Maybe I did miss the point, or maybe I read too much into what Matt wrote. Either way, if the "People" confiscated all insurance companies, they are in essence doing two things: (1) stealing another person's business and (2) exclusively entitling Congress the full regulation thereof according to the commerce clause of Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution. (providing that this new insurance is owned by the "People" of the several States) Were this to happen the noose around the several states would yet again tighten. Unless the public be ruled by conscience, the People must maintain a working Gov't and if in the course of such that the beneficial ends of said institution has expunged all confidence of the People, then why would We desire to expand that Gov't even more? And If We desire to alter and/or abolish such (as conscripted to so do) then We must do so Constitutionally to restore Public confidence therein. I'm all for Matt's renovating, but not at the expense or misconstruction of the Constitution or capitalism. Being the ardent originalist that I am, I personally believe that the Rubicon has be crossed, and most people will not vacate (or even admit to) Constitutional "rights" that do not exist.

These are not simple times in which we live and ... in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country...

Shall we further debate, or is the mental call to arms just vain amusements?