Margaret Thatcher in NEPA?

Whooooh! Richter or Biden (or both) must of really gotten under your skin. I refer to Thatcher because her quote, "The facts of life are conservative", is exactly what you were espousing. Forget what you call it - conservative, traditional, etc, the point you are making is undeniable - wealth redistribution decays society, rather then enhances it.

Your statement that it is "undeniable, history shows this every time it is tried" reminded me of America's venture into communism. "What?", you say. What's this? Is this another Carter rant? No. I long ago read journals of the first New World settlers. The "governor" of the first Pilgrim settlements wrote extensively in his personal journals about the early economic systems (anyone with a little research can find them on line) implemented as they settled the Americas. They in fact attempted to build a commune. There was one huge farming area they cleared and cut, and then as governor he distributed the proceeds equally among the members of the settling party, no matter how much the male of each family worked. Sounds shockingly like Blanc huh? Because it was. As he wrote on his frustration became ever more evident (damn, I can't remember his name). Social unrest began to creep in. Anger over the lacadasial efforts of some, when compared to others was bubbling to the surface. Eventually the quality of the crops, and the volume, suffered. Finally he decided to break the land up into equal segments, giving one segment to each father declaring that his family would feast or starve based on their own tract of land and efforts. Needless to say, the "governor" was delighted with the results. Harmony, as he described it, arrived as each man became responsible for himself and his family. And those over producing were allowed to expand the size of their tracts in order to enhance his own storage for winter. It's fascinating stuff if anyone cares to research it.

At any rate ... Titus, clearly you know I agree with every word, and I know that was intended to educate any "Richter" in your life or whom might creep on to our site. However, what I - as someone in full agreeance with you here - wanted was your reason as to why Obama was wrong that health insurance is a "right." You clearly laid out why you oppose socializing medicine - it won't work, and in fact would crumble the finest health care available in the world (read: the US). I get that. But when Obama declares it a "RIGHT", to say "it won't work" (while true) is not an answer to why it is not, "the right of every American", as he put it. I understand you've defeated his reasoning based on economics, quality of care, etc. But what is the Titus answer as to why there is no legal "right" to health care, like there is to say, "keep and bare arms." Because that's Obama's point - it is a "right" like any other we enjoy under "inalienable rights endowed by our creator." I used a constructionist argument, and you disagreed with that approach. Ok. What is your legal, precedent, or constitutional argument as to why health care is not a "right.?"