.
The argument about Obamacare seems to center on the "individual mandate".
I mentioned to a friend that they say it is unconstitutional for the federal government to require an individual to buy health care insurance.
My friend responded: "OK. Now tell me again what Medicare is?"
He's still waitin' for an answer.
.
Saturday, May 28, 2011
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
As I recall there was widespread discussion among Ds about how to fund health care in the new program. Had they gone the tax route (and still been able to pass the bill) I see no constitutional issue. A mandate to purchase using the interstate commerce clause is, for me:
ReplyDelete1. An objectionable scenario
2. A slippery slope scenario
3. An abandonment of the concept of limited government
4. A potentially irreversible precedent
5. Scary
The original question is an appropriate question. I am not opposed to mandatory contributions for health care (such as Medicare). So, does it really matter how we get there? Yes, and for me it is a non trivial difference!
But is it ok to require someone to buy a commodity if you just call it a tax?
ReplyDeleteCalling it (funding by mandate) a tax does make it a tax or OK. And, funding health care by a tax does not make it OK but it does make it within the rules (constitutional).
ReplyDelete