On Today’s Press Conference

Today’s Press Conference was held to present a constitutional amendment that allows all Georgians the freedom to choose whether or not to participate in any insurance plan and to prevent any government from punishing citizens for not participating. Today the Georgia Senate stepped forward to protect our citizens from an outrageous trampling of their rights by an out of control federal government. I believe that the Washington Democrat’s new scheme to mandate government run healthcare for every American is not constitutional and takes away our freedoms.

I have also offered legislation which would provide a financial scholarship for low income children on Medicaid and Peachcare so they can have private health insurance to give them better access to doctors.

This Constitutional amendment enables Georgians, who qualify, to continue to have the freedom to participate in government healthcare plans such as Medicaid, Medicare and Peachcare. We are not challenging the constitutionality of any existing government subsidized healthcare. This clarifies any comment which might imply otherwise.


  1. LoyaltyIsMyHonor says:

    If anyone is interested. Senator Judson Hill Introduced legislation in 2007 that required everyone to purchase health insurance (SB28). I’m not one to copy and paste a lot of verbiage, but here’s some of it:

    (a) Effective January 1, 2008, the following individuals who are over the age of 18 and have not yet attained the age of 65 and whose annual gross income exceeds 300 percent of the federal poverty level for the immediately preceding calendar year shall offer proof of their ability to pay for medical care for themselves and their dependents:
    (1) Residents of Georgia; or
    (2) Within 63 days of establishing residency, individuals who become residents of Georgia.
    (b) Individuals subject to the requirement in subsection (a) of this Code section shall be deemed to be in compliance with said requirement if they:
    (1) Indicated coverage under any health benefit plan in accordance with Code Section 33-62-13;
    (2) Demonstrate proof of financial security in accordance with subsection (c) of this Code section; or
    (3) Demonstrate proof of coverage under a high deductible major medical health insurance plan.
    (c) Pursuant to paragraph (2) of subsection (b) of this Code Section, individuals electing to demonstrate proof of financial security to pay for medical expenditures shall present to the commissioner of revenue a bond in the amount of $10,000.00 or shall deposit with the commissioner of revenue $10,000.00 in an escrow account that shall bear interest at a rate established by the commissioner of revenue.
    (d) If, in any calendar year, an individual subject to the requirement in subsection (a) of this Code section fails to comply with said requirement, the commissioner of revenue shall establish an escrow account in the name of said individual and:
    (1) Shall retain and deposit in said account all such funds as may be owed to said individual by the State of Georgia, including, but not limited to, any overpayment by said individual of any taxes imposed by the State of Georgia;
    (2) Shall obtain an order for the attachment of the wages of said individual to satisfy the requirements of this Code section; or
    (3) Both paragraphs (1) and (2) of this subsection.”

    Anyway, the Republicans are idiots and hypocrites for having him as the mouthpiece of their anti-Obama movement. I also suggest that you review the rest of the bill.

    • northgavoter says:

      If the 2007 bill says that if you make a high salary to be eligible to get a tax exemption you show you have some health insurance or simply don’t qualify for that exemption, then I’m all for it. Too many people making lots of money force you and me as taxpayers to pick up their hospital bill. That’s a problem. And, Hill just talks about privatizing medicaid for poor children -nothing’s said about eliminating medicare for senior citizens. Most people confuse the two programs, seems you have too.

    • Rick Day says:

      but this is DIFFERENT! We didn’t have spooky Majik Negro in the POTUS chair, yo!

      This is really aggravating. Reading this bill you posted is even more aggravating. Senator’s got some ‘splainin’ to do.

      • ByteMe says:

        So you’re ok with him proposing this two years ago and now proposing a constitutional amendment to get out of any federal mandates for health insurance?

        We’re just pointing out his creaky intellectual underpinings.

        • It’s an issue of federalism, ByteMe. The federal Constitution grants the federal government only limited powers, reserving all others to the state.

          The state has all power not denied to it by the Federal Constitution and it’s own state constitution.

          A state is well within its power to pass a law requiring everyone to have health insurance, as long as it is not prohibited by its own state constitution.

          That is the line of demarcation.

          Then it becomes up to the people in that state if that is the policy which they want their state to pursue.

          If you can give me a rational, legal argument under Constitutional Law as to where the Congress under its enumerated or implied powers is authorized to provide healthcare to all people in the United States, then I might agree to your argument.

