Are Healthcare Mandates Unconstitutional? - David Rivkin

[thereinliestherib]

The mandate shows how inconsistent the liberal position on HC is, since the mandate and other buying restrictions guarantee ever-increasing industry revenues. And all the while they demonize the "evil" industry whom they've just handed the young and healthy, the industry from whom they reaped hundreds of millions of political contributions in '09, and an industry whose stocks skyrocketed on the passage of a bill that was sold as curtailing their influence. Pathetic lies.

[hellotommy]

Michael Connelly

Retired Attorney, Constitutional Law Instructor has has read the entire health care bill he says, "I was frankly concerned that parts of the proposed law that were being discussed might be unconstitutional. What I found was far worse than what I had heard or expected, major portions of the Constitution will effectively have been destroyed. It is a convenient cover for the most massive transfer of power to the Executive Branch."

[hellotommy]

Looking for a job?

Go ask Nancy Pelosi,she is ready to concentrate on job creation now.LOL!

A trillion dollar rationing life care, fetus grinding taxpayer funded system is not right for America. Our lives are being rationed in the form of Medicare cuts for elderly that NEED quality care for a civil tolerable retirement. Mammograms are already being rationed! The bill forces us to be insured, yet they won't address malpractice reform.

[hellotommy]

Great news! Repeal this idiotic bill so we can move on to more important issues - like protecting the borders and rounding up all illegals!

[sep0507]

@hellotommy If mandating coverage is unconstitutional, then mandating healthcare for free in emergency rooms is unconstitutional. Why the double standard? If states can mandate automobile insurance, so can healthcare be mandated. Afterall, a sick person spreading disease can be just as lethal as an automobile.

[hellotommy]

States do not mandate ins. You drive a car, you get insurance. You want the U.S. government forcing you into it? You want political bureaucrat deciding your fate? Maybe they should mandate removing your brain and giving you a brain transplant…. unconstitutional. The Government has eroded on our freedoms long enough. No more giving to this scam. Freedom is not free, I don’t give my mind and body to the state like you. Get off the entitlement mentality. Get a job and get what you need.

[sep0507]

@hellotommy maybe YOUR state doesn't, but here in Ohio it's the law. No insurance, no license plates. Maybe YOUR brain needs removed and rewired, mine's just fine. If you had any understanding of the healthcare law you'd feel differently. Or we can go your route and continue to pay for the uninsured when they show up at the emergency room for a cold! It's the law that hospitals MUST provide care regardless of ability to pay. You're free to get sick, just don't ask me to pay for it. Or bury you.

[hellotommy]

@sep0507 The Socialist HC plan is a job killing tax hiking disaster! It is unconstitutional & you know it. If it becomes the law, the government owns us stupid. It’s like this, GET A JOB, GET WHAT YOU NEED! No more entitlements for those of you who won't. The free ride is over, time TO WORK.

All you need is a walk-in reform for hospitals, similar to a credit card. Tort reform and a few other fixes regarding pre-existing conditions - NOT A GOV. TAKOVER of our lives. OBozo-care won't work.

[sep0507]

@hellotommy Time to work? Where? Have you got a facility that is hiring? I'm sure the 9.5% of unemployed Americans would like to do just that. The Constitution calls for the Govt to Provide for the common defense and PROMOTE THE GENERAL WELFARE of the people. You need healthcare to promote the general welfare, dude. Conservatives holler the Constitution is being abused? How about reading it first. Makes a lot more sense when you know what the hell you're talking about.

[hellotommy]

@sep0507 You don’t have the right to a job, HC etc. The Government doesn't have the right to take from me & give to you. We only have the right to life liberty & the pursuit of happiness. I have done nothing wrong, why must I pay for recipient class jobs etc? You must understand we have about the same right to HC as we have the right to a Ferrari. An economic principle of supply and demand; you don’t get a house by tearing down another, you get it by your labor. I don't think YOU'RE listening...

