I got 7 right. It also shows how pointless it is to pull one line quotes out of a larger conversation.

...or just how confusing the debate actually is.

And it was a fed law that mandated auto insurance. I see the revelence, u don't?

Show me exactly where in the constitution where you see the violation.

As Justice Thomas wrote in his dissent in Gonzales v. Raich (which dealt with whether the federal government has the power to "trump" state laws and ban marijuana), "Respondents Diane Monson and Angel Raich use marijuana that has never been bought or sold, that has never crossed state lines, and that has had no demonstrable effect on the national market for marijuana. If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything - and the federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers". Expanding this to health care, if the federal Government can tell us what we have to buy, and from whom we have to buy it, then there really is no limit to its powers.

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

That was the commerce clause of the constitution. Show me how the government forcing you to be health insurance or face a fine, so that you dont end up in the emergency room without health insurance and have to be paid for off the backs of taxpayers, unconstitutional?

So Matt you think we should take out Medicare, and Medicaid, and Social Security, and Food Stamps? None of those are in the consitituion.

You think we should have people starve on the streets with zero medical care? Because the consitition doesnt allow for the govt to use tax payer dollars to help pay for anyones food, or shelter, or medical care, regardless of income. The governments actions would not pass YOUR strict view of the consitituion but neither would any other social peice of legislation ever passed in the history of this nation.

do you read what you write before you post? do you check to see if your writing makes sense? Do you check your facts from mulitple sources for verification? Do you read both sides before making a conclusion. These are some questions you should be asking yourself to stop yourself from looking like an idiot. -.-

Also, because I deem it noteworthy, the Mental Health Parity Act officially goes into effect on January 1, after 12 years of sitting in congress. Basically it forces insurance companies to treat mental health visits the same as physical health visits, by eliminating restrictions on number of visits and higher copays. This comes with an almost unnoticeable increase in premiums, according to the CBO. This will save people who need it the most thousands of dollars. Combined with the Wisconsin Puppy Mill Law, this has been a good year for my personal conquests.

Well, you can't ignore the fact that this is a harder to define area. What you just described is part of my knee-jerk concern. You could go lie to your doctor and get treatment for something, but you'd know you were pulling a fast one. In this case, you could be genuinely mentally distressed that your husband got you a blue Mercedes instead of the grey one you really wanted, and need to talk it over with someone. I'm not ignoring mental health as an issue, but I don't think we can ignore that a lot of it is driven by narcissistic whiners who genuinely beleive they have to see a therapist every other day because no one has life harder than they do.*

It's somewhat like what I saying before. Some of these treatments have a legit place, some are unnecessary, and some are just quackery. Sure, talking to a therapist might help, but what about those mental health clinics where everyone sits at the center of a power pyramid, holding crystals, for $500? An hour of relaxing WOULD help most people, thus you really couldn't say those places don't qualify. If you had to put a percentage on the number of people who see therapists who don't have any bigger mental issues than most of the rest of us what would that be? I guarantee you it would be more than the percent of people who lie their way into a hospital. How many patients really have no actual mental issue, they just want to talk with someone? I don't see how that's a lot different than an elective medical procedure.

You're moving into an area where the issues and results aren't really quantifiable in any meaningful way. I'm not so sure it is true that you can so to a regular doctor infinite times for a hurt leg and your insurance just keeps paying. I think at some point they would tell you there's nothing more to be done.

Edit: I agree that for rape victims, veterans, and other such things, this should be done, but I'm not so sure that we can't attempt to separate want from need here, just like someone getting rhinoplasty because they smashed their face in a car accident and someone doing it because they want a smaller nose.

*Exaggeration of course, but it is elective for many many many patients.

And tl;dr means "too long; didn't read" a tl;dr version would be a summary.

Also, because I deem it noteworthy, the Mental Health Parity Act officially goes into effect on January 1, after 12 years of sitting in congress. Basically it forces insurance companies to treat mental health visits the same as physical health visits, by eliminating restrictions on number of visits and higher copays. This comes with an almost unnoticeable increase in premiums, according to the CBO. This will save people who need it the most thousands of dollars.