Liberty and ObamaCare

The Wall Street Journal ^ | 03/23/2012 | Staff

[Martin_Schmidt]

The argument against the individual mandate—the requirement that everyone buy health insurance or pay a penalty—is carefully anchored in constitutional precedent and American history. The Commerce Clause that the government invokes to defend such regulation has always applied to commercial and economic transactions, not to individuals as members of society.

This distinction is crucial. The health-care and health-insurance markets are classic interstate commerce. The federal government can regulate broadly—though not without limit—and it has. It could even mandate that people use insurance to purchase the services of doctors and hospitals, because then it would be regulating market participation. But with ObamaCare the government is asserting for the first time that it can compel people to enter those markets, and only then to regulate how they consume health care and health insurance. In a word, the government is claiming it can create commerce so it has something to regulate.

[Martin_Schmidt]

Thank you to David Rivkin and Lee Casey who pointed out this wastefulness. Let's hurry up and get this thing decided. You don't keep throwing good money on a crappy piece of legislation. Especially in today's economic climate. Whatever happened to 'common sense' in America and politics?

[ransacked]

This was a wonderful article..

[Jacquerie]

“It could even mandate that people use insurance to purchase the services of doctors and hospitals, because then it would be regulating market participation.”

Bull. Not necessary nor proper. We also have the God given, Ninth Amendment right to negotiate fee for service with doctors, healthcare providers.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

If you are trying to get control ...you don't use "{common sense"....the more complex the better...keeps the yokuls confused.

[Eric in the Ozarks]

A nearly full page editorial.