In response to:

Improving Health Care

wsmith-84 Wrote: Jun 13, 2012 10:52 PM
"Nothing in what Scalia said, implies or infers the federal government has the authority to force individuals to purchase something like insurance" Sorry, what Scalia said is that congress has the right to regulate EVEN non-economic activity if that regulation is a necessary part of a more general regulation of interstate commerce. Your right-wing fantasy aside, the meaning of the words is clear and unambiguous and clearly applies to economic activity. Unfortunately, Scalia is an activist jurist along with Roberts, Thomas and Alito. The clear and unambiguous evidence of this is the Citizens United V FEC decision where they created law out of whole cloth. Their decision will be based on their politics and not the law.

Any day now, the U.S. Supreme will rule on whether the Obamacare insurance mandate is constitutional. Seems like a no-brainer to me. How can forcing me to engage in commerce be constitutional?

But there's a deeper question: Why should government be involved in medicine at all?

Right before President Obama took office, the media got hysterical about health care. You heard the claims: America spends more than any country -- $6,000 per person -- yet we get less. Americans die younger than people in Japan and Western Europe. Millions of Americans lack health insurance and worry about paying for...

Tuesday, June 18 | 01:06 AM ET
Tuesday, June 18 | 01:06 AM ET
Tuesday, June 18 | 01:06 AM ET
Tuesday, June 18 | 01:06 AM ET