          • ByteMe says:

            By that argument, you could also make the specious argument that Social Security and Medicare are illegal. And yet, they’re not. So if the feds decide that Medicare is going to be extended to EVERYONE regardless of age and that the tax rate to support this is going to be increased to 8%, that would be just as legal.

          • That’s only because the U.S. Supreme Court, who is the final judge of Constitutional interpritation, said Social Security was constitutional in Helvering v. Davis. In fact, part of the reason SS was upheld was because it wasn’t a federal insurance policy, but a tax justified in Congress’s ability to tax.

            That is a rather simplified brief of the decision, but you can look it up on your own if you wish to read me.

            I’ll get back to you on Medicare. Have not found the case the declares it constitutional, though there are certainly a lot of SCOTUS cases where they have had the chance to strike down Medicare and have not.

            The difference is, of course, both Social Security and Medicare do not force all Americans to purchase something like health insurance. It’s a false analogy. It would be like saying all Georgians are Americans therefore all Americans are Georgians.

          • ByteMe says:

            Don’t have to. I’m not the lawyer here, last I checked.

            I did, though, explain why a rational legal argument really didn’t matter, because all it would be is a specious argument, considering that SCOTUS determines what’s “legal” and has not struck down these programs in all the years they’ve existed.

        • John Konop says:


          As I have stated numerous times the debate should be focused on cost savings and revenue. And I have been very specific about solutions as well as open to other ideas. No one on the PP has called out more people than me when I have seen hypocrisy on this issue on both sides.

          I have been clear the current plan does not attack the cost and revenue issue. And that people like Jeremy Jones are talking out of both sides of their mouth.

          • ByteMe says:

            I think you might have missed the point, John. I’m clear on where you stand. What’s not clear is why someone who introduced a bill to mandate health insurance in this state two years ago is now against the possibility of an expansion of health care at the federal level and considers that so bad that he needs to introduce a new amendment to the state constitution (which is silly as well, but I’ve already made that clear elsewhere).

            Anyway, that’s where I’m coming from on your original question.

      • jenny says:

        Please tell me John that you are being sarcastic. Mandatory associated with Government has no place in a FREE SOCIETY.

        When you remove the antenna on your brain that connects you to the UNAMIND, you’ll be more able to engage in intelligent conversation regarding liberty and personal responsibility.

        In the meantime, feel free to continue your insane mantra with half glazed eye balls……the government is our mommy….the government takes care of us….the government forces us to take care of ourselves they way they know is best for us…..

        • John Konop says:


          What is your solution when a person shows up at the county emergency room with not enough money for healthcare?

          a) Force the hospital to treat them at a discount and or free and possible let disease spread that could affect and or kill us?

          b) Let them die or get sicker?

          c) And if your answer is “a “who should pay for it?

          e) Should we let children and babies die because the parents are to irresponsible and or cannot afford healthcare?

          • jenny says:

            Pre-emptively abort them all. That’ll cure the problem. 🙂

            The private sector and charities are free to set up clinics for such cases and also churches. Rand Paul (Ron Paul’s son) doesn’t believe in government funded health care, so he has set up just such a clinic.

            I have news for you, John. The private sector is generous and talented. We can take care of ourselves better and more efficiently than the government ever can.

            And we have lots of charity clinics in Atlanta. They’d be getting more in donations if the populace weren’t so insanely taxed to cover things like crazy Grady, a black whole of bad management and financial waste.

          • John Konop says:


            Your solution is finding a charity to treat the person and if not let them die and or spread disease that could kill all of us? WOW!

            The difference between us is I deal with the real world not an ideology.

          • jenny says:


            Ok, I’m now entertaining myself with my unintended double entendre. I meant black hole (an outer space reference) of bad management and financial waste.

            Ah. Sigh. That’s funny.

        • jenny says:

          Oh, John- COME ON.

          You have got to be kidding me. Tell me, while you are overwhelmed with fear for the killer cootie standing outside some hospital, do you also curl up in a ball, suck your thumb and cry for mommy?

          We have become so utterly dependent on some guy in a lab coat guessing as to our problem, that the hospitals are full of people who really just need some sinus meds, a hot water bottle, and to go to bed.

          Some of my friends from Africa who were relatively poor living in remote areas said that the villagers merely plunged into the jungle for indigenous roots and leaves to handle many medical problems. Melaleuca oil and oil of oreganol are very effective at resolving a myriad of problems. And if we would get all this processed food and aspartame out of our diet, we’d be much healthier.

