Obamacare is Unconstitutional – Part 1

March 31, 2010

For those of you that read my blog on a weekly basis mostly to get your dander up, I will not disappoint you this week.  To get right to the point, plain and simple, the newly passed “Obamacare” health care reform legislation is unconstitutional on many levels and Republicans if they have any political principles at all will run this November on a platform promising to repeal the measure in its entirety. 

However, they may be saved from this act of unusual courage on their part if state attorneys general have their way.  Currently, there are already lawsuits filed by 14 states against the law.   The suits rightly state that, “The Constitution nowhere authorizes the United States to mandate, either directly or under threat of penalty, that all citizens and legal residents have qualifying health care coverage.”  This argument before any court should be enough to at least invalidate that portion of the law.  And if that portion is struck down then the financing mechanism for making the law somewhat viable is removed and the scheme falls flat on its face.

The states have chosen the portion of the new law that will give them the greatest chance of success in the courts.  After all, it was deemed necessary at the beginning of the last century to pass an amendment to the Constitution allowing Washington to collect income taxes from Americans.  How come an amendment is not required for Washington to order Americans to pay for health insurance? 

But, there are also many other constitutional arguments that can be leveled against “Obamacare”.  Article 1 Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution enumerates 18 specific powers granted to Congress.  Healthcare is not one of them and as a matter of fact the responsibility for regulating the industry has historically fallen to states.  States license doctors, hospitals, and have insurance commissions responsible for regulating rates and services.  Of course, liberal interpreters of the Constitution will point out that there are two clauses in that same section which support their view that Congress has nearly unlimited powers when it comes to providing for the well-being of Americans.

The first clause is the “General Welfare” clause, “The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States…”  Taken in context, general welfare is not separated by commas from “to pay the debts” and “common defense”.  Therefore, the Congress has the power to provide for the general welfare of the United States by maintaining a common defense and paying the debts in the pursuit thereof.  The phrase does not give Congress unlimited powers.  If it did there would be no need for the 16 enumerated powers that follow in the same section.

The second clause liberal interpreters of the Constitution point to in order for Congress to do whatever it wants to is the “necessary and proper” clause.  It reads, “To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.”  Many have labeled this the elastic clause which is about as accurate a label as the “Patriot Act”.  The first part ending with “foregoing powers” obviously relates to the 17 previously mentioned enumerated powers in Section 8.  The bone of contention is the phrase, “…all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.”  What are these other powers?  To liberal interpreters it means anything Congress feels should be done for the ‘general welfare”.  The real answer is the powers specified to Congress outside of Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution. 

Article 2 dealing with the Executive Branch is a good example.  In Section 1 of that article Congress has been given the power, not enumerated in Article 1 Section 8, to determine the time for choosing electors of the Electoral College.  Article 2 Section 2 gives Congress power to enact laws dealing with certain appointments of the president.  There are several amendments  that give Congress power to, “enforce this article by appropriate legislation”.  These powers of Congress not found in the article dealing with the legislative branch are “necessary and proper for carrying into execution all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States…”  That was the original meaning of the necessary and proper clause.  Furthermore, health care is not specified in any of these other powers, thus it is outside of Congress’s powers under federalism and a clear violation to the Constitution. 

The Constitution grants very limited powers to all three branches of government, not just Congress.  Those powers are enumerated and delegated in the document.  To believe otherwise ignores the actual text and the historical context the document was written in.  Why would individuals give unlimited power to a new government when they had just risked all they had to overthrow the unlimited tyrannical powers of another?  They wouldn’t.  This is why a strict constructionist interpretation is correct and why Obamacare is unconstitutional.

Part 2 will deal with the interstate commerce clause and why it is important to adhere to the Constitution.


Washington Can’t Even Run a Mail Delivery System

March 3, 2010

How can Uncle Sam run national healthcare when it can’t even run a mail delivery system?  This week Postmaster General John E. Potter informed congressional staffers, postal union officials and others in Washington that the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) is bankrupt and will not survive unless it is given greater flexibility in determining delivery schedules, price increases, and labor costs by lawmakers, postal regulators, and unions.  The remarks were sparked by the fact that the USPS lost $3.8 billion last year and is projected to lose another $238 billion in the next ten years if changes are not made.  These figures notwithstanding, it is amazing to me that in 2010 we still have a government run postal system in America.  Isn’t it time to privatize the Post Office?

Article II Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution gives Congress the power “To establish post offices and post roads.  When the Constitution was ratified America was a very different place than it is today.  We were a very rural society with many of our countrymen residing in far off lands to the west.  Mail carriers provided the primary mode of delivery for important letters, documents, and packages.  In their wisdom, the Founders realized that the safest, most effective way for these items to get to their recipients was through a government run system.

But things change and today America is an incredibly advanced country.  We are a technologically savvy nation with websites, email, scanners, text messaging, and other communication devices.  In fact, the Postal Service’s financial woes stem from competition caused by technology.  Last year, the USPS experienced a 13 percent drop in mail volume primarily due to more people using email to communicate than snail mail.  Additionally, companies like UPS and Fed Ex do an excellent job of delivering urgent letters and packages not just in the U.S. but around the globe.  Lastly, some will argue that folks in rural areas will not be serviced if mail delivery became totally private.  But, this would affect very few people in modern America.  Even then the market should decide if a location is worthy of a private mail delivery system.  If the answer is no (no entrepreneur comes forward to provide the service) then those residents could relocate.

Of course, just because the Constitution grants a power to Congress does not mean it has to put it into action.  The changes sought by the Postmaster General would target delivery schedules and prices in order to close the budget gap of the postal system.  It could mean the end of Saturday mail deliveries, longer delivery times, and postage price increases that exceed the rate of inflation.  And Americans would not have a choice because the USPS maintains a legal monopoly over the delivery of non-urgent mail.  This is so typical of a government run enterprise – instead of cutting staff like the rest of America during this recession to save itself, it proposes less service and higher costs for its customers.  This is another reason why government should run nothing and why the USPS should be abolished altogether.

At the end of the day, the USPS is in trouble because it is government run.  It doesn’t react to market conditions by laying off excess staff.  It is burdened with bureaucratic waste and inefficiencies.  Its management has to petition outsiders for permission just to make changes that are needed to ensure its viability.  Even then, because it owns a monopoly over an industry and has an explicit government guarantee against failure it will cut services and raise costs on its customers – something that is not nearly as possible in a market based system.  Lastly, even though it is billions in debt and has long outlived its usefulness, no one in Washington is saying it should be abolished.  Government run enterprises just don’t know when it is time to close up shop.  We have learned these lessons from Washington running a relatively easy enterprise to operate.  The question we have to ask is, do we really want to entrust healthcare, a much more complicated endeavor, to Uncle Sam?


An Open Letter to Senator Kay Hagan (D-NC)

December 27, 2009

Dear Senator Hagan,

It is with great disappointment that I contact you about your support of the Senate’s version of healthcare reform.  Not only will the legislation that you and 59 other misguided souls passed today not address the ills facing our healthcare system, the measure is plagued by the 4 “c’s” – constitutionality, cost, corruption, and consent.

I realize that questioning the constitutionality of Congress taking up healthcare reform in the first place will fall on deaf ears, but humor me for a minute.  All congressional powers are enumerated in Article 1 Section 8 of that document.  Healthcare is not one of them specified in that section therefore it is a power retained by the people or the states through Amendment 10.

Now, I know you are next going to bring up jurisdiction under the “General Welfare” clause in that same section, but suffice it to say it is illogical to construe that the framers of the Constitution intended to give Congress unlimited powers through that clause and then in the same section go on to enumerate specific powers of Congress. 

There is also the question of the meaning of the “interstate commerce” clause.  Power grabbing members of Congress use this one all the time for such things as banning guns in schools and imposing a playoff system on college football.  I am sure members of Congress would argue that healthcare reform also falls under interstate commerce.  Under this convoluted thinking everything could be regulated by Congress.  Y’all seem to ignore the original purpose of the clause – to prevent states from imposing protectionist measures against each other’s industries.  Case in point is our inability to purchase health coverage from other states. 

Of course, the legislation also brings up other Constitutional issues besides whether Congress has jurisdiction over healthcare.  There is the issue of forcing American consumers to purchase something against their will.  There is also the concern that the Medicaid money for Nebraska that bought Senator Nelson’s vote is a violation of the equal protection clause since other states will have to foot the bill for their portion of the increased Medicaid costs that the bill will cause.  Any way you slice it the Senate healthcare reform bill is fraught with all sorts of constitutional issues.  You should have voted against the measure simply to honor your oath to the Constitution.

The second “c” plaguing the healthcare reform bill you voted for is cost.  According to the Congressional Budget Office, claims the legislation would save Medicare $246 billion are erroneous.  In a statement, the CBO indicated that members of your party were essentially “double-counting the impact of the savings the legislation would generate” because the savings “can’t both finance new programs and help pay future expenses for elderly covered under the federal program.” 

In your speech after voting for the measure you indicated that the bill will both reduce costs and expand coverage.  With all due respect, these two things are mutually exclusive.  The subsidies Uncle Sam will pay to the millions of uninsured Americans so they can afford coverage will be enormously expensive.  States will be burdened with paying their share of expanded Medicaid costs.  Furthermore, your statement is reminiscent of the politicians’ claims in 1965 when Medicare Part A  was passed.  They claimed that costs would be $9 billion by 1990.  The actual cost was $67 billion.  In 1987, Medicaid added a special hospital subsidy to its coverage which was projected to cost $100 million.  By 1992, costs stood at $11 billion per year.  You politicians have a hard time saying no to people.  Thus, given logical deduction and historical evidence it is easier to believe that the Senate plan will dramatically increase costs.

The third “c” afflicting the Senate health care bill you supported is corruption.  Thirteen got special perks for their votes totaling tens of billions of dollars.  The most infamous were Mary Landrieu’s “Louisiana Purchase” and Ben Nelson’s “Nebraska Compromise.”  If the bill was so good why did Harry Reid have to bribe members of his own party to vote for it?  How could you support a measure that was laced with so much unfairness to your North Carolina constituents?  Perhaps the biggest question is: since Reid needed every liberal vote three times to end debate why didn’t you hold out for a special perk for North Carolina especially given our state’s budgetary woes?

Lastly, the Senate lacked the consent of the American people to pass the measure.  By 53 percent a majority of Americans disapproved of the legislation.  By 73 to 18 percent a huge number of Americans don’t believe you when you say the legislation will reduce future deficits.  These polls are indicative of how far out of touch members of Congress have become. 

In the final analysis, the Senate healthcare bill does nothing to tackle the causes of rising costs in healthcare.  It does not provide for more consumer responsibility by addressing the 3rd party payer issue.  It does not address the high cost of medication by allowing Americans to purchase cheaper American made drugs from foreign countries.  It does nothing to streamline the approval process imposed by the Food and Drug Administration on drug companies which limits competition and contributes to higher costs.  Most importantly, attempts to curb healthcare costs are in vain as long as Congress continues to allow the reckless inflationary policies of the Federal Reserve to exist.  The Fed’s politically motivated pumping of new dollars and credit into the economy combined with our insatiable demand for healthcare bids the costs of services higher.  Only until we have a sound monetary system will we realize cost reductions in medical care.

In closing, you should be ashamed of your support for Harry Reid’s healthcare boondoggle.  The Senate bill you voted for lacks constitutionality, will not contain healthcare costs, was passed in a corrupt fashion, and was not what a majority of the American people wanted.  May the forces of nullification awaken to confront Congress’ stupidity on this issue!

Your constituent,

Kenn Jacobine


Obama Violates the First Amendment

September 26, 2009

Famous Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black once stated, “I am for the First Amendment from the first word to the last. I believe it means what it says.”  In part, what it says is that, “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech.”  To prove how serious the authors of the Bill of Rights were about this indispensible freedom, they gave Americans the ability to defend the right by force if necessary in the very next Amendment.  Even given the historic support from the High Court for the First Amendment and the means to defend it given by the Founders, this past week the Obama Administration violated its oath to uphold the Constitution by issuing a decree abridging the First Amendment right to speech.

In a memo to private health insurers from a senior official at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) the Obama Administration issued a decree ordering them to stop informing Medicare beneficiaries that health reform legislation before Congress could hurt them and curtail their benefits if enacted.  The memo went on to say that the government might take legal action against insurers that are mobilizing opposition to the legislation by sending “misleading and confusing” messages to seniors. 

