Healthcare and The Constitution

This morning I woke up wondering how on earth the Social Security Act could have come about without an amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Wikipedia provides the answer – FDR, packing of the Supreme Court, and “the switch in time that saved nine.” Wonderful. So essentially it’s not constitutional, but the Supreme Court was forced under duress to proclaim it so. This got me thinking, if the democrats are convinced the federal government must provide healthcare for the masses through a government funded single-payer system, do they intend on passing an amendment? I did a little reading on Kerry’s plan – part of which was to expand Federal Employees Health Care Benefits program, and part was to expand Medicaid. Since Medicaid was ruled constitutional by way of the SSA ruling, he might be able to squeak that one through. But expanding FEHCB? I would guess the Supreme Court would ultimately rule it as unconstitutional, and rightly so.

Update

“The United States, in their united or collective capacity, are the OBJECT to which all general provisions in the Constitution must necessarily be construed to refer.” [Emphasis not added]

The general welfare clause, being but a part of a general provision of the Constitution, applies solely to the States “in their united or collective capacity.” If the Constitution had established a social compact or union between the American people, and they were the object of the general powers delegated to the federal government, then it would have been an absurdity to reference the States, in their united capacity, as the object of the general welfare phrase. In addition, if the Constitution had been established for the well being of the American people, then that same people would have been the “whole group” referenced in the general welfare phrase.

Based on the above definitions, Social Security should have been struck down because Congress used a provision of the Constitution that applied to the States, in their united capacity, and unconstitutionally applied it to the people. When Congress inserted the words “[a]n Act to Provide for the General Welfare” at the beginning of the Social Security Act, that body took a clause that granted Congress the power “[t]o lay and collect Taxes… to provide for the… group well being of all the United States” and twisted it into a power that granted Congress the power to tax and appropriate money for the general welfare generally. This was a gross usurpation of power.

Link

I’ve been doing a little more reading on on the 1937 Helvering v. Davis decision. I imagine the proponents of federally sponsored healthcare will attempt to use the same flawed Welfare Clause argument FDR used in justifying a program like this, which is concerning. If passed, the question then becomes will the program be challenged, and if so, will the Supreme Court revisit the original 1937 ruling? It seems there’s a consensus that the ruling was made under duress and was not well founded, which makes me wonder how the Court would rule today. One concern that could surface if Helvering v. Davis is overturned – Social Security could seriously be threatended, which might give the Court pause. I guess it just goes to show how much damage one very overzealous President with very little respect for the Constitution can do.

28 thoughts on “Healthcare and The Constitution

  1. Yah, god forbid we should be entitled to health.
    Thank god there are friendly HMOs who are willing to take sick people and people with “pre-existing conditions”, and who don’t do nefarious things in the name of profit. You’re right, the fact that most working americans today get their health care from emergency rooms is smart, and clearly in the public’s best interest. I mean our constitution is only supposed to provide life liberty and the persuit of happiness, were do these liberals get off equating health with life and the pursuit of happiness? Dont they realize that they should take what they get and be happy about it?

  2. “Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” is a phrase from The Declaration of Independence, not the United States Constitution, and has absolutely nothing to do with healthcare. It relates to our reasoning behind succession from England.

    Life, and Liberty are mentioned a few times in the Constitution, most notably in the fifth, and fourteenth amendments, neither of which has anything to do with healthcare –

    5th Amendment

    No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

    14th Amendment

    No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

    Our founding fore fathers defined a limited set of powers and responsibilities for the federal government, everything else was left to the states. The federal government can provide healthcare – I’m just saying that in order to do so it must act within the confines of the responsibilities the Constitution dictates. Since the Constitution says nothing about healthcare, (the concept didn’t even exist at the time it was written) allowing the federal government to provide such services will require an amendment stipulating healthcare as one of the federal governments responsibilities.

    As an alternative, I’d suggest you rally your state to provide the “healthcare for the masses” that you seek. That ‘solution’ would fit beautifully with the concepts the authors of the Constitution had in mind. Honestly, why does the federal government have to provide this service? It smacks in the face of everything our country was founded upon. Rally your state, let them jack your taxes up to pay for it, and if it works, you can serve as a model for the rest of the country.