[sep0507]

@hellotommy I have the right to pursue happiness, and that can't happen without a job, nimrod! I'm listening, but you're incoherent with your ramblings. Do you believe that unemployment was caused by the greed of Wall Str? Or maybe the greed of the consumer? Or maybe the "recipient class' among us who want a fair shake? We all are entititled to have the govt promote our general welfare. Don't forget "everyone" gets free healthcare now. It's called the emergency room. At taxpayer expense.

[hellotommy]

@sep0507 Magic free healthcare right! No! I don't owe you that. Sorry. That's foolish & selfish. The right of every family to a decent home = Fannie & Freddie, the fuse that lit the recession. And Social Security is a smashing success too! Right sep? The 2nd bill of rights has never been ratified by Congress... it's only theoretical. Get your head out of FDRs---. You really think taxpayers should own the purse strings of your life?

Zero-care Unconstitutional (mark my words)

[sep0507]

@hellotommy Social Security has not added one penny to the national debt. Fannie and Freddie? How about laying blame where it belongs...Wall Street and their creative shafting of the middle class. And free healthcare is what we have now. Anyone can walk into an emergency room and be treated regardless of ability to pay. That is the law, and millions of people use it for colds and splinters and the taxpayers foot the bill through HIGHER premiums they pay for insurance. Thought you were smater!

[hellotommy]

@sep0507 Clinton enforced the fair housing laws, Fannie & Freddie bought up one bad loan after another - it was touted as a great success of the Clinton adm; disproportionate growth in minority home ownership, (Great Housing Boom of the 90s). Dodd, Frank, Waxman deregulated financial derivatives (CDR) enabling AIG, Countywide etc. Subprime mortgages detonated the financial meltdown. The republican congress was called "The Do Nothing Congress" remember?

[hellotommy]

@sep0507 It's all relative, credit default swaps (CDSs) DEREGULATION by The Chair & members of the Senate Banking Committee enabled Financials like Countrywide to corrupt with progs like "FOA". A crisis driven by reckless, careless, unscrupulous actors in the mortgage lending ind. & AIG misrepresenting underwriting standards of loans creating the massive number of defaults in mortgage loans. Add House Chair Barney objecting to tighter regulation of Fannie & Freddie, CRA was the fuse.

[robinhood2be]

DOUCHE BAG GO TO ARTICLE 1 OF CONSTITUTION IN GOVT PROVIDING FOR THE WELFARE OF THE PEOPLE.

[thereinliestherib]

If not having health insurance is a crime, then obesity, smoking, and drug use are felonies.

[DieselEnergyStix]

@thereinliestherib - Not sure I follow your logic, but at least you're getting at what some of the real intrusions into our personal lives will be like. 1984 (Orwell) here we come!

[JSellNYC]

Loved how Eleana Kagan would not take the Declaration of Independence into account during her SC testimony ... Rivkin had the right response: "the Dec. of Inependence articulates the principles that justify American Republic's very existence." You tell 'em.

[OutragedPeople]

Glad to see Rivkin heading up the healthcare lawsuit. The big government fans, particularly Seidman and the highly partial moderator, must have their panties in a wad!

[sep0507]

@OutragedPeople If states can mandate automobile insurance, then why can't health insurance be mandated? Got an answer for that?

[JSellNYC]

"The Constitution assigns only limited, enumerated powers to Congress, and none, including the power to regulate interstate commerce or to impose taxes, would support a federal mandate requiring anyone who is otherwise without health insurance to buy it"----David Rivkin

[DioGuardiFAN]

Rivkin was the first person to see this argument and he's going to lead 20 states (right now) to overturn the most heinous elements of this reform legislation for the good of the American people.

[wherenwhen]

Health care was a business

[socialmediapull]

David Rivkin is the lead attorney in the multi-state lawsuit against the federal government over health "reform" law.

