Why do you seem to think it's acceptable for a government to tell its citizens what they will and will not purchase? I'm still waiting to see the authority for it because the general welfare clause fails.

Because the government winds up paying for it in the end.  Like I said, when the pain gets bad enough or when they find you unconscious on the floor you wind up in the ER.  If you haven't the cash government pays.  Since they're paying anyway says me they should be able to stipulate the how and why.  ER can't turn anyone away.

I feel horribly for those on the wrong side of this.  I feel awful for defending the ACA, I know it was worked out in a hurry and is far from perfect.  I do think it a step in the right direction.  The problem is simple, medical care is an inelastic commodity, and it sucks up 25% of our GDP.  Just throwing up your hands and saying let the markets do their thing is nuts, folks will die of easily treatable disease because they haven't enough cash.  And that's a waste.

Again, its here to stay.  If someone really does repeal it or defund the subsidies there will be heck to pay.  I think all but the most ideologically hidebound politicrats know this.  Says me, since we got it why not make it work right?

Part of the general welfare is the containment of disease.  I think you would all agree that the Federal government has every right to prevent the spread of disease across state lines.  Hence we have things like vaccination programs, which do all of us more good than I can possibly say, unless you are one of the morons who won't vaccinate your child for fear of autism.  If that's you, I never ever want to meet you in person.  I do not suffer fools lightly.

The problem becomes what do you do when a good sized portion of the population is shut out from medical care. In the Founders day it didn't matter, doctors couldn't do much anyway and most people could easily afford what doctors could do.  Now its different, and you can easily spend more than you'll ever make on medical care.  We still have the problems of infectious diseases, and they''re compounded by the fact that everyone shows up sooner or later when the pain gets too bad or when they're found unconscious on the floor.  I've seen examples of both.  If they can't afford health insurance you pay for them one way or another.

Hence the ACA.  Set up a penalty so healthy people who don't have health insurance have to pay in anyway.  Call it a tax, because truly that's what it is.  We like to give tax breaks to promote desired behavior (owning a house, for example) so we tax an undesirable behavior.  Lots of those, by the way, like cigarette and liquor taxes.  I have to admit, the ACA is more sweeping.  This is a simple thing.  If healthy people don't put in the whole thing doesn't work.  We're back to being shut out if you have a "preexisting condition", which the insurance companies can declare you breathing.

The ACA, as imperfect as it is, is a step in the right direction.  If your politicians could just get together and cooperate, I bet they could fix its shortcomings and turn it into something that would really work for the American people.  It isn't going anywhere.

As far as what does the Constitution allow and what doesn't it, that question is now moot.  The ACA got the blessing of the Supreme Court, its a done deal.  Yeah, perhaps some court in the future will see differently, but that won't come any time soon.  Courts respect precedent.  You guys like to go on and on about what's Constitutional and what isn't.  Think about this: nine of the best legal scholars in America often can't agree what is and isn't Constitutional.  Do you really think its that cut and dried?  Do you really think your sophistries are the end of the game?

Why do you think the federal government should be involved in health care or abortion and where do they derive this authority from?

Authority clearly arises from interstate commerce.  Why should they be involved?  Because every nation like ours that has government sponsored health care system does it better than us.  They spend less and get more.  That isn't some damned liberal talking point, it is the plain and honest truth.  I honestly don't care whether something is Liberal or Conservative.  I care about what works.

The only arguments you can make against government sponsored health care are all ideological ones.  Fact of the matter is it works.

What about abstinence, or using condoms which the poor can get free at clinics or other places?

Condoms don't work at anything near 100% efficacy.  Abstinence would be wonderful, but the reproductive drive has been evolving for millions of years and is the one constant in biology.  That, and even the brightest people can make poor decisions.  Contraception is a far more reliable method of birth control.

Can you elaborate on that?  I'd love to use a good argument for that with my in-laws.

I wish I could, but to be perfectly honest its just something I've read a number of times in the news.  That said, the bill appears to be a reverse Robin hood in classic GOP style, so it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest were it true.  If someone has facts that suggest otherwise I would love to see them. 

Best thing Congress could do is repeal the Patriot act.  Damn thing is Orwellian.

Watch the video and please pay attention to how the question is worded by Senator Coke Head, and then listen to how Senator Sessions answers the question.

 Senator Sessions as a SENATOR on a committee had interactions with various ambassadors, just like other senators.   Senator Sessions made it clear he did not have interactions on behalf of the Trump campaign.

I listened to his answer, which was (and I think I'm quoting quite precisely) "I did not have communications with the Russians".  He wasn't even asked that.  He was asked what he would do if I he found out that such communications took place.  A good answer might have been to initiate an investigation with the FBI.  Instead he said that he hadn't had communications with the Russians, which he had.  i.e. a flat out lie.  That why he's not involved in the investigation.

He could just as easily said he had communications with the Russian ambassador as part of his duties.  I doubt it would have caused much of a stir, I suspect Senators talk to ambassadors all the time.  But why did he have to lie about it?

The whole thing is so farging weird.  I've said before that I doubt there's anything to this.  My guess is that Trump could just come clean and the whole thing would blow over just like that.  Just like the big brouhaha about his tax returns.  Someone leaked some, and its a non story.   Instead he obfuscates, doubles down on insanely specious accusations., and generally draws attention back onto what he doesn't want folks to dwell on.

But I stand by my words.  I always said a Trump Presidency would be entertaining.