    Honestly, I didn’t expect such a long response. But I think what your saying here indicates a distinct lack of knowledge and respect for this country’s most sacred of legal documents. I highly recommend you spend some time reading it.

    Also, in regards to your comment –

    “who are willing to take sick people and people with “pre-existing conditions”, and who don’t do nefarious things in the name of profit.”

    Fine, HMOs have issues. But your suggesting fixing these problems by throwing the baby out with the bathwater. If there are problems with our current system, fix them. The federal government can do a number things to help cut costs, red tape, and misc. disservices our current healthcare system experiences. The health providers can do even more. But if you think this and the administrational overhead of our current private healthcare system are more than that of a system run by the federal government, your living in some sort of warped utopian dream world. Take a good look at our existing entitlement programs for an example, the same entitlement programs currently slated to bankrupt our nation within the next 50 years.

  3. actually those are “inalienable” rights, and as such don’t need to be specifically listed in the Constitution.

    Health is not about “overhead”, it’s about “life” ; as in “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of hapiness.”

    And just what do you propose people with pre-existing conditions do? Move to Canada? Oh, well, SOL, welcome to Corpmerica.

  4. This is kind of late (almost a couple years) sorry.

    Balmers, I can tell you care a lot about this issue. It’s awesome you have compassion for people with pre-existing conditions and would like to see things change to get those people health care. I respect that. And, it almost seems as if you are answering your own question because your passion on this issue proves that people have a template with which to inspire change. We should keep and nurture that freedom to help people and influence those around us to join in the cause.

    The government’s bureaucratic ability is far less than that of collective, free men and women. We should not undermine our freedom by making it the business of the federal government to make our decisions for us. We can teach our children, inspire change, and provide for the health of those who can’t provide it for themselves.

    Perhaps a charity to pay for the care of people in pre-existing condition waiting periods is a good idea. How would that be implemented? Any ideas?

  5. Silent Genocide = Denying one Healthcare which results in death is unconstitutional in my opinion. In America over 50 Americans die each day because they lack health insuarance or adquate healthcare. This is a Natioanl disgrace!

  6. I’d be interested in a historical perspective on the number of people who die due to lack of good healthcare, stretching back to the formation of our country. That might help put your so called “national disgrace” into perspective.

    I’m all for regulation that prevents descrimination based on health related issues. The free markets can adjust to compensate for any added cost. But I don’t think the situation lends itself to government funded healthcare for all. Your throwing the preverbial baby out with the bath water if you think a government run system should replace our existing free market system which, may have it’s flaws but does provide very good care to those who can aford it.

  7. Dear Jim:

    I have just seen your response, and am glad to hear you say “I’m all for regulation that prevents descrimination based on health related issues” and “our existing free market system …may have it’s flaws but does provide very good care to those who can afford it.” You see the key issues is that there are over 45 million Americans who cannot afford health care and Congress has known since 2002 that over 18, 000 (low ball figure) Americans die each year because they cannot afford healthcare or adquate healthcare. See http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/healthcare/2002-05-22-insurance-deaths.htm

  8. Dear Jim Mathies:

    I have just seen your response on your blog (http://www.mathies.com/weblog/?p=518), and I am glad to hear you say “I’m all for regulation that prevents descrimination based on health related issues” and “our existing free market system …may have it’s flaws but does provide very good care to those who can afford it.”

    You see that is the key issue here is that there are over 45 million Americans who cannot afford health care and Congress has known since 2002 that over 18, 000 (low ball figure) Americans die each year because they cannot afford healthcare or adquate healthcare. See http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/healthcare/2002-05-22-insurance-deaths.htm

    It is a National Disgrace that the richest Nation in the world does not provide healthcare for 10 million children because their parents cannot afford it or for any other reasons, – such as poverty, mental health issues, and notably – now the middle class are losing thier homes (1.8 million in 2007 alone) because their health insurance policies don’t provide adquate benefits or enough payments?

    Imagine, our prision systems in America provide healthcare for all immates as a matter of law but not for law abiding citizens and for our children in our states.

    The public/private corruption in medicaid and medicare by public officials/private sector are one reason why we don’t have affordable healthcare in this nation and in nations abroad which is a direct result of your so called “free markets”

    Not to mention what the oil companies have done to this country.

