Friday, April 28th, 2017

Richard A. Epstein – Why the Reid Bill is Unconstitutional


Impermissible Ratemaking in Health-Insurance Reform:

Why the Reid Bill is Unconstitutional

By Richard A. Epstein


This piece by Richard Epstein methodically, and carefully details the unconstitutional nature of the bill. 

Epstein’s PDF:

Richard A. Epstein is the James Parker hall Distinguished Service Professor of Law at the University of Chicago, the Peter and Kirstin Bedford Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, a visiting professor at the NYU Law School, and a visiting scholar at the Manhattan Institute.

The 25 page analysis is not light reading, but it beats the 2074 pages of the original bill.

Health Care Bill PDF:


2 Responses to “Richard A. Epstein – Why the Reid Bill is Unconstitutional”
  1. robin says:

    Just stumbled across an article on the Floppin Aces website that mentioned Fund for Personal Liberties as I searched to see if any lawsuits have been filed concerning the healthcare bill.
    I just could not bring myself to even believe for one second that this healthcare “reform” is constitutional in any way. The bribes used to get senators to vote “yes” are unbelievable. Certainly bribe taking is against the law? Even I know that. Also, isn’t it perjury to an oath to uphold and defend the constitution when a senator or congressman votes yes to this unconstitutional bill? Isn’t perjury a punishable crime? I’d like to throw the whole bunch of them in jail! I also know that the government cannot force me to do anything (even though I may have to fight them to prove it) and being forced to buy insurance or be fined or possibly jailed is just ridiculous.
    All in all, our government is just getting too big and putting it’s hand into all our liberties.
    I feel that this healthcare thing is just a ploy to set us up for socialism..
    Next they’ll try to take our guns and so on.
    I’m glad to see you are on top of things and I will watching with interest should this thing actually go through.

  2. Editor says:

    I’ve finally read this paper. My primary question relates to reference to a “constitutionally guaranteed rate of return on capital.” I have not seen that specifically in the Constitution.