Is Healthcare "Reform" Constituional?

A lot of people are asking "Is the healthcare 'reform' law Constitutional?" There are several pending lawsuits that will ultimately be resolved by the Supreme Court.

This is the wrong question. The important point is "This is a bad law." The "reform" law is pork and corporate welfare. Real reform would eliminate the State licensing cartel for doctors. Due to State licensing requirements, there's an artificial shortage of doctors. This reduces supply, drives up prices, and reduces quality.

The mainstream media debate of healthcare "reform" never mentions "The State licensing cartel for doctors is evil!" It's an unstated hidden assumption, that State licensing requirements are beneficial. Most people are so pro-State brainwashed to blame other causes, that they won't even consider the evil State licensing cartel. In typical zombie fashion, people reflexively shut down their brain when I say "The State doctor licensing cartel is evil!"

Most laws have a "severability" clause. That means "If one part is ruled Unconstitutional, then the rest of the law still applies." The healthcare "reform" law has no "severability" clause. If the "individual mandate" part is struck down, then the whole law is nullified.

Is the "individual mandate" Constitutional? Actually, it's only slightly more evil than things the Federal government already does. Via the income tax, the Federal government has unlimited taxation power. This gives them power to encourage or heavily tax anything.

Right now, Congress "forces" people to buy a house, via the mortgage tax deduction. Congress "forces" people to save for retirement, via IRA/401(k) tax deduction. Congress forces people to participate in the Social Security ponzi scam.

Under the new law, there's an income tax hike. If you own a "qualifying" health insurance plan, then you get a tax deduction. Legally, it's not much different from all the tax loopholes that already exist. It's similar to the mortgage or IRA tax deductions.

When passing the law, politicians said "This is not a tax hike." If you look at the text of the law, the "individual mandate" was implemented via a tax hike. When arguing in defense of the law, the "income tax" argument will be used.

There are lawsuits regarding "Is this law Constitutional?" These lawsuits will be resolved by the Supreme Court. 2/9 of the judges were appointed by President Obama. There's an obvious conflict of interest.

Supreme Court judges generally rule in favor of expanding Federal government power. You don't get picked to be a Supreme Court judge unless you're a thoroughly brainwashed pro-State troll. A Supreme Court judge's job is to invent clever excuses that justify expanding State power.

The dispute over a Federal government law will be decided by the Federal Supreme Court. There's an obvious conflict of interest. Supreme Court judges are chosen by the President and Congress. They're on the same team. They're members of the same criminal gang.

Via the income tax, the Federal government has virtually unlimited power. That could justify anything, including forcing people to do X via a tax credit.

There's an obvious conflict of interest. Supreme Court judges and politicians are drawn from the same group of insiders. Any dispute with the government is resolved by the government. The slaves are SOL when State thugs abuse their power. It's a monopoly.

If you suggest that a law is Unconstitutional, Congressmen will laugh at you. They know that there are no limits to what they can do. There were many parts of the original Constitution that protected individual freedom. They have been repealed.

"Is this law Constitutional?" is the wrong question. The important point is "This is a bad law." Unless the State doctor licensing cartel is eliminated, all other "reforms" are a distraction.