    In sum, I respect your opinions and beleifs but lets face it NO AMERICAN should die because they cannot afford life saving medicaitions due to their class – status/statuses or for any other reason for that matter. NO AMERICAN should have to resort to the emergency room for basic healthcare. Even if you put costs first over life that does not make sense either as we all know the cost for a emergency room visit surpasses the cost for a local doctor visit.

    The states collectively (United States) have failed to prevent death and the federal government has condoned this SILENT GENOCIDE in the interest of profit or in the interest of our so called “free markets” as you say.

    If the cities/states/drug companies/doctors/insurance companies/politiciians(local, state, and federal) and lobbists as a whole all agree to deny kids/persons healthcare in America that cause Americans suffering and death should the federal courts step in?

    I hope that question (paraphrased) gets anwsered very soon in a pending case (Motion to Reinstate Appeal No. 02-9395). See Juliano v. Town of Colonie et al and related cases in the 2nd circuit court of appeals (New York). See Case Nos. 02-9395 et al. Note that motion has not been filed yet but will be soon.

    Our next president Barrack Obama will sign into law (Hstorical) – a law that provides every American healthcare – as it is a God given right to pursue happiness, liberty, and life.

    Finally, our healthcare system as a whole in America are broken and the evidence is clear that each and every state allow Americans die each day because they cannot afford healthcare and/or afford adequate healthcare In America. Not to mention what is happening in Nations abroad – which I call – “The Silent Genocide in America”

    God bless,
    James Juliano

  9. To the above anchient string, I would like to add that positive notions which accompany a “free market” do not really apply to healthcare in the U.S. A “free market” is efficient (and only then positive) when a large number of sellers compete to drive prices down. In healthcare, deadly diseases such as cancer are treated with a small number of products put forth by a small number of companies. A patient will usually rely on one or two products (which will be considered in the context of their age and other factors) to either live or die. So, in essence, different oncology markets operate in monopoly or duopoly. Many other markets are the same way and are the main villians behind unaffordable healthcare.

    As a result of the small number of competitors and products, it is well known that virtually any price can be charged for a “decent” cancer drug. Europe currently squeezes profits from the drug companies by using pricing controls on pharmaceutical marketers, which act drastically to cut costs with the end of providing somewhat cheaper healthcare. If the U.S. wants to offer universal healthcare, and I believe it should in some ways, it will need to scrutinize exactly what it is paying for these products and perhaps help evolve the business model of this world’s large pharmaceutical marketers which are largely inefficient in discovery and sales of innovative new therapies.

    Finally, I think there needs to be a line drawn between healthcare that promotes life, and healthcare that promotes quality of life. Although it is probably an undeniable end which will be moved towards eventually, a drug which aids attention span is much different than a drug which cures a deadly disease, and is not now suitable for socialized aid.

    Hey, I know this is a polarizing issue, but isn’t it a bit depressing to think that a country as powerful as ours can’t provide healthcare for millions of children? I’m guessing that in a couple of decades, our children or children’s children will be marveling at how barbaric we once were.

  10. Having been born in a socialist country – England – and having the benefit of socialised medicine, I have to say that the system is not only equitable amongst all citizens, but is a first priority amongst nations to make sure that ALL citizens have access to affordable health care, otherwise there is no equity and therefore there is discrimination.

    If you take all the citizens of our Country the United States who work for companies that happen to provide health coverage and suddenly make them workers without health care coverage and then add on the 45 million without health coverage and then add on the 30+ million who are underinsured – well you get the picture. We’d probably end up with half our citizens without any form of health care. We’re not just talking about poor people here, or children, or immigrants, legal or otherwise, or lower middle class, we’re talking about the self-employed, the divorced (who have lost their partner’s health coverage), the middle class, the contractor, the list goes on and on.

    If every Senator and Governor in our nation suddenly had to deal with his/her life without any health care coverage and pay out of his/her pocket, thousands upon thousands of dollars every year for doctor’s visits, tests, check ups, MRI’s, procedures etc. You don’t think we’d see a quick change in our present health care set-up? By golly, it would be changed in the twinkling of an eye.

