You're casting me as one of these anti-libertarian types, and, while I see where you get that impression from this particular discussion, I can assure you that that's not true.

I think that this legislation is seriously flawed. However, I also believe that the country is significantly better off with it than without it. I understand your point about individual liberties, and when taken without context, I agree 100%. When taken in context, I agree about 95% of the time. (Assuming that your notion of the individual does not extend to non-natural persons.)

However, I believe that there are times when the practicality of the liberty of the group has to trump the liberty of the individual. I am definitely not a "central planner". I merely believe that the government has a responsibility to provide needed services to its citizens. What services are needed may change over time. I believe that access to healthcare has become one of those needed services.


Yet you prefix that with Thomas Jefferson providing clarification on a particular clause. If you have to provide clarification, it is vague. I do not believe that it was unintentionally vague, either. Certainly Jefferson and Adams had very different ideas about the role of government, and I'm sure that much of the phrasing was due to compromise. I have no doubt that Thomas Jefferson's ideals for government match yours, but Thomas Jefferson is not the final arbiter of what the Constitution says.


And you say that there's no value in universal healthcare. If you can come up with a reason why universal dirigibility is good for the country, I'm more than willing to listen, and we can come to a decision together.


As I've said before, my concern is far less with the cost than with doing our best to make sure that everyone has the best opportunity to live and be able to pursue happiness.

That said, I'll ready the steak sauce.