Yesterday I heard WRJN's Don Rosen argue that there is no difference between the government mandate that we buy clothes and the Obamacare mandate that we buy insurance.
Rosen could easily prove his point by walking around naked on Monument Square. When the police arrive to arrest/institutionalize him, he could pull out, from where I don't know, a receipt from Boston Store proving that he has purchased clothing.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Rosen is.... never mind, everyone knows.
I think that this is just as fair as everyone in Wisconsin being required to have a minimum auto insurance policy. Yes; I know this was a democratic bill but no more popular in my opinion. So why aren't the republicans reversing this legislation to save our citizens money and defending the constitutionality of requiring mandated insurance?
Thanks for your visit and comments Penny. There are huge differences between our state mandate for auto insurance and a federal mandate for health insurance. Most importantly is that the constitution has not granted any such power to the federal government. The constitution outlines specific and limited powers to the federal government and leaves the rest to the states or to the people. So states can mandate the purchase of health insurance but the federal government cannot. I am beginning to suspect that some who make this argument are willfully ignoring the difference between federal and state powers.
Oops, that last comment was mine, not that of my son Zane.
One can also choose not to drive or own an automobile and therefore not be required to buy insurance. So auto insurance mandates are only mandates if you choose to paticipate in a certain activity. There is no way to opt out of the health insurance mandate, unless you have clout at the White House.
Anon, you are correct of course. However, when arguing this point, I decided that it was best to focus exclusively on the constitutional aspect and leave it at that. The federal government has limited and defined powers while the rest is left to the states or the people. I have been down this road before with the point you made and the response is that while we may choose to drive a car or not, we have no such choice whether we want to be in the health care market. For example, if you are found unresponsive lying on a sidewalk, you will be brought to the emergency room and therefore be a participant in the health care market. It is a fair point though it ignores the distinction between health insurance and health care. In any case it mucks up the argument sufficiently that liberals think they have made a good point. With the constitution only argument, liberals have fewer options for obfuscation, IMHO.
So Penny, have Denis and Anon changed your mind on this one? Just curious.
Yes, Zane...Ahhh Denis you are correct and well reasoned. I just wanted to point out that there are other ways this the mandate is wrong as well.
Post a Comment