# The Cognitive Dissonance of North Dakota (yet another health care thread) **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 23, 2010, 1:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-cognitive-dissonance-of-north-dakota-yet-another-health-care-thread/533465 "2010-03-23T13:23:43Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Brown\_Eyed\_Girl](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/brown_eyed_girl/32/3574_2.png) [@Brown\_Eyed\_Girl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brown_Eyed_Girl)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2010, 1:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-cognitive-dissonance-of-north-dakota-yet-another-health-care-thread/533465/1 "2010-03-23T13:23:43Z")
N. Dakota is peculiar in its politics. According to [Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Dakota#Law_and_government), the Republican party has held the Governor’s office since 1992 and they traditionally vote Republican in the presidential election, including 2008. However, Democrats have held their Senate and single Congressional seats since 1982 and their federal delegation has been Democratic for the last 24 years. The Florida AG recently announced the nine states joining Florida in their lawsuit against the U.S. over the health care reform bill. North Dakota is included. Having never visited the state, came as quite the surprise to me to learn that their very own elected representative in Congress voted ‘Yes’ for the bill. Upon further investigation, it would appear that both Senators support health care reform, although to varying degrees (excluding the public option for at least one of them: Conrad, which is irrelevant to the current reform bill). Despite these contradictions, my immediate take is that North Dakota constituents have voted in favor of health care reform given their choice of congressional delegation, which given it’s history is not a fluke. Is this a fair assessment? So, how does the also-elected Republican AG resolve the clear contradiction of a state that approves legislation and then sues over the passage of that very legislation? Help me understand this. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2010, 1:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-cognitive-dissonance-of-north-dakota-yet-another-health-care-thread/533465/2 "2010-03-23T13:30:00Z")
> [@Brown\_Eyed\_Girl](#): > > So, how does the also-elected Republican AG resolve the clear contradiction of a state that approves legislation and then sues over the passage of that very legislation? > > Help me understand this. Perhaps the North Dakota AG feels that the law compels his action. Perhaps his calculation has nothing to do with what the citizens of his state voted for. And why would it? Do we expect an elected Attorney General to enforce the laws, to to enforce only those laws politically popular? Now, a better question would be, “If the North Dakota AG believes that the law compels this action… why?” Hasn’t overreaching Commerce Clause power been in place since FDR? Isn’t it about seventy years too late to start challenging this expansive reading of the Commerce Clause? ---
**Author:** ![Brown\_Eyed\_Girl](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/brown_eyed_girl/32/3574_2.png) [@Brown\_Eyed\_Girl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brown_Eyed_Girl)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2010, 1:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-cognitive-dissonance-of-north-dakota-yet-another-health-care-thread/533465/3 "2010-03-23T13:41:04Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Perhaps the North Dakota AG feels that the law compels his action. Perhaps his calculation has nothing to do with what the citizens of his state voted for. > > And why would it? Do we expect an elected Attorney General to enforce the laws, to to enforce only those laws politically popular? > > Now, a better question would be, “If the North Dakota AG believes that the law compels this action… why?” Hasn’t overreaching Commerce Clause power been in place since FDR? Isn’t it about seventy years too late to start challenging this expansive reading of the Commerce Clause? Is it safe to assume that it’s the duty of the AG, if he believes the bill is unconstitutional, to inform the representatives charged with evaluating whether the bill should become law? Would it be too much to ask the AG to provide information showing he has performed that analysis and worked with the state’s federal congressional delegation to ensure the Constitution is upheld? ---
**Author:** ![Tom\_Tildrum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e95f7d/32.png) [@Tom\_Tildrum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tom_Tildrum)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2010, 1:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-cognitive-dissonance-of-north-dakota-yet-another-health-care-thread/533465/4 "2010-03-23T13:54:29Z")
The state AG doesn’t work for the federal Congressional delegation, and the delegation has no obligation to listen to him. These are people fulfilling different roles in different systems. