This is feel good legislation that protects your right to pay thousands of dollars for care that only cost maybe in the hundreds to deliver, at rates which you aren't able to ascertain in advance, for services that you could possibly die without.
Accurately titled, this would be: "The unconstitutional state law that guarantees your right to keep paying on the number one cause of personal bankruptcies in America"
Tell you what. When the federal government gets its present responsibilities - immigration, a balanced budget, emergency management to name a few - mopped up, then we'll talk about giving them yet more power.
As for the feel-good legislation bit, it may get shot down by some lawmaking judge down the line, but the important thing is that the people clearly register their disinclination toward nationalized healthcare. If nothing else, by approving this proposition, we tell our representatives where we stand, and where they need to stand.
How is it unconstitutional?
Does it follow that if this proposition is unconstitutional, universal healthcare is somehow Constitutionally allowed or guaranteed?
Has the government ever done anything more efficiently or equitably than private enterprise?
Will people EVER(have they ever?) truly value something that is "free"? When we don't have to pay for something directly(paying via broader taxation does not count), we take it for granted. Along the same lines, when we are no longer motivated by profit, we don't produce the same quality goods or services.
Honest questions in response to a pretty darn loaded statement...
Browning, litigation and advertising play a lil' part in the whole thing, too... I am honestly not sure where I stand on health-industry regulation these days, simply because of the incomprehensible breadth of "modern" medications for every possible ailment, new ailments being discovered(or manufactured) each day, etc. I believe in the free market, however I also believe that I shouldn't have to worry about melamine in my milk.
