are applied to you as well.

We're all being made into slaves.  Economic, cultural and literal.  You simply refuse to see it and are willing to go along with it for a few crumbs of what the tyrants promise you - but have no intention of delivering.

What exactly have you accomplished, personally, to undo ObamaCare or any of the other governmental actions of which you complain?

I'm stoking brushfires in the minds of people reading this board and others that I participate.  Reminding them of that which they are entrusted to defend with every fiber of their being.  because once it is surrendered and gone, it is gone forever.  It never comes back.

The reality is that we all live in representative republics where the course of public policy is determined by elections.  Which means that we are all required to live under laws and policies in which each of us only has a 1/140,000,000 share of control.

This nation no longer operates as a Constitutional representative republic. Not at all.  It operates at best as a Socialist Democracy.  Funny how you would be silly enough in this very thread to tell us we are all required to live under laws and policies that the "representatives" in D.C. exempt themselves from having to live under.

Neither high-minded rhetoric or braggadocio changes that reality, either for yourself or for anyone else.

Perhaps not.  But at least I still stand for things you have already surrendered and capitulated to - now being an advocate for others to do likewise.

One that always elevates yourself to a position of greater nobility of spirit than everyone else.  Congratulations!

I'm nothing. The brethren in the slums of a third world cesspool that I have had the privilege of serving and washing the feet of are far more nobler than I will ever hope to be.  I just stand for that which you have already traded away and for this - you have asserted I am some kind of roadblock to getting the crumbs you are hoping to hold onto.

Well, this really gets to the heart of it, doesn't it?  Because you've characterized ObamaCare as such a loss of liberty that it makes us into slaves.  So...what have you done about it? 

Same thing I am doing now, which of course you will assert is nothing.  For something you would ascribe as 'nothing' you sure got yourself all worked up back there as we being 'obstacles' to  'moving the ball downfield'.

By your own words, your decision to obey these tyrants means you have disobeyed God.

I do not obey them.  Especially in matters when they contravene the Law of God.

See, those of us who are still trying to fight back...and so do our utmost to reverse/resist policies with which we disagree in the only means presently open to us

You're not 'fighting back'.  You've already accepted your fate by calling tyranny and lawlessness "law" and "policies" and granting the entire argument to control your healthcare (among other things) legitimacy.  Reminds me of the kinds of people who insist that abortion is not really murder; that a woman must retain the right to 'choose', and then in the next breath insists they are fighting abortion and do not like it.

It's not murder we are told.... it's a 'choice'.

Okay fine... it's not tyranny - it's a 'policy'.

Changing the language to make it more palpable does not erase what it actually is.

But please, continue to play footsie with tyranny.  Some of us just understand where it will end up, even if you want to assuage your sensibilities because everyone voted for it and you do not wish to be politically irrelevant, when in fact, you already are.

[Emjay]

This thread is rife with crazy (but unfortunately) prolific people.