    The problem here is that EVERYONE in this Country should be able to have health care that is affordable for their individual circumstances – we cannot and must not discriminate. All I know is that it is constitutional for every citizen to have a life that is as healthy as possible and yes, we can take it out of our taxes, we must pay for it, but it needs to be equitable. If I am being charged health insurance of $550 per month (no pre-existing conditions) and I earn $30,000 per year and someone else of the same age is being charged $550 per month (no pre-existing conditions) and earns $150,000 per year, where is the equity there? Nonsense. Each should have taxes taken out of his salary to cover health care no matter how much someone earns or doesn’t earn, the key here is to be equitable. OR let the insurance companies charge less to the person who is earning less. This is not rocket science. A nations health is above all else the most important thing, as also to an individual, when we say, above all else give me health. A ‘sick’ Country is indeed a poor Country and it will eventually become its downfall. I will gladly pay extra taxes to know that all my fellow American citizens are covered and are free to go to doctors and hospitals when they are sick or when they need a check up, I want the best for everyone in this country and I want to live in a healthy nation where people don’t continue to suffer outrageously because they have no health care coverage, there is no national pride in that.

  11. National health care is unconstitutional for the federal government to take on. This right is reserved for the individual states and the people in those states need to communicate to their state representatives if they want it in their state. The reason why the constitution was written like it was is to keep the power at the local levels. This keeps the elected representatives accountable at the lowest level and see the effects of their laws. The founders did not want a big government dictating for the country because each state has its on personality and its own needs. This is why the tenth amendment was createdand its says “The powers not delegated to the United States by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people”.

  12. John is right. This is a 10th Amendment issue. Therefore it should be handled at the state level, not the federal level.

    To James’ point… how much of our current health care system is dedicated to life and death situations vs. quality of life situations (like an irritating pain, but one that is not life threatening)? Do we really want the Federal Government making these calls for us and at what point will the line be drawn? How much money will be spent on non-life or death situations?

    Are there other venues for the life and death health care situations besides the Federal Government?

  13. Just a quick list of some other unconstitutional garbage to be thrown out ASAP:

    The National Park System
    The Federal Reserve Bank – a real reach here – despite the absurd Maryland ruling!
    The Environmental Protection Agency
    The Food and Drug Administration
    Social Security
    Medicaid – the original “public option” (Democrats offered a resolution to end this program this year – the Republicans declined).
    Suplimental Housing Assistance
    Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
    Federally secured student loans and grants
    The Civilian Conservation Corps
    Rural Electrification / The TVA
    The FCC
    The Patriot Act

    I didn’t include a couple of other dubious examples, like the National Highway System, and NASA, just to avoid an argument. (the highway system is overbuilt by about two orders of magnitude if it was designed for a primarily military purpose – the rail system of the 1950’s would have better served – and the express purpose of the space program was peaceful – the Air Force program would be sufficient for the military aspect)

  14. From the U.S. Constitution:

    “Section 8 – Powers of Congress

    The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States . . . .”

    Which part do you not comprehend?

  15. Really???? Seriously???? Do people in this great nation, the United States of America, really believe the federal government has a duty to provide healthcare to its citizens? Nowhere in the US Constition does it state that the federal government is required to provide healthcare to its citizentry. On the contrary, the US Constition was created, and ratified by all states, to ensure that the federal government did not infringe on the rights of the States. I cannot believe that our country has gotten to a point in which many of its citizens believe they have a right to other peoples property.

    Another point…I find it absolutely ridiculous that Liberals will in one breath claim that healthcare falls under the “right to life, liberty, and property” but abortions do not! I cannot fathom how a Liberal has the right to life (healthcare), but an unborn child does not…just one word: WOW!!!

  16. As a woman, I think that the phrase “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” does not indicate we should outlaw abortion. In fact, illegal abortion is bad for women. Illegal abortion often maims or kills women. One only has to read the history of abortion, or read how it is in places where women still use back alley abortions. Just talk to some of the old timer doctors who worked in the hospital wards where women came for repair and often to die. Pregnancy and childbirth have a medical side to them. That’s why women go to doctors for pre-natal care and for birth. If you aren’t a woman and you’ve never given birth or been pregnant, you cannot understand the medical aspects of pregnancy and childbirth. There will always be risks involved. That’s why nobody has the right to tell a woman she cannot opt for an abortion. There is also a whole moral side to why women should have this option.

