California is an extreme case due to years of progressive policies in all areas of their state government. It needs some drastic changes in the way it regulates health insurance providers (moreso than other states in many regards). Additionally, border security, immigration enforcement, and tax reform are all needed to California to get back in the positive in more areas than just health care/insurance.

If you really want to see why your premiums keep “skyrocketing” (as a side note, you might look into moving to a different state … for example, my premiums in Virginia have gone down 10% over the last 12 years), walk into an ER in a few hospitals. As you look around at all the people waiting in the lounge to be seen, realize that many of them likely will not pay a dime for the treatment they receive. By pushing for a single-payer system, you are advocating that, instead of a being able to choose to go with a different company when your present insurance company raises rates to compensate for those that are not paying, everyone that currently pays should pay more, while those that do not pay will continue to do so.

California is an extreme case due to years of progressive policies in all areas of their state government. It needs some drastic changes in the way it regulates health insurance providers (moreso than other states in many regards). Additionally, border security, immigration enforcement, and tax reform are all needed to California to get back in the positive in more areas than just health care/insurance.

If you really want to see why your premiums keep “skyrocketing” (as a side note, you might look into moving to a different state … for example, my premiums in Virginia have gone down 10% over the last 12 years), walk into an ER in a few hospitals. As you look around at all the people waiting in the lounge to be seen, realize that many of them likely will not pay a dime for the treatment they receive. By pushing for a single-payer system, you are advocating that, instead of a being able to choose to go with a different company when your present insurance company raises rates to compensate for those that are not paying, everyone that currently pays should pay more, while those that do not pay will continue to do so.

This is just one of the problems with a single-payer health savings plan (as it would not be insurance, by definition).

By twisting the intent of the meaning of the “general welfare” clause (and this is in general – not specific to any of the proposed healthcare reform bills being floated around the House and Senate), you are advocating a totalitarian utopia, which then invalidates your argument that a republic should allow its government to have such power as a republic and a authoritarian utopia cannot exist simultaneously (which is the flaw in Hamilton's view of the Republic … afterall, he wanted an aristocratic monarchy).

I'm all for getting rid of employer-based health insurance and health insurance reform is needed. However, there is no need for a 1000+ page bill to accomplish this. The two biggest ways things we can do to fix this problem (both of which can and should be done at a state level, by the way) is to reform tort law to limit bogus lawsuits (I'd suggest requiring the plaintiff to pay the amount they asked for to the defendant should the plaintiff lose their case), and get rid of many state (and in some cases federal) regulations that force health insurance companies to operate less like insurance and more like health savings plans (let them operate similar to other forms of insurance – e.g. car, life, homeowners, etc).

Of course, the 'general welfare' clause of the Constitution does allow
for this kind of power to be granted to the Federal government. Yes,
yes, I know. Madison argued in Federalist 41 that it should not be
interpreted thus. But…shoulda wouldas don't count here. The US
Supreme Court affirmed the 'general welfare' clause in the
constitution to be interpreted as Hamilton interpreted it — as
granting the power to the Federal government. Given that the USSC has
“distorted” the argument to grant such power, and further given that
this decision has not been overturned and is therefore the law of the
land, the conclusion is that the general welfare clause is indeed the
authority for the government to be granted such power.

If you want for that clause to be inapplicable, I suggest you all
train your sights on putting a case in front of the Supreme Court that
seeks to overturn that ruling. Until then, the prevailing
law…prevails.

That said, it fails to answer one key question (that I have yet to see a single Representative or Senator answer): What part of the Constitution do they think gives the the authority to grant this kind of power to the federal government? (I should warn you, trying to distort the meaning of the “general welfare” phrase only serves to discredit your argument).

Love the handle…scary, but funny.