          Under the current glorious Medicare program, one of my friends was prescribed a $2,000 antibiotic for a skin malady on the scalp–something that could have been cured in less than 2 weeks with a $7 bottle of tea tree oil from Trader Joes.

          You sir have not done your homework on any superficial level if you honestly believe that bureaucratic government health care is any solution to anyone’s maladies.

          • John Konop says:


            I asked a simple question should a county hospital treat a sick baby, child…if they do not have the money. And you said let them die and or spread disease unless a charity picks up the cost.

            Obviously you are pro-birth not pro-life.

          • seenbetrdayz says:

            Using other people’s money to be charitable through government does not necessarily indicate that you are “pro-life” either, John.

          • MSBassSinger says:

            OK, you lost me.

            Try reading the numerous articles on http://www.junkscience.com for the chicanery of the kind of home remedies you listed, and the mythology of additives and aspartame being harmful. And, of course, taking Ron Paul seriously about anything.

            What you advocate in your post shows a serious lack of the homework you advocate.

            I do agree with you, though, that bureaucratic government health care would be a nightmare. That idiocy is a failure everywhere in the world it has been tried.

          • Donna Locke says:

            Tea tree oil is a toxin, particularly to the nervous system. Can do some serious damage. Do not use it.

  2. gt7348b says:

    You know – if we just stop accepting Medicare, HHS $, etc, then we wouldn’t have to take these federal $.

    The choice is ours.

  3. USA1 says:

    Mr. Hill,

    Who is the “Washington Democrat” who wants to “mandate government run healthcare for every American”?

    Where does it say – in any of the health care bills – that people won’t be able to buy private insurance anymore?

    And please elaborate on your thoughts about privatizing Medicare.

    • Rick Day says:

      I see this as another polarizing excuse to get nothing of substance done this session either. Another ‘no win’ situation shoved in the face of Democrats. How can anyone oppose language like THIS? Just another “Gay marriage” boogie man to distract the simple folk from ignoring their empty pantries.

      *facepalm* we are all going to hell in a handbasket.

      • jenny says:

        RECALL GEORGIA IDIOTS, er I mean Georgia elected politicians.

        We the People are the solution. And an onslaught of letter writing is equally stupid. We must picket them at their homes and businesses. Hold them accountable. Collect signatures to kick them out of office. They have declared war on our wallets, our property, our liberty, and our Constitution.

        I will NOT go to hell in a hand basket, but I don’t mind sending them there in the basket. 🙂

          • Icarus says:

            Huge difference between Jenny and those at the press conference.

            Jenny is at least sincere.

            More importantly, Jenny is the target audience that this press conference was aimed at. And you can see her reaction all over these threads.

            So, Sen. Hill and Sen. Rogers, how’s that part of this plan working out for you so far?

          • jenny says:

            Blush, thanks, Romegaguy.

            But I so much prefer McDingleBerry, Ronulan, Paultard, Prairie Muffin, Snarky Homeschooling Mommy, Constitutionally grounded terrorist….

            Idiot is so dry and I think I’ve exhausted the title on this thread.


  4. Lone Star Georgian says:

    What exactly is a financial scholarship for health insurance? Can every child on Peachcare or Medicare get one, or is this a token measure?

    I, for one, need not be “protected” from having access to healthcare. I find the idea not at all threatening.

  5. Rick Day says:

    A constitutional amendment for an un-enumerated right we already have.


    Let me guess…

    you are……Republican. Right?

    Listen: hear that? That was me throwing my shoe at you.

    Do what you and yours told the Democrats for the past 10 years: shut up and support your POTUS, or the terrorists win. Naked polarizing politics is polarizing.

  6. Icarus says:

    I’m going to sleep on this one before I decide how many keystrokes it’s really worth.

    So my thought for the night is this:

    I really don’t understand why it continues to amaze me that when our leaders put themselves into an intellectually indefensible position, they choose to double down on the stupid instead of just admitting a mistake an moving on.

    • AubieTurtle says:

      George HW Bush admitted he made a mistake when he said ‘no new taxes’ without an allowance for the various possibilities of the future. He served only one term.

      It seems that admitting one has made a mistake is political suicide. Too bad it is that way because we are all imperfect and we all make mistakes but anyone admitting to one in office will have it broadcast all over the airwaves to “prove” they’re not the best person for the job. Unfortunately that works and the public falls for it everytime.

      In the end, we get the government we deserve.

      • ByteMe says:

        It seems that admitting one has made a mistake is political suicide.

