Log In | Register
Several lawsuits over the health-care reform's individual mandate hinge on interpretations of the constitution's Commerce Clause. This clause is widely believed to grant Congress broad power over national markets. But that isn't what the founders had in mind.
Obamacare, the Constitution, and the original meaning of the Commerce Clause - CSMonitor.com
Seeded on Thu Jan 12, 2012 11:19 AM EST
Article Source: Christian Science Monitor
- Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.
- Public Discussion (1)
It is worth noting that the article's author, like his GOTP counterparts, offers no alternatives to the mandate. The facts are that everyone will probably need medical care at some point in their lives. Who knows when a freak accident will occur? Should the so-called "healthy" person be turned away from the hospital and be left to die? The response of the crowd to Ron Paul notwithstanding, I imagine the majority of us would say that would be immoral, which then presents another problem: who pays for this person to have life-saving surgery? The hospital? The insurance company? Each of us? The answer is all three under the current system.
The fact is that because there will always be people that want to live off of others, requiring Americans to take responsibility for their healtcare thru a mandate is really the only viable option.
- 1 vote
#1 - Thu Jan 12, 2012 11:20 AM ESTYou're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |
As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
