Americans want and deserve a broad array of health insurance choices so they can identify those that best fit their own individual or family needs. These choices expand when we allow free enterprise to foster innovation not smother it with taxes and one-size fits all ideology.

Prior to passage of Obamacare Americans spoke out against the individual mandate they didn't want to change the health care they had they didn't want a 3 000-page bill that empowered 15 Washington bureaucrats to decide the future of the doctor-patient relationship.

The Supreme Court has never ruled that Congress can use the Commerce Clause to require individuals to engage in an activity they have chosen to avoid. Yet that is precisely what Obamacare does: It forces Americans without health insurance to purchase coverage. Such a requirement is unprecedented and unconstitutional.

You bet every member of Congress who votes for this bill ought to read it read it thoroughly and understand that what we're looking at here amounts to nothing more than a government takeover of our health care economy paid for with nearly a trillion dollars in new taxes on individuals and small businesses. And it must be opposed.

We should be concerned not only about the health of individual patients but also the health of our entire society.

The only truly individualistic health-care choice - where you receive care that is unpolluted by anyone else's funds - is to forgo insurance altogether paying out-of-pocket for health services as you need them.

It contributes greatly towards a man's moral and intellectual health to be brought into habits of companionship with individuals unlike himself who care little for his pursuits and whose sphere and abilities he must go out of himself to appreciate.

What the public expects and what is healthy for an individual are two very different things.

Individuality is the aim of political liberty. By leaving the citizen as much freedom of action and of being as comports with order and the rights of others the institutions render him truly a freeman. He is left to pursue his means of happiness in his own manner.

If happiness truly consisted in physical ease and freedom from care then the happiest individual would not be either a man or a woman it would be I think an American cow.