[OutragedPeople]

Would love to see an interview of this condescending prof when the healthcare bill is set aside.

[OutragedPeople]

Anyone hearing the dirge for healthcare bills yet?

[OutragedPeople]

Perhaps Scott Brown will demonstrate that he cares about the constitutionality of healthcare reform!

[JustOurFreedom]

I can attest to the impugning of personal motives when a winning argument is noticeably lacking.

[OutragedPeople]

David Rivkin will be speaking at the Milwaukee Lawyers Federalist Society on November 30 at noon. Check the Federalist Society website for details.

[OutragedPeople]

The reason why the "slippery slope" argument is valid is that our legal system operates on precedent.

[OutragedPeople]

Seidman debated Rivkin again on November 14 (Fox) and tried to lecture David Rivkin on what conservatives believe. No facts, no cases, just typical, elitist, dismissive quarreling from Seidman.

[greyflcn]

@OutragedPeople

So would that mean that school attendance mandates are also illegal?

I did watch the debate and all I saw was this made up "limiting principle" which Rivkin kept going on and on about.

Ultimately he never made the argument that there was any violation with the letter of the law.

[OutragedPeople]

No. The point David Rivkin makes here and elsewhere is that Congress has never required nor has it the authority to require that a citizen purchase something. Public education is a responsibility of the states, not the federal and the federal government has not required that a family or person purchase anything related to education. .Re: violation. Politely suggest you read the Constitution, which empowers legislators to write laws.

[greyflcn]

@OutragedPeople

Well, he may have a case for this being unprecedented, however I see nowhere in his discussion anything in the actually letter of the law that specifically restricts it.

[OutragedPeople]

The sweeping, groundless condemnations of Bush or any historical figure only serve as an indictment of our educational system. Logic, data, and civility have been discarded in favor of ill-informed, anarchistic denouncements.

[OutragedPeople]

Watching this debate as played out in the media for the past 4 months, here's my take: the liberals can't win the argument, and they are resorting to personal attacks and elitist denouncements of the conservative position. The conservatives are appealing to individuals who value freeDOM more than freeSTUFF from Uncle Sam.

[sep0507]

@OutragedPeople Here's my take: It has nothing to do with libearls. It has everything to do with insurance companies ripping off the public, with the blessings of the GOP. They are appealing to those that can't think for themselves. Those that watch no reliable source for their news. Those that don't read newspapers. Those that don't read On-line news. Those that are pitiful and afraid of their own shadows. That's my take.

[marniespeaks]

Bush killed the Constitution

[OutragedPeople]

You do not have the facts on your side.

[marniespeaks]

Bush is a war criminal

[shamefulidiot]

i think the argument that if you can make purchasing health care mandatory you can then make it mandatory to purchase other things is really just a poor slippery slope fallacy. and quite ridiculous really, specially the groceries part and what not.

[cristop5]

So introducing a public health insurance option would mean the government could then tell you to eat up your fruit and vegetables.

How does this guy get invited to a serious debate?

[eirefrance]

Because being a conservative and wrapping pro-corporate ideas in "freedom" and "Constitution" always get you treated seriously, no matter how extreme you are.

[Isawanangel1X]

corporations have a lot of rights, like people, see my favorites

[yoshi3329]

5 stars

[Robfenix]

Rivkin is a damned fool. He takes the fact that the Court and right-wingers have not and cannot come up with a clear principle to limit the Commerce Clause, and turns it into an argument against a broad reading of the Commerce Clause. The fact that it is difficult to come up with a clear limiting principle is an argument against judicial enforcement of Commerce Clause limits. States are over-represented in the Senate. Isn't that enough to take into account any benefits from a limited Comm. Cl.

[humanist7117]

Speaker: Flawed logic.

[freesk8]

Rivkin is absolutely right.

The health care reform bill is unconstitutional.

It is a seizure of power by the federal government.

We must resist it.

We must not cooperate with it.

