Take out the TSA and allow the airlines to pay for security like they did before 9-11. They could, and likely would, make you take your shoes off. As part of your condition for purchasing an airline ticket, you contract away a lot. Airtran’s terms and conditions are 16 pages and can be found here: http://www.airtran.com/common/PDF/AirTran_Contract_of_Carriage.pdf

As you can read for yourself, Airtran states that they have the right to refuse to transport anyone who has not submitted to a search for dangerous weapons.

Of course it was Saul Alinsky, Obama’s mentor, who observed that “favors granted always become defined as rights.”

Seriously, what is your solution for State Legislators to do? If you were in their shoes, then what would you do?

Personally, I thought that “flip-flopper” was more accurate. There’s no meaningful distinction except to the fringe.

“to provide that no law or rule or regulation shall compel any person, employer, or health care provider to participate in any health care system and to authorize persons and employers to pay directly for lawful health care services without penalties or fines”

Senator Hill, the mouthpiece of the original press conference if not the brains (brains still trying to be identified in this operation, but the search thus far producing no results), introduced a bill less than two years ago requiring just that.

So, by introducing this resolution/amendment, I’m curious if Senator Hill prefers to be known as a “flip-flopper” or to be suffering from cranial-rectal inversion?

Ah, Reconstruction. Good times!

BE IT RESOLVED:

No federal or state mandates regarding health care choice and payment systems will be viewed as lawful or of any lawful effect.

Well, that sounds like a mutually beneficial (and necessary) arrangement….a free & fair exchange of value between parties best able to supply their respective talent & capital and in need of the talent & capital best able to be supplied by the other – to derive a benefit for both that is much greater than the sum of the parts….

Regrettably, Jenny, I suspect the recipients of your offer will decline – as the alternate reality in which they find themselves has clouded and confused their ability to process market information accurately

If this is the whole of the bill, accurately reproduced (I’m not doubting that it is, only offering this mild disclaimer as I have not yet seen it myself anywhere else but your post), I think we can safely and accurately label it:

Grandstanding Junk

Georgians need & desire NEITHER a state NOR a federal interference in the free exchange and choice of health options between their sovereign selves and their sovereign medical practitioner counterparts, under the guise of protecting our sovereignty.

We also do not need a redefinition of what is “lawful health care”, an assumption of jurisdiction over what and how medical services of any kind will be paid for, and under who’s vague, limitless, undefined “reasonable and necessary rules and regulations” such medical care will be provided, enforced, banned, encouraged, or withheld.

Further, we are not interested in being patted on the head with the remaining portions of this ruse – which simply restate the obvious and acknowledge eternal truths which are already enumerated succinctly and more than sufficiently in the 9th & 10th ammendments to the US Constitution.

We are already in possession of the protections this bill claims to grant…as if it had the power to grant them at all….

We don’t need panderers reading a script and claiming they are protecting us from that which they are facilitating by their refusal to invoke and interpose the God – given rights we were born with between the federal leviathan and the sovereign citizens they claim to represent.

We are NOT mindless waifs seeking a pacifier of something or someone calling itself a “conservative Republican” – who issues a press release or holds a press conference to pronounce a bunch of words meant to substitute for the deeds that are necessary.

The hour is late – the time for settling for grandstanding junk is over.

And yet, we will be subject to all manner of pragmatic “compromise”, offered by those who claim to be “conservative Republicans”, wrapping themselves in the flag and carrying a copy of some tenth amendment talking points, re-defining & appointing themselves as authorities on “reform”….to end up with “Obama/Stalin lite” ….. peddled by the establishment’s new stable of Rhodies, CFR lackeys, and their foundation funded, eminently predictable think tanks…..and carried by obedient local wannabe viceroys who tirelessly lecture us on “real world solutions” which guarantee our enslavement.

This is one case where Nancy Reagan’s slogan applies:

“Just say NO!”

A tyranny by any other name, is still tyranny.

Why not liberty? Why not truth? Why not the Constitution?

A RESOLUTION

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution so as to provide that no law or rule or regulation shall compel any person, employer, or health care provider to participate in any health care system and to authorize persons and employers to pay directly for lawful health care services without penalties or fines; to provide for the submission of this amendment for ratification or rejection; and for other purposes.

