Unfortunately there is no remedy to ensure the elected officials will honor their oath to protect and abide by the constitution. None of what has been done by the ACA is allowed by constitutional law however the courts will rule in favor of it (supreme court has already ruled it is constitutional because it is a tax which also admits it is not healthcare) and the federal police will enforce it (use violence to ensure compliance) leaving those who would be free the choice of suicide by cop or imprisonment if they resist. As stated in previous posts there never was any intention of repealing the act. The promise to repeal and replace is another way of stating that the rules will still apply, just differently. The ACA does not just require a premium payment which has increased my cost 10X but a deductible which has increased 100X. There are ACA taxes on real estate sales (5%), all medical appliances (toothbrushes, sanitary pads, crutches, etc.), and some health care providers and even tanning salons. The income stream from this law would make any insurer jealous. This not a law to provide healthcare, it is to bring in tax dollars and not spend them on healthcare unless absolutely necessary. I don't know if you can find enough people who truly want to live free to enable themselves to do so. Those who would not be slaves are hopelessly outnumbered and threatened with violence by those who prefer slavery.

"you can't force people to manage and run their own lives,"
What is the point of having a constitutional republic rather than a democracy if we're dependent on the morals of the citizens? We would put it up to a popular vote who should get to keep their money and under which circumstances the gov't should do warrantless searches, confiscate guns, and limit unpopular speech. The people would be so moral, in this scenario, that they would never use their power when absolutely necessary, never as a mob.

I don't see how this could work. We have the same foibles we've had since humans appeared on earth. There has to be some structure with teeth to keep a democratically run republic from turning into a mob.

Well said

According to the source in my link, McCain may have been influenced by a boo-hoo phone call from Joe Biden just before the vote.
"John! Oh, John! My son died from what's messing with your head, John! My son wouldn't want you to kill Obamacare, John! Aren't you a maverick, John? What do ya say, John? What do ya say? Oh, boo-hoo-hoo!"
Well, that's just my devilishly dino version of how that phone conversation may have went~
http://conservativetribune.com/mccain...

" there needs too some vehicle to enforce it."

On the contrary, you can't force people to manage and run their own lives, which was and remains the crux of individual liberty and rights. People have to want to make choices for themselves and take responsibility for their decisions - positive or negative. That isn't something you can force on people. It has to be a responsibility willingly accepted.

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

- John Adams

What he is getting at is that the Constitution only works with a people who seek self-determination. It breaks down as soon as people do not want to determine their own destinies.

I have to be honest I've used worms as bait to great advantage. The Washington mold is toxic and only of value to the looters and mooches ,not cheese.

Actually, I feel as If I've been insulting lower life forms.

McCain is a Phyla Annelida. You are correct that weasels are upper crust compared with the maggots.

First of all let me say that your use of the word "putz" is most appropriate. I called him a schmuck which is used as slang for jewels as in "family jewels" as in penis. A putz is a small penis.As to McCain, he is a sad embarrassment.

I haven't liked McCain for many years now. He's a putz. He once was brave and I appreciate his sacrifices. But, he's wholesale against liberty anymore. Much closer to those who locked him up. I actually pity him and I hope he heals physically and emotionally.

Government should not be involved in providing healthcare nor insurance. They are simply too corruptible. I have seen things in this that would absolutely blow your mind...

In all due respect -- I think you are as confused as I am.

"It is the nature of most politicians, regardless of which side, that their chief object is to get re-elected."
That's by itself is a good thing. The problem is there are no effective limits on what gov't power and spending can do, so to play at that level they have to promise to have the gov't do things to help them.

On one hand I think we need more Rand Paul, but I also think the gov't can't be dependent on electing a bunch of Rand Paul. It would be nice, but the system has to be robust against ordinary politicians.

The fact that it's not robust is a huge problem. We don't recognize it because it's not urgent. It's not something where we're at an immediate fork in the road and must take action during a narrow window of opportunity. It's a festering, looming problem that might be able to exist for a hundred years before coming to a head. And it might not happen in a spectacular way.

I don't fully understand the Convention of the States idea, but more and more I see the Constitution as something we kind of follow when it's popular to do so, and there needs too some vehicle to enforce it.

It is the nature of most politicians, regardless of which side, that their chief object is to get re-elected. Anything which threatens that possibility is not on their agenda. It matters not whether its best for the country or even the very reason why they were elected in the first place. Follow that thread and you'll quickly realize that anything which isn't a socialistic giveaway or a defect so obvious a 5 year old can spot it, and you'll understand their motives.

"seven years of Republicans promising to void the act and come out with something better if they ever can get into the seats of power.And so they have. "
I'm surprised too that they haven't come up with something.

It always struck me over-the-top their rhetoric was. They couldn't say there were problems that originated with gov't interference in the labor market int WWII, and the repressions of that are still affecting us. Instead they came up with bizarre conspiracy-minded criticisms like the "death panels" and that the healthcare law is back-door measure to allow warrantless searches. Now it's hard to admit that it solved some real problems and any efforts to reform it and reduce gov't involvement has to go through the insurance industry lobby. Starting with the lie that the law was pure evil prevents them from addressing it.

I'm not exactly sure how the politics works because Rand Paul was able to be straightforward in offering a clear alternative that gets the gov't less involved. President Trump campaigned on price openness. I'm not sure why they can't execute, if it's their past extreme rhetoric or what.