Health Care Not In Constitution

[Ptarmigan]

Health Care Not In Constitution
Investors
Posted 05:58 PM ET

Self-Evident Truths: Sen. Dianne Feinstein says it comes under the Commerce Clause. Rep. Steny Hoyer says it's mandated by the "general welfare" clause. Despite liberal wishes, health care is not a right.

The "living Constitution" that Democrats and their court appointees have given us may be the death of our freedoms. Their constitution adapts to the times and serves the whims of the elitists. The Constitution is supposed to limit government powers. It does not allow government to do anything it feels like doing.

Cass Sunstein, the head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, is the author of "The Second Bill of Rights: FDR's Unfinished Revolution and Why We Need It More Than Ever."

Investors-Health Care Not In Constitution

=============================================================================

Health care is a service, like car service. Why can’t we go back to the days when we paid in cash or whatever for doctor check-up. Many doctors do not like dealing with insurance. Insurance was for catastrophic events, which it should be.

[bkg]

Health care is a service, like car service. Why can’t we go back to the days when we paid in cash or whatever for doctor check-up. Many doctors do not like dealing with insurance. Insurance was for catastrophic events, which it should be.

I've promoted this several times, publicly, and even the seeminly most conservative of people I know become outraged by even the thought.

[thundley4]

The insurance companies can't sell catastrophic insurance, they required by most states to cover almost everything under the sun.

[Oceander]

I've promoted this several times, publicly, and even the seeminly most conservative of people I know become outraged by even the thought.

Which only goes to show how successful the left have been at brain-washing the American public.

[bkg]

The insurance companies can't sell catastrophic insurance, they required by most states to cover almost everything under the sun.

Utah as 4 mandates, IIRC. MN has 63. 

[Oceander]

Utah as 4 mandates, IIRC. MN has 63. 

Yup.  And thanks to McCarran-Ferguson, the states can set up these little quasi-monopolies and get away with it, because that federal act removes all state insurance rules from the purview of the Dormant Commerce Clause; if the Dormant Commerce Clause applied, the states would be able to put precious few obstacles in the way of a truly interstate health insurance market - in other words, repealing McCarran-Ferguson would lead very quickly to a whole lotta real competition in the health insurance market, all without having to spend a dime of taxpayers' money.

[bkg]

Yup.  And thanks to McCarran-Ferguson, the states can set up these little quasi-monopolies and get away with it, because that federal act removes all state insurance rules from the purview of the Dormant Commerce Clause; if the Dormant Commerce Clause applied, the states would be able to put precious few obstacles in the way of a truly interstate health insurance market - in other words, repealing McCarran-Ferguson would lead very quickly to a whole lotta real competition in the health insurance market, all without having to spend a dime of taxpayers' money.

Doesn't that violate COTUS?