BE IT RESOLVED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF GEORGIA:

SECTION 1.
Article I of the Constitution is amended by adding a new section to read as follows:

ʺSECTION V.
HEALTH CARE

Paragraph I. Definitions. As used in this section, the term:
(1) ‘Compel’ includes penalties or fines.
(2) ‘Direct payment’ or ‘pay directly’ means payment for lawful health care services without a public or private third party, not including an employer, paying for any portion of the service.
(3) ‘Health care system’ means any public or private entity whose function or purpose is the management of, processing of, enrollment of individuals for, or payment for, in full or in part, health care services or health care data or health care information for its participants.
(4) ‘Lawful health care services’ means any health related service or treatment to the extent that the service or treatment is permitted or not prohibited by law or regulation that may be provided by persons or businesses otherwise permitted to offer such services.
(5) ‘Penalties or fines’ means any civil or criminal penalty or fine, tax, salary or wage withholding or surcharge, or any named fee with a similar effect established by law or rule by a government established, created, or controlled agency that is used to punish or discourage the exercise of rights protected under this section.

Paragraph II. Health care protections.
(a) To preserve the freedom of citizens of this state to provide for their health care:
(1) No law or rule or regulation shall compel, directly or indirectly, any person, employer, or health care provider to participate in any health care system; and
(2) A person or employer may pay directly for lawful health care services and shall not be required to pay penalties or fines for paying directly for lawful health care services. A health care provider may accept direct payment for lawful health care services and shall not be required to pay penalties or fines for accepting direct payment from a person or employer for lawful health care services.
(b) Subject to reasonable and necessary rules and regulations that do not substantially limit a person’s options, the purchase or sale of health insurance in private health care systems shall not be prohibited by law or by rule or regulation.
(c) This section shall not:
(1) Affect which health care services a health care provider or hospital is required to perform or provide;
(2) Affect which health care services are permitted by law;
(3) Prohibit care provided pursuant to any statutes enacted by the General Assembly relating to workers’ compensation;
(4) Affect laws or rules in effect as of January 1, 2009; or
(5) Affect the terms or conditions of any health care system to the extent that those terms and conditions do not have the effect of punishing a person or employer for paying directly for lawful health care services or a health care provider or hospital for accepting direct payment from a person or employer for lawful health care services.ʺ

SECTION 2.
The above proposed amendment to the Constitution shall be published and submitted as provided in Article X, Section I, Paragraph II of the Constitution. The ballot submitting the above proposed amendment shall have written or printed thereon the following:

( ) YES
( ) NO
Shall the Constitution of Georgia be amended so as to provide that no law or rule or regulation shall compel any person, employer, or health care provider to participate in any health care system and to authorize persons and employers to pay directly for lawful health care services without penalties or fines?”

All persons desiring to vote in favor of ratifying the proposed amendment shall vote “Yes.” All persons desiring to vote against ratifying the proposed amendment shall vote “No.” If such amendment shall be ratified as provided in said Paragraph of the Constitution, it shall become a part of the Constitution of this state.

Surrendering domain and jurisdiction over the free choice authority we were all born with….to an unnecessary, ill advised and deceptive legislative creation which purports to “give us” what we already have…..proposed by those posturing as defenders of the tenth amendment while they talk out of both sides of their mouth, is neither progress nor statemanship.

Others may still suffer this lip service and window dressing, but I’ll take the real thing instead.

http://www.georgiafirst.org/governor/bills.shtml

You said, “Obama wants to force us to take his public option.”

I asked you to show me where he has ever said that.

Now can you do that or can’t you?

Y’all made me laugh out loud on that one.

+10 to you both.

http://georgiainfo.galileo.usg.edu/1957resn-7.htm

Regarding the 16th & 17th Amendments, a man by the name of Bill Benson went to the capitols of all the pertinent states and got certified copies of the actions of these legislatures on the two amendments in question. They did not lawfully ratify the amendments.

The Supreme Court won’t touch the matter saying that “it is a political matter”. But since it is quite apparently a fraud perpetrated against the people and fraud vitiates all that it comes in contact with, I feel that it is more correctly a legal crisis that the Court is ducking because of the extreme ramifications of “doing the right thing”.

“Madison asserted that legislation passed by Congress and carried out successfully with the approval of the people over a significant period of time sets a precedent of constitutional interpretation for future legislation.”

http://edsitement.neh.gov/view_lesson_plan.asp?id=563
and
http://www.ungardesign.com/websites/madison/main_pages/madison_archives/life/presidency/domestic.htm