I assume that congress would be required to take part in this plan and not participate in the plan they now have, or does their plan now follow them the rest of their lives. Is this a do as I think you should but I don't need to take part plan for our elite congress?

In case you haven't noticed this, we are required to buy vehicle insurance if we have a vehicle. BY LAW, this is required. By what authority? By the same authority that wants to make us buy health insurance. Where do they get the authority? F**ked if I know...probably some extension of the Commerce Clause. I certainly don't "voluntarily" purchase my car insurance.

And Joyce, tempting as it might be, you shouldn't argue with an idiot...he'll only bring you down to his level and then beat you with experience.

Washington politicians should be subjected to same Soc. Sec. and healthcare as the rest of us. They'd sing a different tune then.

I call him the bloated, alcoholic embarrassment, but I think I like your's even better. LOL!

So, let me get this straight... I hire someone for minimum wage to file paperwork in my office for ten hours per week, and I need to spend extra money on health insurance for them??? How is that going to work? I can't offset the cost I am incurring for this because I am stuck paying them minimum wage...

Copy are you just dumb or what? If you give corporations the pain of being governed you also have to give them the ability to have rights to be protected!

They are a legal entity as stated and therefore have rights also. "Contract", look up the definition. And the terms and conditions on that contract cannot be change at the whim of one party.

But then your pRez just loves to violate contracts.

You'll never get it. As previously stated, businesses and corporations are made up of individuals so maybe you'll understand that those individuals have the rights you in your warped mind refuse to give the entity.

"Then I guess the government better quit taxing them. Taxation without representation.... ring a bell?"

Yes, and it would be cause for outrage... IF CORPORATIONS WERE PEOPLE. They're not.

Corporations are legal entities created by government, remember? They're formed by the incorporation contract, and the government is perfectly entitled to set whatever terms and conditions they want on that contract.

The business, of course, is equally free to reject those terms by not incorporating. That's the free market, correct?

I stated that Alexander Hamilton wrote this in a letter to G. Washington. I misread the passage. T.Jefferson, W. Randolph, and Hamilton wrote this to President Washington because of Hamilton's want to establish a National Bank. The letter was Washington's response.

Hamilton was a staunch supporter of implied powers and a strong central government. He was an expert in British law and favored government regulation. But as G.Washington's Secretary of Treasury he stated what I wrote below and also this about the non flexible rules of a National Bank:

Nonnegotiable conditions for the establishment of the Bank of the United States. These were:

* That the Bank was to be a private company.
* That the Bank would have a twenty year charter running from 1791 to 1811, after which time it would be up to the Congress to renew or deny renewal of the bank and its charter; however, during that time no other federal bank would be authorized; states, for their part, would be free to charter however many intrastate banks they wished.(This was renewed by Madison)
* That the Bank, to avoid any appearance of impropriety, would:
1. be forbidden to buy government bonds.
2. have a mandatory rotation of directors.
3. neither issue notes nor incur debts beyond its actual capitalization.

So WTF is going on today?

Don't typically like to use Wiki but it's lunch time: "A business (also called a firm or an enterprise) is a legally recognized organization designed to provide goods and/or services to consumers.[1] Businesses are predominant in capitalist economies, most being privately owned and formed to earn profit that will increase the wealth of its owners and grow the business itself. The owners and operators of a business have as one of their main objectives the receipt or generation of a financial return in exchange for work and acceptance of risk. Notable exceptions include cooperative businesses and state-owned enterprises. Socialist systems involve either government agencies, public, or worker ownership of most sizable businesses."


This bears repeating: "Socialist systems involve either government agencies, public, or worker ownership of most sizable businesses."

Well, that will certainly make smaller businesses just run out and hire new labor. And it will certainly want to make the big corporations stick around.

CopyLeft, you are a pinhead...have you ever been hired by a poor person? Probably not, you're probably on welfare with housing assistance, and I'm fairly certain some government agency is paying for your internet. Only a plant or a government welfare case would hold the views you do.

Small businesses and corporations are the ones with the jobs, fool. Close them down, chase them off, then where's your tax base...oh, I forgot, you're one of those people that thinks that the government makes/has its own money. Sure...let's print some more! And never mind the run-away inflation and food riots we're going to have within the next year...we'll just print more money!!!

I can't wait for the States to secede...I just hope it's in my lifetime...my blood pressure is just not holding up under all this insanity.

Copy: Corporations, on the other hand, are not citizens. They have no rights under the Constitution and there's no reason for the government not to regulate, form, and dissolve them at will for the betterment of society.

Then I guess the government better quit taxing them.

Taxation without representation.... ring a bell?

And the "betterment of society" is subjective.

Will this be a threat to ensure the dems win the 2010 elections- "vote for "them" they will take away your free health care, Medicare, welfare"?

"Neither can I, so it's a good thing that's not what Kennedy's proposal entails. His proposal affects EMPLOYERS, i.e., corporations... and corporations are not private citizens."

Umm, Corporations are companies owned by shareholders. They have a board of private citizens who run that company, which, I repeat is owned by shareholders (private citizens), that make decisions for that company. No government there, unless you are GM and Chrysler.

"And finally, the regulation of corporations is 100% constitutional, so quit pretending otherwise."