We must refuse to accept it and refuse to pay for it.

[someguyneedsanewname]

freesk8,

Rivkin has a good point, but I think it's hyperbole. Government is supposed to represent the population. As would benefit the population most, the government should intervene OR deregulate.

I think many health care insurance co's have decided to maximize profit rather than customer satisfaction. The population is displeased, and wants the government to step in.

[freesk8]

You and I have different ideas of the role of govt as authorized in the Const. The role is not "to represent the popn" the role is to defend individual rights and to limit the scope and power of the govt. This is why we have the 10th amdmt and the enumerated powers.

Maximizing profit is the true function of the ins cos. We shouldn't expect them to do otherwise. Adam Smith shows that as long as there is no force or fraud, this tends to maximize social welfare better than govt control.

[OutragedPeople]

I do not trust this government's judgment. Barney Frank bankrupted Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and it's not getting any better.

[OutragedPeople]

Agree. Using this logic, and with the legal "philosophy" that social context can justify any interpretation of the constitution, the government can hijack any resource you own or require your behavior because some segment of the economy is not functioning well. And the exercise of this type of power is called  . . . . . ?

[freesk8]

Tyranny.

Dictatorship.

Socialism.

[sexdrugsRnR]

they do this for everything else... you pay for the military industrial complex and drug wars. the constitution has been worthless since woodrow wilson. a piece of paper is not going to stop a violent monopoly.

[burntonion05]

We should do it like we do car insurance. As long as you are not on public property then you don't need to have health insurance. The moment you step out of your yard you should be able to show proof of valid health insurance as to not put others in jeopardy or your careless actions. You are already required by law to have a valid ID in public and you have to have a DL and auto insurance to drive, so why not health insurance?

[fdny9682]

Dude the comparison between health insurance and car insurance is ridiculous. Your not mandated to have car insurance to cover you, its to cover others that you may cause damage to. And people who dont drive dont get it.

[arachn1dinshoe]

I think the car insurance point is valid - as it's an example of the government mandating by law that if you want to drive a car on public roads, you must have insurance (yes, third party insurance - but insurance nontheless).

ie. this man in the video saying such a mandate has never been in the law before is rubbish.

[fdny9682]

From a federal constitutional perspective. States can mandate. 10th amemendment

[funkalunatic]

He's probably referring to Federal Law. Mandates for car insurance, etc, have only been in state law.

[burntonion05]

You don't know what you are talking about. Just hush

[fdny9682]

what a well thought out argument, you hit the nail right on the head

[burntonion05]

That is because you don't know what you are reading. Just hush

[fdny9682]

again, so wise

[burntonion05]

OK nucklehead. Go back are read my first post and try and understand what I meant.

[fdny9682]

so your saying if your out in public you must have health insurance?

[burntonion05]

Either that or they keep a database and track people down where they live. Which is worse?

[fdny9682]

How about fucking neither. This video is about the constitutionality of government mandated  healthcare.

[burntonion05]

Is auto insurance in the constitution?

[fdny9682]

No its not, thats why the federal governmant dosent mandate it, States do. And only people who partake in the PRIVLEDGE of driving.(Its not a right) And the car insurance you are mandated to have only has to cover damage to OTHER drivers(Not yourself) Because you could damage another person of no fault of their own.

[burntonion05]

So you admit it is not in the constitution and yet you are required to have it? How many things are in life are not in the constitution? Why do people like yourself always bring up the constitution but only when it suites your argument? OK we get it you guys are the real Americans and the rest of us are just here trying to ruin everything.

[fdny9682]

Its not in the constitution. Under the 10th amendment anything not in the constitution is lefte to the STATES. Thats why some states have gay marraige and others dont. Some have legal gambling, some legal medical marajuna, different educational standards, different driving requirements, different fire codes, different alcohol laws, different minimum wage laws. The states are bound to those things that the constitution specificlly spells out, the bill of rights and the other amendments

[burntonion05]

What about the Patriot Act? Is it covered in the constitution?