        And that was the wrong lesson to learn from the episode, because the myth confused causation with coincidence. Could the recession of 1991-1992 have been the cause of his loss instead? Sure. But the lessons that the tax-cut-always crowd wants to reinforce is: if you raise taxes, you lose; if you go back on a pledge not to raise taxes, you lose.

        But, really, if you are the governing party during an economic downturn, you lose.

          • ByteMe says:

            If you look at where the stock market went during the ’30’s, you’ll see that it was lowest in 1932-1933 when FDR won his first election and the next drop-off was 1937-1938 (after he already won his first re-election). After that, stocks were heading up and war was afoot.

          • ByteMe says:

            Do you even know if you have a point? You know that unemployment peaked in 1933 (when FDR took office) and started coming down after that, right?

          • AubieTurtle says:

            I think I might see where we are not understanding each other. You used the words “economic downturn” which I took to mean bad economic conditions. If that’s what you meant then I don’t see how you can disagree with the fact that times were hard for much of the country when FDR got re-elected.

            However if your words meant a time period in which the economic conditions are getting worse regardless of what the overall conditions are, then that is something different altogether though I’m not sure that in every election that has been true without doing a bunch of research.

            Boiled down, it is a difference between position and velocity. I was thinking position where you might have intended velocity.

          • ByteMe says:

            Yes, I’m saying it’s the direction, not necessarily the reality of the moment. If the people think you’re moving things in the right direction, they’ll give you more time. The recession of 1937 came after FDR was already re-elected, the bottom of the depression came right before he came into office the first time. And the third time, things were definitely looking up and war was coming. So, overall, he fits the pattern.

  7. Harry says:

    Sen. Hill has put forward a proposal that preserves Tenth Amendment rights. Sure, the collectivists don’t like it because it reassigns power from the federal side of the federalist equation back to the states and people. Such proposals and discussion about how to restore the federalist balance are much needed. Any medical payments Obama succeeds in mandating are to be enforced at the end of the IRS gun. IRS will be designated the organ of enforcement and collection. The federal power at the end of a gun is not and should not be the highest good. Let’s use the Tenth Amendment to restore the states and people.

    • jenny says:

      Wow- Senator Judson Hill is the preserver of the 10th Amendment? I’m not sure if I should ask to touch him or cower in panic and fear over what goners we all are if this Hill is our last stand.

      Legislators have no real solutions. So they just throw paper at problems that need a Governor who asserts the 10th Amendment and puts Washington on notice that federal agents will be greeted by our well armed state troopers if the feds imagine they have any jurisdiction in the healthcare of Georgians.

      Course if we did that, then the Feds would cut off our funding for gasp, host of welfare items in our bloated state budget of 38 BILLION dollars.

      And considering that Hill voted in favor of the abominable HB 396 (sponsored by Tom Graves in the House), I’m not thinking he’s so interested in putting the Feds on notice about anything sovereign. Quite the opposite, judging from HB 396, the entire Senate (except for the handful who voted against it) is in fact very favorable to bending the whole state over and teaching us the great mantra “thank you, sir, may I have another.”

      That said, I do like Senator Hill. But you need to do a whole lot more homework.

  8. A “scholarship” paid for by the government to let poor children buy “private” insurance instead of Peachcare/Medicaid is probably the stupidest idea I’ve ever heard. Hey Judson, here’s an idea. If you Republicans think Peachcare and Medicaid are inadequate and you want to spend taxpayer money on increased care how about you fully fund Peachcare and Medicaid first.

    Can you believe the audacity of that idea? It’s as if I ran a business which had a product I didn’t believe in and I subsidized my customers to go somewhere else instead.

  9. jenny says:

    This Amendment is a load of crap. We don’t need an amendment to assert what is already ours. And these politicians DO NOT have the authority to use our money to fund health care on any level. The position of an elected legislator is one of submission to the Constitution, not authority on the welfare of the people.

    Republican Leadership and Democratic Leadership simply squabble over the degree to which they will continue in lawlessness.

    Kick ’em out, RECALL THEM NOW, And let’s put real Georgians in office. This state government needs a colonic with a fire hose, and WE THE PEOPLE are just the ones to give it to ’em.

  10. jenny says:


    Please get back to me after you read the Constitution. You are not entitled to your neighbor’s money. Charities and churches exist for a reason. I stand for liberty and I stand for the abolishment of the unlawful illegal activities of civil government and the federal government in seceding from the union, and trampling the Constitution.