  17. Sandra,

    maybe I misread your post, but did you say that someone making 30k
    per year paying 550 dollars per month and
    someone else making 150k paying 550 was not fair and equitable? maybe I’m missing something but that sounds like the definition of fair- the two people are paying the same price for the same product. should the 150k person have to pay more for food? what if the 150k person is the sole provider for a family of five in new York with 100,000k in student loans for undergrad and grad school and the 30k is single and lives in Montana? who do you think has more disposable income?

    this bill is a joke. I don’t care what problem you’re trying to solve- basic problem solving says start at the root cause. in this case, the cost of health care prevents some from being able to afford it. the answer isn’t make the rich pay for it for them; that does nothing but shift the responsibility from one person to another. address costs- tort reform, price transparency, competition across state lines- and then work back up the chain. switching to complete public transportation bc 10% of the country can’t afford cars is crazy.

  18. Some people here seem confused because anyone who pays for health insurance are paying for the uninsured. Everyday of every year uninsured people go into emergency rooms or similar and receive medical service they can not afford and those costs are pushed to the insured premiums. This is why the cost of health insurance is increasing so much and will continue to increase as the uninsured population grows. What is most disturbing is that many services these uninsured individuals receive are very expensive and could have been eliminated with much cheaper preventative care. This is something that most industrialized countries have figured out and made health insurance options available for everyone. What is most surprising is that even though the U.S. spends more than any other country on health care (overall and per capita) they do not provide the best healthcare for it’s people. Everyone has heard how low the World Health Organization ranked the United States (36th), but even if you do not believe the rank you have to admit that we should at least be near the top 10 in any international ranking. We are not.
    I have received medical attention through universal health plans in Germany (offered by University) over a two year period and can say from my experiences that the quality was same or better than what I currently receive in a well paid job in the America.
    Finally I do not believe that the 50 mil or so uninsured are just “lazy” people wanting a free ride, as many people would like to portray. I think the majority are good, hard working people who can not afford it or lack the education, skills, etc. for a job that will provide insurance.

  19. As a Canadian, I have found the healthcare debate in the US very interesting. Obviously, we have universal healthcare in Canada, so I am naturally going to be a little biased. However, I must say that I have a university degree, work at a decent job where they provide a supplemental health and dental benefits plan. My employer aslo grosses over 20 billion-dollars worldwide. The chances are, they would provide a healthcare plan of some sort to us in Canada.

    That being said, I find some of the comments odd. Some are questioning whether public provided healthcare is a constitutional right. I think it’s safe to consider the Founding Fathers didn’t imagine we would make the advances in healthcare we have. However, they did realize they couldn’t address everything and left the constitution open for interpretation by the courts as a ‘living’ document (10th amendment). If you’re going to say healthcare is absolutely NOT a right, you have to consider what a people’s priorities are. You you have the right to life and liberty. Does life and liberty not begin with the opportunity to be healthy? You have the right to property? However, if you get sick and don’t have healthcare coverage, you may have to sell all your property to pay for your treatment. Does this make sense? Is property more important than your health? You ask any rich person that is diagnosed with a serious illness what is more important to him/her at that time, health or property, and they will likely tell you health. I mean, you can’t take it with you. And this is a rich person who can afford to get care.

    Sean in his comment uses an analogy above, stating “switching to complete public transportation bc 10% of the country can’t afford cars is crazy.” Yet, you have public transportation, with the option of purchasing your own personal form of transportation. I think that is key. If you had a choice based on the ability to pay (at the very least), everyone can benefit. And I agree that the constitution does provide for the states to deliver a healthcare system. That is the same in Canada, where provinces (aka states) manage and deliver healthcare under national standards they all agreed to in concert with the federal government.

    Besides that, and now speaking in my own opinion, I don’t think Americans are free at all. As long as the Patriot Act exists, where the government can detain you with no legal recourse because you “might” have ties to terrorism, you can take the Consititution you hold so dear and have your kids use it as a coloring book. Criminals get free healthcare, as do those same detainees on Guantanamo Bay, but a hard-working American can’t afford to protect himself and his family? Did Katrina teach you nothing? You have a third world existining within your own borders and you are letting them die.