[fdny9682]

In my opinion its not. It gives law enforcement the right to write its own warrents but the supreme court has never ruled. It, like health care, is a bill very few read. It does have numerous safeguards and I understand the FISA act is outdated. The problem is with todays technology a terrorist can change a cell phone or computer on a daily basis. By the time you get a warrant to tap they moved on. Though the act does strongly contradict the 4th amendment I havent found a good alternative

[burntonion05]

So you are saying that in some circumstances it is ok to make laws that don't agree with the constitution but only when it works to your advantage?

[felixthehuman]

I am sure you can find those who will argue that it is or is not-but auto insurance requirements vary from state to state, it is a state matter. Social Security, on the other hand, is a set of federally mandated programs that we are required to buy into, and seems like this could be considered part of that set of programs...

[burntonion05]

I understand that auto insurance isn't the perfect example. I was just showing that there are protections for citizens like auto insurance that are for the good of everyone. Whether it is nat or on a state level should not make a difference when talking about people's safety or what is best. If you are arguing whether it is nat or local is to miss the point.

[makeyanoticeme]

That it what I was asking myself during this entire clip.

[purplecharger88]

What harm are you causing by not having health insurance. Insurance is like a rainy day fund in the even you can't pay out on some unforeseen accident. Worst case scenario is that you can't pay the hospital and they can take you to court for damages. Mandatory insurance is stupid and completely unnessicary.

[fdny9682]

None whatsoever dude. This issue and the constitution are so beyond libs

[felixthehuman]

Do you honestly not know anyone who's had a super expensive problem-either chronic or just something that happened, like an accident? You're worst case scenario is really bad-whether it's being deep in debt for the person who gets sick, or higher rates for the rest of us. There are a lot of people who end up with diseases way out of their tax brackets- the arguments for some sort of universal health care are the same as those for a universal pension system like social security.

[purplecharger88]

That is a choice that a person makes. Your argument was based on car insurance and is extremely flawed. You posted "The moment you step out of your yard you should be able to show proof of valid health insurance as to not put others in jeopardy or your careless actions."

Car insurance it for the other person you damage. How is that ever so with health insurance?

[purplecharger88]

While it would be also good for someone to insure their house against floods it also doesn't mean it should be mandatory. Insurance is a risk assessment. You save now and don't pay later or you don't save now and pay later.

There are tons of better ways to get down the cost of medical and insurance without government intervention.

[felixthehuman]

1. That was burntonion05, not me. Car insurance is a state matter, so it doesn't provide precedent in this case.

2. Like I pointed out, the cost of not having insurance is borne by those who have it- the difference between the current system and a system where everyone pays is between those who can afford all the healthcare they need, and those whose care is written off, are those who are not poor but need care they can't afford (or that is not covered), so become poor.

[OutragedPeople]

Our President is using car insurance as an analogy for the health insurance mandate. Hmm. Did he go to law school?

[bradwatson7324]

A wonderful argument!

[ubuibiok]

twitt...

[arachn1dinshoe]

Wow.... what a load of rubbish!!

You're required to insure your car... you're required to have public liability insurance on land our buildings that you own.

So why can't you be required to have health insurance.

It's the same principle. If you don't have health insurance, everybody else has to pay for you. So it's reasonable to require that everybody put into that insurance pool.

[fdny9682]

Everyone dosent have to pay for you

[arachn1dinshoe]

Everyone pays currently because those who don't have health insurance and can't afford to pay out of pocket, get free treatment at the emergency rooms of hospitals, which of course is funded by the government, which is paid by everybody through taxes.

So yes, everyone does pay right now.

[fdny9682]

I should have said people shouldnt have to pay it. Subsidizing it gives people no incentive to get it themselves. Especially all the bullshit I see people use the emergency room for. If people pay the cars, mortgages, furniture etc in payment plans I see no reason why they cant pay for their body(the first and last piece of property you'll ver truly own) over time

[Mastikator]

He said "doesn't have to". Not "isn't".

