I got no problem with OT discussions. I'd ask you to consider though, that this is an international forum.
So don't assume EVERYONE is from the States, by writing "Our president".

He sure isn't mine, though I'm actively interested in and following the political situation in the United States.

Just a minor nitpick though because it fosters the stereotype of american national solipsism.

Uh oh, just realized this thread is over 100 posts long. Didn't want to beat a dead cat here... Sorry.

Good point about the title nix. My actual intention was for it to mean "our" president. For example an American talking to a European and him saying "our president". See what I mean? Didn't mean to imply the other meaning which is to imply everyone is American.

Code, yes I do think a doctor should be obliged to help sick people, regardless of their socioeconomic class or their race. In a single-payer system, a doctor is not obliged to do unpaid work, but is paid for the services they provide irrespective of to whom they are provided. How is this a violation of a doctor's rights? No one is forced to become a doctor. If someone works in a profession subject to certain kinds of regulations, the ensuing obligation they face to respect those regulations is certainly not a violation of their rights. No one is being forced to work as a doctor.

On the subject of the constitution, your argument that the federal government is precluded from administering health care by the constitution is based on a very narrow interpretation the reference to "general welfare" in Taxing and Spending clause in the enumeration of powers. Since the 1937 decision in Helvering v. Davis, a much more expansive interpretation of "general welfare" has dominated the case law, "conferring upon Congress a plenary power to impose taxes and to spend money for the general welfare subject almost entirely to its own discretion."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Welfare_clause#United_States

I don't know what history and social studies teachers you've had, but they sound ideologically suspect if they neglected to present the predominant position on this issue.

"It shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the constitution"

Also, is it really necessary for your to be so condescending, arrogant and insulting? Just because I disagree with your libertarian ideology does not mean that I am ignorant or uneducated. I'm not throwing barbs like this at you.

deadcode: I guess I should infer from you inability to tell the difference between "jpc" and "jcp" that you're not one for nitpicking details, but my alluding to roads/FDA regulation wasn't calling you a hypocrite - it was to emphasize the need for taxes for to pay for necessities. Did you ignore the next part where I explained that if you find health care not to be such a necessity that's your opinion and that's fine.

It's not your opinion that I take issue with, it's your pathetic tone of persecution.

Also deadcode, I should also add that even if I agreed with your interpretation of the federal constitution, my argument about health care applies just as much to the states. Through the democratic process each state could adopt legitimate laws granting all of its citizens the right to health care. I really fail to see how you could challenge the legitimacy of democratically-enacted universal health care legislation at the state level.

To be fair to our brethren that worship at the alter of Mistress Rand, (skrumanger, deadcode) they have stated repeatedly that they have no problem with state based universal health care programs and have even advocated that method.

I'm not sure Sam. Deadcode has repeatedly attacked the moral and legal legitimacy of any system of universal healthcare. He also seems to think taxation of any kind is a violation of his legal rights.

He may not like it, but he would accept the legality of it if it was within a states constitution.

I tend to find this parsing of rules silly in this day and age. States rights mean lack of progress to me, most of the time.