    Your government is looking after the executives on Wall Street and making sure they can get their bonuses and contribute to their campaigns. They likely don’t care very much about you. No surprise there, that kind of elitist support exists in every western country, including Canada. However, you are fighting with your government when they are finally trying to give you something of real value, the right and opportunity to get healthcare at a reasonable cost. Everyone deserves that, universally. Do you think you can look a dying child in the eyes and tell her she can’t get care because the Constitution doesn’t guarantee it? If you can, you might want to consider your priorities.

  20. A few posts above AC quoted the Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1 that gives Congress the power to impose taxes for the general welfare.

    Don’t be fooled by that phrase “general welfare”. Read the entirety of the clause. It is authorization for the Congress to impose taxes, duties, imposts, and excises- and the healthcare legislation is NONE of these.

    THERE IS NO CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY FOR THIS LEGISLATION. While it may miracle it’s way to passage, it will die in the Supreme Court. This is an issue for states to resolve, not the federal government. Congress is wasting its time and our own.

  21. http://www.healthcarereform.homestead.com

    Individual mandates to carry health insurance and other aspects of national health care reform are unconstitutional. Article I, Section 8 does not authorize Congress to implement a health insurance mandate or universal health care plan; Congress should be talking about a constitutional amendment under Article V.

    For a comprehensive list of all articles, commentary and video on this subject, including individual comments from members of Congress, please visit the referenced website (no advertising, no solicitation, just a commitment to constitution principles.)

  22. I’m so sick and tired of hearing people equate ‘having health insurance’ with ‘being healthy’. If you are poor in this country you go to the ER and you get health-care for free. And don’t try to give me the crap-line of; ohh ‘you’ll get charged’, if you are really ‘poor’ (as I once was btw) and cannot afford to pay, you will get it for free.

    And I’m ok with this! I don’t mind paying for that through my taxes. NOW… the poor will STILL get it free but there will be A LOT more tax money stolen from us. Oh yeah, but once the system gets ramped up the overall quality of service will soon begin to go down the tubes.

  23. No one seems to be asking the Doctors (who have to provide this health Care) how they personally feel about being forced to work for the government.

  24. There is a BIG difference between the terms “fair” and “equitable”. It’s easier to define equitable than fair. Fair is a fallacy because everyone defines fairness based on a different set of standards. Trying to pursue fairness (the basis of Marxism) only ends up making everyone equally miserable.

    Second – health care does not equal “life and liberty” from the Declaration of Independence. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are inalienable rights as endowed by our Creator s the D.o.I. says. Our Creator did not gurantee that your life would be healthy and free of diseases, or that it would be long, or that you should always have access to a doctor or hospital.

    The Founding Fathers could have addressed many social ills of their time – poverty and health care were two issues during their time. But they already they saw the kind of raw power exerted by a brute government to solve these kind of issues in Europe and the problems they created.

    Instead, they pursued certain ideals and wanted a nation that would solve its problems not by brute government force but by the very best ideals. The fact that so many of us care about the down trodden and those held hostage by life circumstances is a wonderful thing – and perhaps we should muster that energy to solve those problems locally and in our own backyard rather than ask for another big government program.

    The Founding Fathers were very wise in attempting to limit the federal government’s powers and every time we have moved away from that, we end up creating far worse problems.

  25. I have just re-read the above comments. We still have 26 million americans without healthcare in America. I would say while more people have healthcare as result of president Obama, and yes we can mandate a tax for healthcare as Cheif Justice Roberts said in his opinion (Supreme court Decision). Lets move forward, if you read my posts above, you will see most came true, – their is good regulations and bad regulations in regard to the so-called free market , – the good regulations assures fairness, the bad regulations cuased this country to go in a recession (banks, wall street et al).

    Any way Obama-Biden ticket moves us toward healthcare for all Americans and forward to end this horrible history of our nation – allowing our citizens die each day (3 per day per state) because they can’t afford healthcare (prescriptions, see doctors et al) – “The Silent Genocide” continues in America. The Romeny-Ryan ticket offers trillions of more tax cuts for the rich at the expense of the poor and midlle class.

    The Bush tax cuts for rich have not created jobs, as we got 8.3 percent unemployment today in America. Where are those Jobs?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *