You Got IT!
The Constitution has nothing to do with health care or insurance.
The “general welfare” clause is just that- a clause but not an Article. Nothing binding there.
To hell with these twisters!
The Federal Government does not have the police power, at least not on given by the Constitutions, but Roberts would have us believe there is. A state can require health insurance, which is Romney’s best defence of what he did. But as the United States is not a unitary state, nor a monarchy like Canada and the UK, nothing in the Constitution gives the Congress such a power.
Thanks!
Have you noticed that Liberals in “both” parties always gravitate to the most unsolvable problems? And the longest lived tax opportunity?
Teenage smoking, (Zipper-Boy), Hilly”care,” etc.
Further, providing for the "general welfare" means doing things which don't benefit any identifiable person in particular, but rather the public at large. If the government builds a road connecting two large cities, such a road will--if it is well conceived--offer benefits not only to the inhabitants of those cities, but also anyone who wishes to purchase goods which can be most efficiently delivered via that route, or whose constituent components are most efficiently delivered via that route, etc. By contrast, if the government gives James Q. Smith a check for $100 in exchange for not working, it's hard to see how that could offer any substantial benefit to anyone other than James Q. Smith and perhaps his family (and of course, dependency may mean that the money does more harm than good, even to him and his).