Where is that stated Copy? Which Article can I look up the regulation of Corporations? Here's a link to it, find where it says that; http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

"They'd be appalled that corporations exist at all, of course... much less that they have vote-buying influence in our legislature"

No they wouldn't. They supported free enterprise. But they would be appalled by the vote buying influence. But hey, isn't this one of the promises of Obambi...oh, yeah that was until he got elected. Now lobbying isn't an important issue.

"Remember, corporations are not part of our Constitution."

You contradict yourself here from earlier.

"In fact, to get PERMISSION to incorporate, they used to have to go to Congress in person to plead their case--including specifying HOW their proposed business would benefit the public interest, and how long they'd be in business. Ahh, the good old days....."

Wrong. Alexander Hamilton wrote a letter to President G. Washington (he added the opinions of T. Jefferson and W. Randolph to further back his point) in 1791 concerning the formation of an Incorporated National Bank (known as the Bank Act) (I am summarizing here:

The government may not erect, grant approval , or disallow the formation of a corporation by private citizens due solely on the implied powers granted to Congress or the President. But they can erect a corporation for collecting taxes, regulating foreign trade, trade between states, because it is the expressed power of those two entities to regulate those items. Which is why there is no national bank (it is privately owned). Hamilton further explains that the government has no right to interfere in the operations and by laws of any private organization as long as the laws of that corporation do not (in his words) "violate the Constitution or the laws of the state for which they reside".

But yet today we have Obambi breaking the law completely.

"More accurately, government SHOULD not. There's nothing more foolish than the notion that government should be run like a business, with a "CEO" type as its chief executive."

Then why is Obambi acting like a CEO?

if the gov't decides to force private companies to pay for ins. for all employees, what is the basis for a constitutional argument?
Neal- can you go into some of the points that would be used to overturn this if passed? I guess that is where my hopes are. I see it being passed and hope that it would be overturned at the Supreme Court level before it cost us too much.

Copyleft you wrote "But keeping our current, broken, costly, and inefficient system for the benefit of insurers who have a vested interest in denying care--that option's not on the table any more.". So are you talking about Medicade, Medicare or SCHIP, or perhaps all 3?

It only seems inconsistent to you, Joyce, because you persist in treating corporations as first-class citizens that the rest of need to suck up to and appease.

The Constitution provides maximum INDIVIDUAL freedoms, and those freedoms have expanded with the growth of society.

Corporations, on the other hand, are not citizens. They have no rights under the Constitution and there's no reason for the government not to regulate, form, and dissolve them at will for the betterment of society.

See? Very simple. The Constitution protects the people 100%, and corporations not at all.

He has said before "the constitution does not prevent Obama from ...." you can fill in the blank.

Either something is provided for in the constitution or it is denied because it is not provided for in the constitution or it is ok because it is not prohibited in the constitution....

Never makes any sense. Copy, btw, that above is sarcasm. But then you'll probably twist that too.

But today is easy.
"Neither can I, so it's a good thing that's not what Kennedy's proposal entails. His proposal affects EMPLOYERS, i.e., corporations... and corporations are not private citizens."
-- Not every Employer is a Corporation. I believe you've been ignoring for MONTHS how many "rich people" are small business owners. And they account for around 80% of new jobs. SECOND, Corporations are not GOVERNMENT, therefore they are PRIVATE. It's that simple. I invest 8% of my pay for retirement in these entities, and you want to take MY MONEY FOR THIS CRAP!!!!!
-- Okay, I AM running out of patience for you already, so 1 more point:

"Remember, corporations are not part of our Constitution."
-- Corporations are NOT PROHIBITED in our Constitution. Anything NOT PROHIBITED, is allowed, by default. It is, perhaps more importantly, reserved for the States. Read the 10th amendment, you moron. If only, IF ONLY, you Big Government Socialists would take the "...not part of our Constitution." stance conistently, all would be well with the world.

HEALTHCARE is "...not part of our Constitution."
RETIREMENT/SOCIAL SECURITY is "...not part of our Constitution."
WELFARE is "...not part of our Constitution."



See how easy that is to understand?

If they require the employer to insure all employees, then they will take the least costly route. They will only have full time employees, and fire all the part time ones to decrease the number of people they have to insure. This will eliminate all the students that work part time after school and during the summers.

...then WE would not be having to worry about Ted Kennedy right now.
How's THAT for insensitive!

So if I'm reading this correctly, a business like the one I work for would have to open up healthcare to everyone working here. On paper, the costs should go down. With the Democrats running things, it will become more expensive. Mine is part of my compensation package( they offered it, no one asked or demanded it...)but if the company has to offer it to everyone, we'll go to a much higher deductible and benefits will be drastically reduced. I don't use it much, but it helps with my kids. I can't complain as it is now. But Uncle Teddy would pretty much force the company to make dramatic changes to accomodate the omni present hand of government. Great. What next...the feds will want me to pay taxes on the company vehicle I drive? Anything to make people who are achieving something in life pay for those who aren't. It's the wave of the future, I guess. If I wind up in a hospital room with Copyleft, at least I could short sheet him or better yet, put saran wrap over his bedpan. Gotta get a chuckle from somewhere...

The Supreme Court already ruled in Roe vs Wade that (women's) health is a private issue. For a mandate like this you will need to overturn Roe vs Wade. This could get interesting.

Only Alexander Hamilton would be pleased by this. Sigh. Socialism SUCKS.