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2010, 2:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-cognitive-dissonance-of-north-dakota-yet-another-health-care-thread/533465/5 "2010-03-23T14:07:40Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Perhaps the North Dakota AG feels that the law compels his action. Perhaps his calculation has nothing to do with what the citizens of his state voted for. > > And why would it? Do we expect an elected Attorney General to enforce the laws, to to enforce only those laws politically popular? > > Now, a better question would be, “If the North Dakota AG believes that the law compels this action… why?” Hasn’t overreaching Commerce Clause power been in place since FDR? Isn’t it about seventy years too late to start challenging this expansive reading of the Commerce Clause? Given that all of the AGs signing on to oppose HCR are Republican and given that 40 of the 50 state AGs do not feel compelled by the law to oppose HCR it is hard to see this as anything other than political. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2010, 2:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-cognitive-dissonance-of-north-dakota-yet-another-health-care-thread/533465/6 "2010-03-23T14:07:58Z")
> [@Brown\_Eyed\_Girl](#): > > Is it safe to assume that it’s the duty of the AG, if he believes the bill is unconstitutional, to inform the representatives charged with evaluating whether the bill should become law? Would it be too much to ask the AG to provide information showing he has performed that analysis and worked with the state’s federal congressional delegation to ensure the Constitution is upheld? I imagine that he felt that duty was fulfilled when he publicly announced, prior to the bill’s passage, that he was part of the ten-state coalition vowing to file suit. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2010, 2:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-cognitive-dissonance-of-north-dakota-yet-another-health-care-thread/533465/7 "2010-03-23T14:11:32Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Given that all of the AGs signing on to oppose HCR are Republican and given that 40 of the 50 state AGs do not feel compelled by the law to oppose HCR it is hard to see this as anything other than political. Maybe, but this is why we say that correlation is not causation. It may be that those who believe the bill is unconstitutional are those who ascribe to an originalist reading of the Constitution. if that’s the case, it’s easy to see why they’d be (a) Republicans, and (b) of the belief that this measure violates Congerss’ Article I powers. In other words, it may not be, strictly speaking, political. The same interpretive viewpoint may be at the root cause of both the political party membership and the conclusion at issue here. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2010, 2:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-cognitive-dissonance-of-north-dakota-yet-another-health-care-thread/533465/8 "2010-03-23T14:14:14Z")
And for what it’s worth… I agree that in an originalist reading, this is not constitutional. But that ship has sailed. We have a bulwark of caselaw based on 70+ years of a more expansive Commerce Clause reading. If I were a Supreme Court justice in 1930, I probably would have voted to strike down FDR’s initiatives. But now, as poor a public policy as I believe them to be, the fact is we’re stuck with them. So by any reasonable approach, I believe this bill is constitutional. Poor public policy, but perfectly constitutional. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2010, 2:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-cognitive-dissonance-of-north-dakota-yet-another-health-care-thread/533465/9 "2010-03-23T14:31:26Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > So by any reasonable approach, I believe this bill is constitutional. Poor public policy, but perfectly constitutional. I think that is true for the vast majority of the bill, except for the individual mandate. There isn’t an exact parallel with this anywhere in law as far as I can tell, and while the tax power is considerable there are limits to it. ---
**Author:** ![Mr\_Smashy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/2bfe46/32.png) [@Mr\_Smashy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr_Smashy)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2010, 2:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-cognitive-dissonance-of-north-dakota-yet-another-health-care-thread/533465/10 "2010-03-23T14:33:10Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > And for what it’s worth… I agree that in an originalist reading, this is not constitutional. > > But that ship has sailed. We have a bulwark of caselaw based on 70+ years of a more expansive Commerce Clause reading. If I were a Supreme Court justice in 1930, I probably would have voted to strike down FDR’s initiatives. But now, as poor a public policy as I believe them to be, the fact is we’re stuck with them. > > So by any reasonable approach, I believe this bill is constitutional. Poor public policy, but perfectly constitutional. Do you not see any line crossed between the regulation of commerce and the requirement for mandatory engagement of commerce, constitutionally? I agree that Congress has stretched the Commerce Clause well beyond what it was supposed to do, trying to use it to regulate violence against women and other claptrap (not that I condone violence against women, you get my gist here). In 