    We the People do it best. The Civil Government has no place in Privatizing. Pull the plug on Medicare and the private sector will rush in to form a money making, job creating solution.

    There are brilliant minds in the healthcare industry, and none of them are in government.

    So yes, there is your sound byte: Just Jenny believes that we should abolish immediately all illegal healthcare. Just Jenny believes in the rule of law. Just Jenny thinks that the Constitution is a binding document.

  11. John and I have talked a couple of times about health care reform. We are not on the same page, but, at least in the same chapter in our ideas.

    We both see a huge problem in costs, much of it coming from the uninsured or underinsured who use the ER as their primary care physician and stick the hospital with the bill.

    Private health insurance is out of reach for many financially because of the high cost of health care, a problem created by insurance policies in the first place. Having the co-pay does not allow market forces to direct health care costs. A $250 doctor visit is a $25 co-pay. A $2,500 doctor visit may also very well be a $25 co-pay. Where is a market to direct down costs? There is none.

    Insurance companies raise rates to cover the ever increasing costs, add extra paperwork (which increases costs for the doctors and the company), and rations care.

    There are two options to reform:

    1. A socialist solution where the government takes over the insurance industry and becomes the insurer, or

    2. A free market solution where people have greater control and there is greater transparency in the costs of healthcare.

    Forcing everyone to buy health insurance is not the solution, as we have seen in Massachusetts. It also does not cure the problems in the insurance industry, but exasperates the problems even more.

    • John Konop says:


      This issue is becoming like the abortion/gay marriage/euthanasia issue, both sides like using the heat of the issue rather than working on any real rational solutions. The difference is with this issue is if we do not solve this problem it will bankrupt our economy.

      Any rational person knows the current structure and alternatives offered on both sides avoids the real issue of Americans wanting health service they cannot afford. Between the uninsured, underinsured, Medicare, drug prescription bill….the tax payers cannot afford this.

      That is why both sides need to take a honest look at this issue.

      1) We need all people paying in to the system who can afford it.
      2) We need real reform on end of life public spending
      3) We need to use nurses over doctors at less expensive service centers like drug stores.
      4) We need mothers using pre-natal care for the health of the baby and to cut back on end of life cost.
      5) We need real reform against insurance companies dumping customers on tax payers via pre-existing conditions.
      6) We need to ration what the government will pay for via Mediocre.
      7) We need Medicare to be indexed based on life expectancy
      8)We need doctors paid on wellness over procedures.
      9) We cannot afford covering illegal immigrants
      10) We need everyone covered for catastrophic coverage or this just ends at the feet of tax payers.
      11) We need to understand no matter what we do some will fall through the cracks.
      12) We need to reform the tort system that does not make it a lottery system for patients and promotes disclosure on mistakes between healthcare workers.
      13) We must go after violators that abuse the system via fraud.
      14) We must promote wellness

      I am sure many on both sides would rather not have the above tough love debate. I am not saying I have all the answers and I am sure their many more ideas that could help fix the problem.

      The real truth is both sides want to believe that we can fix this problem with no real pain a something for nothing attitude. The real solution is we must cut back, all must pay who can and tighter controls on waste.

      • Romegaguy says:

        end of life spending… Damn John, now you are going to have Sarah Palin saying you are in favor of death panels

        • John Konop says:

          You might find this interesting!

          (Real) private insurance death panels
          Private insurance companies have real death panels, are getting between doctors and their patients, and are rationing care.

          An acquaintance just today sent the following email about his wife, whose insurance company has denied her a liver transplant. Where is your outrage?

          Dear Family and Friends: We are close to the last chance to get [my wife’s] life saving operation. We would be very grateful for all your prayers and good thoughts in the next few days so that the Insurance Man Dr. ______ of United Healthcare changes his mind and lets her be approved for the Liver List.

          Please forward to Positive friends….God Bless and Thank You all

          Attached was a letter from her physician, pleading the insurance company for his patient’s life:

          To whom it may concern:

          …This letter will serve to outline Ms. _____’s care at _______ Hospital. The purpose of this letter is to detail for her insurance company her excellent response to chemoembolization and her need for immediate listing for liver transplantation to provide her with the best chance at long term survival.

          …We respectfully request that her insurance company reconsider their previous denial for liver transplantation.

          Sincerely, Dr. ______, Senior Staff Surgeon, _________ Hospital.

          The healthcare insurance company’s formula is simple: the less they pay out, the more profit they make. These kinds of market failures happen all day, every day. Where is your outrage at the insurance industry?