Say what you will about insurance companies, this is by no means a defense of them.  It is instead a rebuke of an administration that is playing fast and loose with basic rights guaranteed to all Americans, including corporations.  In the United States, corporations are separate legal entities that retain the same rights as individuals.  Humana, the company whose letters to clients prompted the decree from HHS, has as much right to speak out for or against federal legislation as I do.  Congress, the President, and the Supreme Court have no power to abridge Humana’s right to free speech.  Obama should know this given that he is a constitutional lawyer.

Secondly, the decree smacks of fascism.  Corporations do not exist in America to serve the interests of the state.  Obama has this collectivist mindset, a lot like the previous administration, “you are for us or against us.”  Any discord with the Administration’s positions and you may find yourself threatened with legal action.  Perhaps the President is confused.  Maybe he has let his takeover and running of GM, Chrysler, and AIG cloud his vision and he now thinks that he can dictate the terms of existence for all American companies.  Unfortunately, few members of his own party have expressed any discomfort with the decree.  In fact, Democratic Senator Max Baucus has urged HHS to crack down on the mailings.  In addition to a government that is not listening to the people, now we have one that is also attempting to stifle the peoples’ dissent.

Of course, attempting to litigate any company that disobeyed the gag order would end in defeat for the Administration.  There is no precedence for restricting speech against government legislation.  Even inaccurate or misleading speech is protected.  But, to top it all off, the information Humana peddled to seniors was actually accurate.  According to the Congressional Budget Office, the bill released last week in the Senate by Baucus would cut payments to Medicare Advantage plans by about $139 billion over 10 years.  Certainly this represents a significant chunk of change and would result in reduced benefits for seniors.  If the Humana information was misleading, at least Obama could look like he was standing against deceit and chicanery.  This would be somewhat admirable.  But because the information is true, he simply looks like a despot.

In 1906, Evelyn Beatrice Hall said, “I may disapprove of what you say, but I defend to the death your right to say it.”  Taking the presidential oath of office to defend the Constitution is equivalent to Hall’s statement.  But, with the current president, he apparently has no problem not only shirking his duty but violating it.  It’s no wonder his approval rating continues to drop and Americans are taking to the streets in the millions to protest his policies.  After all, Americans are not asking Obama to give his life for free speech just to respect it even when it disagrees with his policies.


Dennis Kucinich: Poster Child for Non-Existent Constitutional Rights

September 12, 2009

Last week I blogged on how non-existent Constitutional rights granted by Congress and presidents alike were responsible for the bankruptcy of America.  Thus, over the years, some of us have been given the right to a job, a certain wage, free food, retirement income, financial bailout for irresponsible behavior, and so on and so forth.  In 1971, when Nixon took America completely off the Gold Standard, he opened the gate for massive federal spending and tantalized and encouraged our shameless leaders to grant the above mentioned non-existent Constitutional rights and many more. 

This week I received an email from Congressman Dennis Kucinich of Ohio entitled  “A New Movement: Health Care as a Civil Right” .  Sure enough, another member of Congress was at it again.  Seems the congressman along with Representative John Conyers of Michigan and 85 co-sponsors in the House have proposed legislation that would make health care for all a civil right.  Get this; it would be of the single payer variety like they have in Europe.  You know the systems where the citizens boast that their healthcare is free even though they pay exorbitant amounts of taxes to the government and in many situations must wait for care or are denied care altogether.  Kucinich boasts that his plan would eliminate premiums, co-pays, and deductibles.  So I suppose our care would be free as well.  And he also claims that, “All health care assets in America would become not-for-profit.”

As anyone with any common sense knows there is no such thing as something for nothing.  This is precisely why we are in the mess we are in today.  Kucinich is promising something huge that he can’t deliver.  At the very least, someone will have to pay the basic costs of healthcare.  Certainly, doctors, nurses, scientists that develop drugs, and the janitors that clean the hospitals and labs are not going to work for free.  As a matter of fact, smart people in America will either not enter the medical profession or if they already have will go someplace else to make a decent living given the time and expense it has cost them to become doctors.  But, I am sure that when this happens the good congressman would then propose legislation whereby the federal government pays for all medical educations.  You can see where this is bound to go. 

Obviously, if healthcare were to become “free” under any plan that resembled Kucinich’s the taxpayer would foot the bill for the huge expenses that would result.  I know this is a logical fallacy of sorts.  You see the biggest problem with the current system is that individuals do not actually pay for enough of their own healthcare.  On average about only 15 cents of every dollar spent on healthcare comes from individual’s pockets.  The other 85 percent of costs is covered by insurance companies, government and other private sources.  If I am only paying for 15 percent of any commodity then I care little what that commodity costs.  The incentive to comparison shop like you would to buy a car or groceries is non-existent in healthcare.  Someone else is paying for most of the cost.  Don’t look a gift horse in the mouth applies.  Obviously, our healthcare system has more wrong with it than that.  But the point here is that Kucinich’s plan would lower personal costs of healthcare from the current 15 percent to zero.  Logically, then, we would see even larger increases in healthcare costs due to the total disconnect between service and payment responsibility.  Put another way, if something is free, then consumers will use more of it and costs will rise astronomically.  You can’t fool this golden rule of economics.

Of course, Kucinich and his ilk know very little about economics.  It seems he knows even less about the Constitution.  He quotes the Constitution as his rationale for healthcare as a civil right.   According to him, “The Preamble to the United States Constitution and Article One, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution both describe an originating purpose of our United States: to promote the general welfare.”  The “general welfare” clause is an old argument that has been used by the rights granters for a long time.  Of course they take the clause out of context.  They quote it as if it stands alone.  In fact, immediately following the clause in Article 1 Section 8 sixteen enumerated powers of Congress are listed.  What is the purpose of this enumeration of powers if Congress’s powers are unlimited under the “general welfare” clause?  Additionally, general welfare means all of us are affected equally.  No government expenditure affects all of us equally except for those spent on the enumerated powers listed in Article 1 Section 8.  Thus, there is no Constitutional authority for Congress to legislate, regulate, or grant any rights that are not enumerated in Article 1 section 8 of the Constitution.  This includes so-called “free” universal healthcare.

No one knows for sure how the current healthcare reform debate will turn out.  It should be squashed altogether on constitutional grounds.  The proponents of federal socialized medicine do have recourse.  Under Article V of the Constitution they can pursue amending the document to allow them to take up the matter.  Naturally, they won’t do this because it would be a lot of work.  Instead, they just misquote the Constitution and propose healthcare legislation that will allow them to grant a new right and spend us further into bankruptcy.


Obama Couldn’t Care Less What America Thinks

August 28, 2009

Barack Obama showed his true colors in a recent trip to Montana.   The president was in Bozeman, Montana earlier this month to conduct a town hall meeting with “citizens” on his healthcare reform plan.  Naturally, most of what was really news was ignored by the press.  However, I was fortunate enough to receive an email from a friend that received an email from a friend who was on the ground in Bozeman, before, during, and after Obama’s visit.

According to the account, the true details of the president’s trip were appalling.  It amounted to an extravagant staged campaign stop for socialized medicine all at taxpayer expense.  In the first place, the town hall forum was held in a remote hanger at the local airport even though several venues (auditoriums, gymnasiums) in town were available for the event.  Thus, it was harder for average citizens to attend and seating and decorations had to be shipped in for the event.  In fact, according to airport workers in Bozeman the airport was abuzz with loads of shipments for the president for most of the week leading up to the forum.  One UPS employee even reported that thousands of dollars worth of lobster was shipped in for Obama and his entourage.  Since Montana has some of the best beef in the nation and they are experiencing the same economic hardships as the rest of us during this recession, one would think the president would be a little more empathetic toward his hosts and purchase their product to help their local economy.

Of course to get a ticket to see and maybe even ask the president a question was a complete run around.  Folks were not given the time tickets would be handed out until the morning before the day they were handed out.  Then, not even half of the tickets printed were handed out.  But, rest assured, folks with hard luck stories had their tickets.  Ahead of time, the White House called Bozeman’s Human Resource and Development Committee to get the names of folks who have experienced healthcare woes.  These folks got rides and tickets to the event all in an effort to give the impression that Montana was squarely behind the president’s plan to provide universal healthcare coverage to all Americans.  And just to make sure the impression was perfectly cemented, any questions for the president either from the media or the loyalists in attendance were screened ahead of time by the White House.

