To continue our discussion of constitutionality from last night, as applied to health care. Here are a couple articles that present both sides of the argument.
Constitutional: http://www.slate.com/id/2224258 (Professor - notice the reference to Amar)
Unconstitutional: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204518504574416623109362480.html#articleTabs%3Darticle
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
If Rivkin and Casey know what they're talking about, why hasn't someone sued away Medicare yet?
Medicare is voluntary.
Amar rules!
Correction. Part B is voluntary. Payroll taxes support Part A, which all social security recipients get at age 65. The difference, I think Rivkin and Casey would argue, is that current proposals would either mandate insurance or tax non-compliance. I don't know enough to judge the merits of their argument.
Post a Comment