    • jenny says:

      Dear God,

      Jason says he has ideas about healthcare reform. Puh-LEAZE save us!!!!

      Um, Jason– you presented a false bifurcation. Oh, and socialist cannot be used as an adjective for describing the word solution. It merely turns into an oxymoron.

      Also, only a politician would use the word free market and greater control in the same sentence because the politician assumes there will always be some government regulation. A free market assumes total control on the part of the consumer as they have the choice to buy or not buy and to sue or not sue.

      Trial lawyers are an important part of the free market process actually. But good old Cheney and Bush didn’t want the free market and protected consumers to operate in regard to our pharmaceutical companies which is why many companies have federal and state protection from prosecution for faulty and sometimes deadly products. But the whole trial lawyer thing is a whole ‘nother topic. 🙂

      • Donna Locke says:

        Free market? There has been no true free market in this country in my lifetime — I’m in my fifties.

        With health care, I’d like to see the federal and state governments out of health care altogether except for some regulation, and our government does exist to protect us, though this has been interpreted to nannydom (nannydumb).

        Give fair warning that Medicare will be discontinued for some designated generation coming up or about to be born, and phase it out. Let a true free market develop in health care/insurance, with smaller pools having a real chance at competition and survival. The conglomerates have not competed; they have bought and orchestrated a stranglehold on the system.

        As it is now, I am a prisoner of a system, of a government, that punishes me for being responsible. I am the hapless middle class, forced to fund and enrich the irresponsible, the greedy, the selfish, the unaccountable, the criminal above and below me.

        • benevolus says:

          Is there any “true free market” system in existence. Anywhere? Do we really have to completely reinvent how to do this? Isn’t that more risky than just going with a flawed but extensively tested system?

          • Donna Locke says:

            We are being reinvented right now. Pretty soon, a minority of taxpayers in this country will be supporting the majority.

          • benevolus says:

            So I’ll take that as a “no”.

            Your fear is merely a (possibly paranoid) speculation. On the other hand, national healthcare systems exist in dozens of countries across the globe and those countries are not imploding under the weight of freeloaders.

          • Donna Locke says:

            Not a speculation. Census and other welfare-counting numbers tell us we are approaching and will attain the status of minority support of the majority.

            I think the minority who will be squeezed for this mismanagement of our nation will not turn out to be the sheep you think they are or want to believe they are. Not in this country anyway.

          • benevolus says:

            Yeah, and the ironic thing about that is that it’s the liberal strongholds like California and New York and New Jersey who are supporting the states like Mississippi and Alabama.

  12. kyleinatl says:

    If we were talking about the State Senators from any other state that actually had fully funded options/safety nets for care for chronically ill individuals, I might understand where they’re coming from. BUT Georgia has no such options for its’ sick population, no high risk pool that is funded, and is constantly attempting to slash at medicaid anywhere it can.

    If the State Senate and House could actually come up with a solution for our uninsurable population (note I said uninsurable, NOT uninsured) we wouldn’t be having this conversation. Thusly, this grandstanding is hilarious and really sad for the sick of our state.

  13. B Balz says:

    Take a look at HB3400, which seems to favor much of what Mr. Konop is saying.

    Healthcare is a national issue, therefore, IMHO, it falls into the ‘commons’ -we all need it. POTUS says he wants to save what’s good and promote universal access, but appoints gov’t boards to do so. I don’t think that will work, I know it won’t fly.

    If GA chooses to opt out of a GOP supported [HB3400] national HC program, where high risk insureds gain access by assembling multi-State risk pools, States may become part of the problem. We cannot divide and win.

    Each Bill is too unformed to really make any good analyses. Yawn.

    “Eat, drink, be merry, for tomorrow you may be dead” – Old English folk saying.

  14. sunkawakan says:


    Hill’s comments:

    “We are not challenging the constitutionality of any existing government subsidized healthcare…”

    Is pretty telling; the SCOTUS decisions on these programs is fairly easy to find.

    There is also the issue of the constitutionality of federal regulation of the “business of insurance” to consider, however. In a 1944 case U.S. v. South-Eastern Underwriters, SCOTUS states:

    4. Any enactment by Congress either of partial or of comprehensive regulations of the insurance business would come to us with the most forceful presumption of constitutional validity. The fiction that insurance is not commerce could not be sustained against such a presumption, for resort to the facts would support the presumption in favor of the congressional action. The faction therefore must yield to congressional action and continues only at the sufferance of Congress.

    5. Congress also may, without exerting its full regulatory powers over the subject, and without challenging the basis or supplanting the details of state regulation, enact prohibitions of any acts in pursuit of the insurance business which substantially affect or unduly burden or restrain interstate commerce.”

    So, this is little more than political grandstanding for Hill and Rogers. It is interesting to point out as well that the healthcar and insurance business are BIG contributors to their campaigns.

  15. GAPeach65 says:

    Mr. Konop,

    Speaking as someone who currently has NO insurance due to government meddling in MANDATORY real estate loans to people who could not afford them – causing the loss of my 17 year job in real estate advertising after my entire department of over 60 people – as well as hundreds in other departments – were released from their employment, I must say that your starry-eyed notion that government should be allowed to legally plunder from those who HAVE to give to those that HAVE NOT is very closely aligned with a document produced by Karl Marx and Fredric Engels in 1848. Socialism, communism, fascism and all the other isms, while on the surface appear gloriously noble, ALWAYS have an underlying financial profit and control motivation and this agenda is also embraced by politicians who run for public office – knowing that their position can be quite lucrative if the ‘right’ legislation is passed in favor to support a business of a friend or family member.
    Legislation saturated with great detail regarding how ‘fees and compliance’ will be forcibly collected from anybody that the government deems to have the financial resources bears the marking of collusion and corruption as does this health care bill (HR 3200). It is a grandiose, blatant theft of those who chose to live healthy productive lives to give to those who may not practice good health and although there will always be extenuating circumstances that go beyond human control I personally would NEVER accept this type of government theft of my property to pay for somebody else without my consent. AND I can say that as somebody who was recently diagnosed with squamous cell carcinoma WITHOUT insurance that I would NEVER EVER imagine approaching a government or a politician to beg their colloboration in forcing somebody else to fund my medical financial obligations and if somehow in a very small possibility my condition metastasizes I will accept whatever comes my way because – I WILL LIVE AND DIE FREE!!!!!!!!
    Anyone who feels brave enough to say to my FACE that an all encompassing government has a RIGHT to force me to pay a hefty year end tax because I choose not to comply with this rancid malicious legislation will most likely be in need of some immediate health care.

    • John Konop says:

      GAPeach65 & abouthadit

      Back to the real world, last month my car was hit be an uninsured motorist. He like you thought he was taking the risk. In reality I was taking the risk via my insurance rate and the $500 deductable as well as time I lost. BTW at least the uninsured motorist will face the justice system.

      Like the heath insurance it is people like me who play by the rules who end subsidizing people like who are taking risk on my dime. Unless you call for not treating children and adults when they show up at the county emergency room underinsured or uninsured than you are just blowing smoke. And if they die or spread disease that kills all of us than ideological chants will be for not!

  16. abouthadit says:


    Ever notice that a well reasoned, logical, concise and to the point argument kills threads??? The collectivists have nothing to say.


    Kudos to you Peachy.

  17. benevolus says:

    I thought about responding. It just didn’t seem worth it. But since you have provided better bait, I’ll bite.

    My first impulse was to respond; ” I usually blame someone else for my problems too.” But that really wasn’t clever enough to justify extending this thread. If there had only been 20 or so posts at that point, then maybe. But I would hate for people to have to scroll through 89 posts just to get to that- even though it does make the point succinctly, I think.

    The next thought was to write something about how the poster doesn’t understand the concept of insurance, and how it is a very capitalist mechanism for companies to make money by assuming risk. Of course they spend much of their resources trying to minimize their risk, and there really isn’t any contrary pressure since the way it is set up now they practically have a monopoly in most states. However, that seemed pretty boring and likely to elicit the same old tired libertarian mantras with no basis in reality, so I passed on that one too.

    For a moment I was tempted to inquire about the circumstances around the job loss, but based on the rest of the post I had little confidence that I would get an accurate description and therefore not learn anything, so I donated some money to MoveOn instead.

    Finally, it was directed to Konop, so I though it would be appropriate for him to respond first, then I might jump in. Perhaps he also felt it wasn’t worth it.

    So your assessment, at least in my case, is completely wrong. Bwahaha? What’s that, asthma? You should get that looked at. Do you have insurance?

  18. GAPeach65 says:

    Mr. Konop, you missed my point entirely.