1995, US v Lopez, the Supremes overturned a Gun Free School Zone law, which relied on Commerce Clause, as a bridge too far: > [@](#): > > To uphold the Government’s contentions here, we would have to pile inference upon inference in a manner that would bid fair to convert congressional authority under the Commerce Clause to a general police power of the sort retained by the States. Admittedly, some of our prior cases have taken long steps down that road, giving great deference to congressional action. The broad language in these opinions has suggested the possibility of additional expansion, but we decline here to proceed any further. To do so would require us to conclude that the Constitution’s enumeration of powers does not presuppose something not enumerated, and that there never will be a distinction between what is truly national and what is truly local… This we are unwilling to do From my perspective, the power to regulate does NOT equal the power to mandate. Or to put another way: would it be constitutional to pass a law requiring all American citizens to buy a car from GM? If not, why not? What’s the difference, constitutionally speaking? ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2010, 2:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-cognitive-dissonance-of-north-dakota-yet-another-health-care-thread/533465/11 "2010-03-23T14:48:11Z")
> [@Brown\_Eyed\_Girl](#): > > N. Dakota is peculiar in its politics. According to [Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Dakota#Law_and_government), the Republican party has held the Governor’s office since 1992 and they traditionally vote Republican in the presidential election, including 2008. However, Democrats have held their Senate and single Congressional seats since 1982 and their federal delegation has been Democratic for the last 24 years. Peculiar is right. There is also a tradition of progressive/radical politics in the state that has some roots in farming issues. It does look as if [a Republican is likely to win a Senate seat from N.D. in 2010](http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections2/election_2010/election_2010_senate_elections/north_dakota/election_2010_north_dakota_senate). > [@](#): > > Despite these contradictions, my immediate take is that North Dakota constituents have voted in favor of health care reform given their choice of congressional delegation, which given it’s history is not a fluke. Is this a fair assessment? Questionable, since a poll cited in the above link finds only a 39% approval rating for Obama in the state. > [@](#): > > So, how does the also-elected Republican AG resolve the clear contradiction of a state that approves legislation and then sues over the passage of that very legislation? It’s reasonable to conclude that this is political maneuvering. History indicates that Republican outrage over alleged over-reaching by legislatures or courts is highly correlated with whether Democrats or liberals are involved. With politics, the “smell” test is far more applicable than “correlation does not equal causation”. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2010, 3:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-cognitive-dissonance-of-north-dakota-yet-another-health-care-thread/533465/12 "2010-03-23T15:03:25Z")
> [@Mr\_Smashy](#): > > Do you not see any line crossed between the regulation of commerce and the requirement for mandatory engagement of commerce, constitutionally? > > \ > > From my perspective, the power to regulate does NOT equal the power to mandate. Or to put another way: would it be constitutional to pass a law requiring all American citizens to buy a car from GM? If not, why not? What’s the difference, constitutionally speaking? You have brought this up elsewhere and despite numerous responses you cling to this. Imagine the government decided to raise everyone’s taxes, across the board, by $1,000 and if you buy health insurance you get a $1,000 tax credit. If you buy property today you get tax credits and I presume you are fine with that. To me you arguing this point is akin to a math teacher getting bent out of shape because their student wrote “2+1=3” rather than “1+2=3” despite there being no functional difference. And the government is not telling you to buy GM. The analogy would be more accurate to say you must buy a car of your choice. That analogy however only goes so far. A car is not the same kind of thing that health care is. You may choose you do not need a car. However, it is a near certainty you will need health care in your lifetime. No one “chooses” to obtain health care. They get it when it is needed because it is a necessity (they are sick or injured). As such it is not of the same kind of economic activity that deciding to buy a car is. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2010, 3:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-cognitive-dissonance-of-north-dakota-yet-another-health-care-thread/533465/13 "2010-03-23T15:07:51Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Imagine the government decided to raise everyone’s taxes, across the board, by $1,000 and if you buy health insurance you get a $1,000 tax credit. If you buy property today you get tax credits and I presume you are fine with that. > > To me you arguing this point is akin to a math teacher getting bent out of shape because their student wrote “2+1=3” rather than “1+2=3” despite there being no functional difference. Correct. > [@](#): > > And the government is not telling you to buy GM. The analogy would be more accurate to say you must buy a car of your choice. Correct. > [@](#): > > That analogy however only goes so far. A car is not the same kind of thing that health care is. You may choose you do not need a car. However, it is a near certainty you will need health care in your lifetime. No one “chooses” to obtain health care. They get it when it is needed because it is a necessity (they are sick or injured). As such it is not of the same kind of economic activity that deciding to buy a car is. Your previous posts answered his objection correctly and completely. But this extra bit, tossed in to help your argument along, actually does nothing to assist it. Where in the Constitution does it say that the government can only tax you to further a goal that is “necessary?” ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2010, 3:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-cognitive-dissonance-of-north-dakota-yet-another-health-care-thread/533465/14 "2010-03-23T15:09:37Z")
> [@Mr\_Smashy](#): > > From my perspective, the power to regulate does NOT equal the power to mandate. Or to put another way: would it be constitutional to pass a law requiring all American citizens to buy a car from GM? If not, why not? What’s the difference, constitutionally speaking? If it’s conceded that the taxing power can be used to tax a person who does not have healthcare, then the courts are constrained in their ability to look into Congress’ motives. _Sonzinsky v. United States_. ---
**Author:** ![Mr\_Smashy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/2bfe46/32.png) [@Mr\_Smashy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr_Smashy)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2010, 3:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-cognitive-dissonance-of-north-dakota-yet-another-health-care-thread/533465/15 "2010-03-23T15:11:13Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > You have brought this up elsewhere and despite numerous responses you cling to this. > > Imagine the government decided to raise everyone’s taxes, across the board, by $1,000 and if you buy health insurance you get a $1,000 tax credit. If you buy property today you get tax credits and I presume you are fine with that. > > To me you arguing this point is akin to a math teacher getting bent out of shape because their student wrote “2+1=3” rather than “1+2=3” despite there being no functional difference. > > And the government is not telling you to buy GM. The analogy would be more accurate to say you must buy a car of your choice. That analogy however only goes so far. A car is not the same kind of thing that health care is. You may choose you do not need a car. However, it is a near certainty you will need health care in your lifetime. No one “chooses” to obtain health care. They get it when it is needed because it is a necessity (they are sick or injured). As such it is not of the same kind of economic activity that deciding to buy a car is. Well, I refuted your linked paper yesterday in the other thread and notice you never responded, so… As for there being ‘no difference’… I disagree. If they wanted to do it constitutionally, they could have. They didn’t want to take the political hit for raising taxes like you describe, so they decided to do it unconsitutionally. Hence, it should be struck down. As for cars and healthcare being different… I agree. That’s why I said, _from a constitutional standpoint_, what’s the difference. Edit to add: let me make it [easy](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12253370&postcount=113) for you ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2010, 3:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-cognitive-dissonance-of-north-dakota-yet-another-health-care-thread/533465/16 "2010-03-23T15:16:53Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Your previous posts answered his objection correctly and completely. But this extra bit, tossed in to help your argument along, actually does nothing to assist it. Where in the Constitution does it say that the government can only tax you to further a goal that is “necessary?” The General Welfare Clause. What could be more laid at the feet of “general welfare” than that which is necessary to its citizens? ---
**Author:** ![Mr\_Smashy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/2bfe46/32.png) [@Mr\_Smashy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr_Smashy)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2010, 3:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-cognitive-dissonance-of-north-dakota-yet-another-health-care-thread/533465/17 "2010-03-23T15:18:23Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > If it’s conceded that the taxing power can be used to tax a person who does not have healthcare, then the courts are constrained in their ability to look into Congress’ motives. _Sonzinsky v. United States_. So in your mind, the power to regulate commerce = the power to compel commerce? Even the non-partisan Congressional Research Service says > [@](#): > > Despite the breadth of powers that have been exercised under the Commerce Clause, it is unclear whether the clause would provide a solid constitutional foundation for legislation containing a requirement to have health insurance. Whether such a requirement would be constitutional under the Commerce Clause is perhaps the most challenging question posed by such a proposal, as it is a novel issue whether Congress may use this clause to require an individual to purchase a good or a service. If you’re interested, it’s from _Jennifer Staman & Cynthia Brougher, Requiring Individuals to Obtain Health Insurance: A Constitutional Analysis_, Congressional Research Service Report for Congress, July 24, 2009 ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2010, 3:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-cognitive-dissonance-of-north-dakota-yet-another-health-care-thread/533465/18 "2010-03-23T15:23:23Z")
> [@Mr\_Smashy](#): > > Edit to add: let me make it [easy](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12253370&postcount=113) for you You attacked the source and not the argument made (ad hominem attack). That is fine to an extent showing that the source may have a bias but their argument remains. I think Rush Limbaugh is a hyper-partisan wank who is not to be trusted but if he said Obama is a democrat he would be correct despite my distrust of him. You then nitpicked one aspect of a document that looked at multiple aspects bearing on this issue. Perhaps that one part is not sufficient but taking it all in aggregate removing that one piece does not necessarily render the rest moot. As such I did not find your rebuttal compelling. ---
**Author:** ![Mr\_Smashy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/2bfe46/32.png) [@Mr\_Smashy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr_Smashy)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2010, 3:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-cognitive-dissonance-of-north-dakota-yet-another-health-care-thread/533465/19 "2010-03-23T15:25:40Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > The General Welfare Clause. > > What could be more laid at the feet of “general welfare” than that which is necessary to its citizens? The preamble of the Constitution does not confer any rights on the Federal government; it merely states the purpose of the Constitution. Further, there’s some pretty good research out there that shows that Welfare, in this context, was used in terms of the welfare of the various States, not individual citizens within those states. As one researcher [puts](http://www.reasontofreedom.com/general_welfare_clause.html) it: > [@](#): > > But the meaning to the nation was plain: no local interests could be provided aid from the new federal government. The welfare concerned the wholesomeness of the Union, the federal level, the matter of binding the states together for mutual benefit, the health of the arrangement of the separated powers, the federalist structure, not the well-being of groups or individuals, whether travelers, farmers, manufacturers, shop-keepers, freight-haulers or consumers, etc. The strongest reading would be that the benefit of this “general welfare” had to be a benefit for all rather than some people, without it being a direct benefit to every individual. It seems it had to be limited to “public use” in the sense of the Fifth Amendment. ---
**Author:** ![Mr\_Smashy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/2bfe46/32.png) [@Mr\_Smashy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr_Smashy)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2010, 3:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-cognitive-dissonance-of-north-dakota-yet-another-health-care-thread/533465/20 "2010-03-23T15:31:14Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > You attacked the source and not the argument made (ad hominem attack). That is fine to an extent showing that the source may have a bias but their argument remains. I think Rush Limbaugh is a hyper-partisan wank who is not to be trusted but if he said Obama is a democrat he would be correct despite my distrust of him. > > You then nitpicked one aspect of a document that looked at multiple aspects bearing on this issue. Perhaps that one part is not sufficient but taking it all in aggregate removing that one piece does not necessarily render the rest moot. > > As such I did not find your rebuttal compelling. Honestly, I appreciate the link, I really do. But if you re-read what I said, _nowhere in the paper_ does it actually provide evidence that the Commerce Clause can be used in this new-n-improved way. It talks in circles about how great universal coverage is, then says that it’s ‘settled’ that it’s constitutional. If you find some precedent or evidence that proves otherwise, please provide the page #… after all, I read through all 20+ pages of the dern thing! :smack: I didn’t mean it as ad hominem when I called their motives into question - but it’s important to know which side of the fence an analysis comes from, I’m sure you agree. You’ll notice I never post anything on these boards from Newsmax or Townhall… or HuffPo or Kos. The source info cannot be trusted. If they had provided the proof they claimed they had in their exec summ, then I’d have given them that credit. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-cognitive-dissonance-of-north-dakota-yet-another-health-care-thread/533465.md?page=2)