So, there would be no free exchange of ideas on healthcare reform that Obama claims he is willing to listen to.  Those that are opposed to nationalized healthcare were given a roped off area near the hanger to conduct their protest.  But, their unencumbered peaceful protest was short lived as a large busload of Service Employees International Union members was offloaded in their midst.  Clearly, whether the presence of these unionists was orchestrated by the White House or some other entity, their purpose was to start trouble and/or intimidate the anti-socialized medicine protestors.  As a matter of fact, one unionist was arrested for his aggression.  The eyewitness account indicated that the union members were well-organized, young, and relentless in following around the anti-Obama plan protestors.            

Now, I like many, have been a little dismayed at the behavior of some folks at the recent congressional town hall meetings.  But, what do we expect from people who are frustrated by their elected official’s actions – rigging elections, voting big bailout dollars for corrupt corporations, and ignoring their wishes on issues as important as healthcare reform?  The president is no different than members of Congress, but he obviously has the wherewithal to prevent the same scenes from happening at his town hall meetings.  If Obama was really a president of the people he would yearn to hear our voices.  He would travel modestly especially during economic hard times.  He certainly would not tolerate organized henchmen being used to squelch First Amendment freedoms.  Obama promised America “Change” but what we have really gotten is short changed.


A History of Cost Overruns Should Squash Government Run Healthcare

August 21, 2009

Why on earth would anyone believe that the federal government running healthcare will cure the high cost problem in the industry?  I mean what has government ever run that even works well?  Our monetary system is a mess.  The economy is in the toilet.  Our schools are subpar.  Welfare programs have not alleviated poverty.  And our prisons are bulging at the seams filled with too many non-violent drug offenders. 

But, here we are debating whether Congress and the Administration should totally control one-sixth of our economy in an effort to lower costs and provide universal healthcare coverage for America.  The proposition to me is ridiculous – if only folks would look at the federal government’s track record when it comes to programs and cost overruns.

There have been thousands of examples through the years and the following is by no means the most egregious.  In the realm of transportation, cost overruns are an automatic with federally funded projects.  Take the “mixing bowl” highway interchange project in Springfield, Virginia for instance.  It was estimated by state officials to cost $241 million.  At its completion, the project ended up costing $676 million.  Of course, the most notorious transportation cost overrun was Boston’s “Big Dig”.  Initially estimated to cost a mere $2.6 billion the project’s final cost was $14.6 billion.

Uncle Sam’s fiduciary experiences, when it comes to energy projects, are not much better.  Take the Clinch River Breeder Reactor project of the 1970s for instance.  The project experimented with nuclear fission and was estimated by the Atomic Energy Commission to cost $400 million.  Throughout the decade its cost estimates steadily increased to $4 billion.  Eventually the program was scraped, but not before taxpayers dished out $1.7 billion.

Without question, cost overruns in Social Security are legendary.  The old age pension system has required many reforms in its 74 year history because of insolvency.  When it was established in 1935, its financing required only a one percent of wages contribution from the employee and a matching one percent from the employer.  Over the years, reform has eventually raised those contribution levels to 6.2 percent respectively.  The most significant amendments to the system came in 1983 when an earnings penalty for wages above a certain level, a delay in the cost of living allowance for six months, reduced benefits for those that retire early, and a higher retirement age were enacted.  All were measures to sure up the insolvent trust fund used to pay benefits.  Today, the outlook is even bleaker for Social Security.  Faced with millions of baby boomers retiring and a much smaller workforce to finance the system, it will be almost impossible for Uncle Sam to come with an estimated $45 trillion in future unfunded liabilities.

Finally, and most germane to why the federal government should stay out of healthcare is because it already has a history of massive cost overruns in the industry.  When Medicare Part A was passed in 1965, government experts projected costs to rise to $9 billion by 1990.  Total costs actually reached $67 billion.  In 1987, Medicaid added a special hospital subsidy to its coverage which was projected to cost $100 million.  By 1992, costs stood at $11 billion per year.  Now, I understand that things happen beyond the government’s control, but these overruns are not small, indeed they are huge.

Given this dismal historical record of cost overruns, why anyone would trust politicians when they announce cost estimates for government proposals is mindboggling.  As long as our “leaders” can continue to scam the public and rely on the Federal Reserve to print money to cover their excesses, their behavior will not change.  And now they are proposing to take control of an industry which represents one-sixth of our economy and one that is literally vital to the health of you and your family.  Of course, given the size of the industry, if the politician’s succeed at taking over healthcare the cost overruns will not be in the millions or even billions of dollars.  Cost overruns will be in the trillions of dollars.