    And benevolus: “I was tempted to inquire about the circumstances around the job loss, but based on the rest of the post I had little confidence that I would get an accurate description”

    It’s called the ‘housing bubble.’ You know, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac. Maybe you’ve heard of them? I’ll be more than happy to provide a few visuals for you. And just maybe if you aren’t too busy you could explain to four or five hundred of my former co-workers (press men, graphic artists, sales reps, managers, etc) across the nation of how their ‘poor job performance’ and not intrusive government intervention in the home lending business caused them to be laid off? Please tell. Most of them were long-term career employees 10-20 years of service or more.
    BTW, asthma is not funny and neither are you.

    • Lawful Money says:

      Pretending to miss the point – while injecting non-sequitur ramblings and pious affirmations in the most transparent and adolescent ways imaginable – appears to be the gentleman’s stock in trade.

      Take a look at the 14 planks of the Konop Manifesto above. Fourteen “WE needs” and “We musts”- a statist’s dream. Socializing losses and privatizing gains is great business if you can hoodwink the electorate, eh? Gotta love #11…..the catch-all “I told you so disclaimer” when the inevitability explosion of this Marxist/eugenics claptrap takes place. Not to worry, this charlatan will be ready with planks 15-28 then…..

      He’s quick with the snarky comments about idealogical chants and his “real world” – meant to divert folks from thinking for themselves, and back to the plantation of the status quo he’s helped create? But……..

      ………not a word about the doctor patient relationship, nothing about free enterprise, tax credits, free choice, and sound money….

      Nothing about the Hippocratic oath, churches & charity, free association, nor the mountain of evidence proving that the cost of “health care” has exploded precisely because of the massive unconstitutional government involvement explosion during the last half century.

      And like the pathetic dupes and operatives who were taught to scream “McCarthyism!” whenever the going got tough and they needed to silence the free exchange of ideas an opinions, the gentleman can only attack the truth by claiming it will be responsible for unleashing a “disease that kills all of us”.

      Only problem for Johnny boy is the electorate is no longer in the slumber he tries to maintain so it is easy to pick their pockets while he poses as a “reformer”.

      Abouthadit was right – the Kollectivist has nothing to say….but the more he says it, the better GAPeach65 looks.

      • John Konop says:

        Lawful Money

        The truth is people like you on both sides feel more comfortable arguing ideology than dealing with the reality of the situation. You guys always avoid the real world and go off on tangents.

        In the real world if someone does not have insurance for their heath and family do you understand like car insurance you are taking away my rights since I am forced to help pay the bill?

        And the reality of the situation is you lcan let them die or get sicker and also possible spread disease that could kill all of us or treat them. Once you understand the reality the real question is how we pay for this.

        In my opinion the person or family using the service should in most cases pay for it. And the reality is to accomplish this people who are working must pay. Also not all people can afford a “Cadillac” type plan.

        It would be great if you can pick any doctor you wanted over a nurse treating someone for stuff like cold, flue……but the REALITY is most cannot afford it! Your plan is based on utopia of charities covering all shortage and people picking any plan or doctor they want with not enough money to pay for it.

        I realize like when I warned people years ago about the lending crisis what I am saying is not popular. And many times the truth is tough medicine. But the faster you deal with a sickness the quicker you get better.

    • John Konop says:

      GAP & Lawful Money

      Years ago I warned people about the out of control leverage guaranteed by the government. And many called me “chicken little” even on this blog. Yet your job was based on people taking on leverage they could not afford backed by the government. And the most toxic part was people taking a jumbo home loans over 400K and that was not poor people. And many of you on both sides supported and voted for this out of short term personal interest.

      With that said the people buying the product also have personal responsibility. At the end of the day like the healthcare debate many of want something you cannot afford.

  19. benevolus says:

    Dang. I was hoping if my job went sour I could get work as an entertainer. Oh well. I’ll try and find something better to use with bwahaha. Maybe an exotic animal reference. Or the next UN Secretary General. You know, we’ve had Boutros Boutros- Ghali, and U Thant. Bwa Haha would fit right in.

    Anyway, I’ve been working for more than two decades now, and I’m pretty sure I’ve seen more people lose jobs for reasons other than “job performance” than for it. Do you have some illusion that “the housing market” is looking out for you?

    But that’s not the part I was avoiding. It’s the “intrusive government intervention” part. So quick to blame the government, so ready to overlook corporate responsibility. Whatever.

    Good luck getting a job. I hear Georgia PIRG is hiring.

  20. benevolus says:

    I know I’ve read that developers were trying to hold back on building more stuff but the government FORCED them to do it anyway, I just can’t seem to put my finger on where I saw it right now…

Comments are closed.