You are not entitled free services or goods. You have the right to create them as you please.

The government doesn't have the right to tell you how to run your business or how to live your life.

But it is telling you.

[Luinreg]

Except we force our citizens to pay taxes upon all goods. That is a constitutional amendment.

We force all citizens who drive a car, boat or motorcycle to get auto insurance. Why doesn't the government force everyone to get an auto club membership?

That argument is built upon false pretenses and fear that government is going to take over every aspect of your life. It bets that the person will make the logical leap that the government will be able to mandate everything which it cannot.

[ubuibiok]

NOT....Government does not mandate you to use transportation...

Some states do Tax food sales but none Tax food you grow and eat on your own. Florida doesn' tax food but there is a tax on some containers that it is delivered in, glass and plastic.

Imported Food items are taxed, but the Government does not mandate you to pay a fine if you do not buy them .

[Luinreg]

Except we are focusing on the federal level of constitutions, not the state level of constitutions.

I understand your argument but on the federal level we support the existence of federal organizations to allow our society to exist. Amtrak and the post office which allows communication is funded by the federal government and is paid through taxes. So even if we don't use the server we are still taxed so others can use the railways and post office.

[Happilyperfect]

I believe that the very fact that taxes exist shows that the government is able to require certain purchases from people. Requiring people to purchase healthcare is no less constitutional than requiring people to purchase military protection.

[fdny9682]

The reason why people are forced to pay miliatary protection, and a huge portion of society dosent because they dont pay federal income tax, is because the service the military provides can not be sold in a free market but healthcare can

[chenchiheshang]

seems lots of conservative commentators in this channel.

[chopin65]

It is balanced. I see lots of liberal too.

[chenchiheshang]

i did not mean, there is no liberal, i also watched chomsky's video. but some videos here is really disturbing, i once watched a woman condemns canadian health care system with some ridiculous from-nowhere statistics

[Mastikator]

That video got more criticism that applause.

There are simply more leftists than rightists on youtube. Even ForaTV.

[RenegadeTimes]

Is it me or is he a dees-does and demmer ? Southside Chicago ..?

[7jerryv7]

Then amend the constitution. Take that smartass.

[Chrisnoscrub047]

yea, limiting the State is a terrible idea.

[the2012report]

That's actually a very good argument. Let's just make it SINGLE PAYER and be done with it.

[the2012report]

The Constitution was whacked a long time ago.

[Daniel44125]

No its not Constitutional nor is universal health care

[felixthehuman]

Why is universal health care less constitutional than universal retirement?

[Daniel44125]

Social security is unconstitutional as well. Not to mention it is a ponzi scheme. Its illegal for a regular citizen to run a ponzi scheme but not the government. When ever you use the tax system to redistribute wealth its unconstitutional. You can read the enumerated powers in the constitution. You wont find health care or universal retirement there.

[felixthehuman]

No, but you will find "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States...," so we've reached the point where we get to quibble over what the founders meant by 'general Welfare.' Goody!

[Daniel44125]

They weren't referring to redistributing wealth or a creation of a welfare program. Despite your attempt to be smart or look good for your interview for the job under the oval office desk, your wrong. "If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one...." James Madison. Primary author of the Constitution.

[humanist7117]

you're not your

[Daniel44125]

Give me a break its late. The spelling police never sleep. I am still right.

[felixthehuman]

Hey! There's no need to get personal. You raised the issue of constitutionality, I responded by pointing to SS, you said redistribution is unconstitutional, I said congress can tax and spend for the general welfare, you said Madison disagreed, I say Hamilton and others did not. It's nothing personal, it's just a difference of opinion. I see more negatives from healthcare run by insurance companies you see more from healthcare run by the government.

