'Health reform' vs. the constitution

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/health_reform_vs_the_constitution_nuzii6uHPRCK8bsu3tT2FL ^ | November 19, 2009 | George F. Will

[Scanian]

In 2006, long before there was an Obama administra tion determined to impose a command-and-control federal health-care system, a young orthopedic surgeon walked into the Goldwater Institute here with an idea.

The institute, America's most potent advocate of limited government, embraced Eric Novack's idea for protecting Arizonans from health-care coercion. In 2008, Arizonans voted on Novack's proposed amendment to the state's Constitution:

"No law shall be passed that restricts a person's freedom of choice of private health-care systems or private plans of any type. No law shall interfere with a person's or entity's right to pay directly for lawful medical services, nor shall any law impose a penalty or fine, of any type, for choosing to obtain or decline health-care coverage or for participation in any particular health-care system or plan."

[Northern Yankee]

Amen to that!

[John.Galt2012]

Thanks. Will send to my State Legislature for consideration.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

Terrific article.

[Scanian]

glad you liked the post.

[lysie]

Great article. Thanks for the ping...again. :-)

[Mack the knife]

The critical point is ... even if the Commerce Clause is invoked to regulate an activity in which an individual has chosen to participate...how can it be used to regulate or tax an individual who has chosen to NOT participate in the activity??

[savedbygrace]

And since we are not allowed to purchase health insurance across State lines, how can it be Interstate Commerce?