[Daniel44125]

The current system is flawed because of government intrusion. They should be using the power given to them in the constitution to keep trade between the states regular. Allow/ force them to compete with each other. The current system is a result of bad government not allowing a free market to work.

Hamilton didn't write the document. He was wrong. He was trying to distort the meaning as do many today.

[felixthehuman]

Hamilton was one of the founding fathers, he wrote the majority of the Federalist Papers, and he was at the Constitutional Convention. The meaning of the welfare clause was debatable at the time, and it is no less so now. Your view is supported by Madison, mine by Hamilton, there is precedent for both in cases decided since. You can't just give the guy who agrees with you the final say.

[Daniel44125]

The welfare clause was written by Madison. Hamilton was trying to manipulate the meaning later on. The view Hamilton had is not in line with freedom or natural rights. People have a right to their property and what they do with their property is their own business as long as it does not hurt anyone else. In Hamilton's view the state is not limited to protecting individual rights as the Declaration of Independence clearly states was the reason for our gov creation

[Daniel44125]

You can't go to a fellow citizen and force him to do something against his will therefore you can't delegate this power to government. Governments only have power which is derived justly from the people. In effect we give the government some of our power. The power we give it is the power of force we have to secure our own rights. Therefore that is the only power government has is securing rights.

[Daniel44125]

John Adams was also a founding father and when he was elected president he and the Federalists passed a law making the freedom of speech illegal. Alien and Sedition Acts. Not all the founders were perfect or understood natural rights. Those rights exists before government. Those rights our the reason the government exists. The government exists only to protect those rights.

[OutragedPeople]

I don't think Hamilton wrote the majority of the Fed. papers. What's your source?

[felixthehuman]

The Federalist Papers.

[Daniel44125]

It is no coincidence that education, housing, and healthcare suffer from the same outrageously inflated costs. Government involvement causes this.

[oiuoiu988]

kinda weird how health care and insurance stocks went up today after that health care bill passed the house... but if we cross our fingers extra hard, im SURE they wont screw us like they have every other time...

i see a huge problem with health care run by insurance companies. health care shouldnt be so expensive that we need INSURANCE to pay for it. insurance is for things that probably wont and usually dont happen, not for things that happen 2-4 times per year...

[JSellNYC]

@oiuoiu988 - interesting points you make. But what has the govt ever run that didn't cost more than what it would cost in the private sector? Just based on the stock prices, it seems that our President got in bed with the insurance companies to pull this off.

[oiuoiu988]

@JSellNYC

the answer to your question is nothing. i predicted 8 months ago that whatever bill got passed would be good for the politicians, bureaucrats and the health care and insurance cartels and bad for everyone else.

[shaithis45]

@oiuoiu988 if I might point out one more aspect of Congress, last I checked the lot of them didn't have their degrees in medicine and it is obvious they are not economic experts when it comes to being good stewards of fiscal policy. But it is not only at the Federal level but the state level as well. Mainly any govt that doesn't have the foresight to plan ahead and maintain a healthy surplus may as well be a dangerous govt that will try and find new tax scams. It is a joke.

[oiuoiu988]

@shaithis45 any government is a dangerous government.

[Robfenix]

Well, since Madison, the entire structure has changed. 17th Amendts => direct election of Senators, 13-15th Amendts => huge change in relations between States and national government. So Madison does not get the final word. Further, you would have to prove that Madison intended such limits to be judicially enforceable, and not just a matter for Senate (which represented the States at the time). Further, you would have to come up with a judicially cognizable standard for such limits.

[Daniel44125]

Read it under the context of which it was written, not what you think it is. When general welfare was referred to in the constitution it was referring to the welfare of the states not individuals. War debts and such.

[Daniel44125]

"With respect to the two words 'general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." --James Madison

[fdny9682]

Universal retirement is just as unconstitutional as healthcare. When your 65 you HAVE to be on medicare. That aint right