If sometime this month the Supreme Court rules ObamaCare unconstitutional liberals will need a scapegoat to blame for what would be not just a defeat for the president’s signature legislative achievement but a historic turning point in the struggle against the aggregation of federal power. But according to the New York Times, the culprit won’t be congressional Republicans or the Tea Party. Instead, it will be the humble green vegetable that many Americans profess to hate: broccoli.
According to the Times’s James Stewart, the turning point in the battle to overturn the health care law was the moment a simple argument illustrating the way liberals have been using the Commerce Clause of the Constitution to expand federal power took hold of the public imagination. It is, as he writes, the “defining symbol” of the debate. As Justice Antonin Scalia pointed out from the bench during oral arguments on the issue earlier this year, if Congress can require every citizen to purchase health insurance simply because it was perceived to be in the national interest, then it could make people buy broccoli, too. Stewart traces the origins of the analogy that has been raised repeatedly by libertarians since President Clinton’s attempt to ram a national health insurance bill through Congress in the 1990s. But while liberals dismiss it as simplistic, it actually goes straight to the heart of the issue. Indeed, if ObamaCare is overturned and the Court begins a rollback of the way liberals have been abusing the Constitution for a century, it may be that broccoli will have played a key role in preserving American liberty.
As Stewart writes, libertarians pointed out during the Clinton-era debate that if the government could force people to do something or participate in commerce that they had not already engaged in (as opposed to regulating activity already commenced), then there was nothing it could not force them to do including eating certain foods or not eating them. This argument was greeted with “howls of derision” by the legal establishment, but it helped convince some jurists and politicians (including a conservative like Sen. Orrin Hatch who originally supported the idea of an individual mandate) that the drive to impose health care was about more than just insurance.
Liberals continue to argue that the talk of broccoli and a nanny state compelling us to eat our vegetables is a diversion from the important question of how to provide health care for all Americans. But the broccoli analogy has initiated exactly the sort of debate about the constitutional limits of government power that have been ignored or stifled for much of the past century.
The point is not about whether health insurance is a good idea or the value of any other potential government service or program. It is whether there is anything, no matter how great its intrinsic worth, that the Congress cannot impose on the nation under the loose authority granted to it by the Commerce Clause? Though Justice Elena Kagan conceded during her confirmation hearing that legislation that would require Americans to eat fruits and vegetables would be a “dumb law,” alluding to the egregious nature of the requirement still begs the question of whether the liberal interpretation of the Constitution would still allow it or any other similarly absurd proposal to stand as constitutional.
For too long liberals intent on telling Americans what they should do or even think have assumed that the law would always be interpreted as giving them leeway to expand federal power wherever it served their interests. They are flummoxed if not infuriated by the way this elementary point about broccoli has brought their latest enterprise to a standstill. They rightly fear that if the courts begin to look at such cases from the frame of reference of preserving individual liberty, the intellectual house of cards that has buttressed their arguments for generations will soon collapse.
If the court strikes down ObamaCare, perhaps Tea Partiers should start displaying a new broccoli flag alongside the historic Gadsden “Don’t Tread on Me” banner they like to sport. Like it or not, more than anything else, broccoli has helped remind Americans that liberty is precious and must be defended against the government.
Broccoli. Who would have thought that green vegetable could have such an impact? n nActually, the impact comes from the simplicity of the argument, as Jonathan so rightly notes. Of all the arguments about health care, it comes down not to financial burdens (although they are great and heavy with or without the legislation), it comes down not to implementation (although the technology is not yet ready for universal health care especially for electronic records), and it comes down not to one's current health insurance. Rather, it comes down to a plant. n nWhy? Broccoli makes the case in a way that anyone who thinks for even a second can see. Forget health care, forget the cost, just ask yourself: Do you want the Federal Government to tell each of us what we can and cannot eat? Do we, as free Americans, want our government to have that sort of overarching control? As Americans, we all believe in freedom. And freedom means we don't have to eat broccoli. n nThis sort of argument by simplicity is what carries the day on many issues. It is how elections are fought and won; it how our nation is now led. We all would be well served to remember that simplicity, not complexity, not long-winded debates, but a simple question with a clear answer is all we need. n nWe can still eat broccoli, but we can do that whenever we like, or not.
Great, I suppose then by your logic that you are for drug legalization! n nIf the government cannot force you to ingest something that is good for you, it only stands to reason that they cannot forcibly prevent you from ingesting something that is bad. Therefore, you believe that people have the unfettered right to consume drugs. n nIf you don't support that position, then you agree that the government has some power in regulating our personal behavior. The question then is to which degree. Forcing someone to buy health insurance that they will need in their lifetime, and forcing them to consume a slimy green vegetable every day, are two different things that we can debate and discuss. n nBut unless you are an ardent libertarian and agree that we should let people smoke crack, you must dismiss this argument as sensational and, frankly, stupid.
If the government cannot force you to ingest something that is good for you, it only stands to reason that they cannot forcibly prevent you from ingesting something that is bad. n nWell, as a practical matter that is a fact. Whether you like it or not. Commerce is like the Internet. It routes around restriction. n nDrug Prohibition is a 98 year failure. n nAnd look at how many Americans say Prohibition is not working – 67%. So there you have it. About 2/3rds of Americans are facing reality. And at this point 56% favor pot legalization. Quite a significant backing for changing at least a part of the prohibition laws. n nAnd BTW how did alcohol prohibition work out for you?
I can't help thinking that the broccoli argument misses an important point. If I choose not to eat broccoli, perhaps my health will suffer, but my choice will not affect others. If I choose not to insure myself to pay for future medical costs, I will affect what others have to pay in insurance premiums. The government is not telling me what to buy for my own good, it is telling me what to buy to reduce the cost to everyone.
If you choose not to eat broccoli and your health suffers, you could require more healthcare, raising the cost of healthcare for everyone. n nWithout a broccoli mandate, you have the choice to eat other cruciferous vegetables, or none at all. n nWith Obamacare, a young person does not have the right to buy the cheapest and most cost-effective form of insurance — catastrophic insurance is not allowed. n nBut no matter, this election will come down to arugula. Obama is loosing ground with the middle class.
"With Obamacare, a young person does not have the right to buy the cheapest and most cost-effective form of insurance — catastrophic insurance is not allowed." n nThis is an important point, which has been overlooked to a sad extent, even during the SCOTUS arguments I think. n nIn fact, it is the mandates for coverage that exist at the State level that have certainly contributed to the rise in the cost of insurance coverage. I'll give just one example that I know of (I'm sure there are many more out there): in New Jersey EVERY health insurance policy MUST cover in vitro fertilization treatments. This drives up the cost of coverage for everyone and it is a dubious proposition that this treatment is ever "needed" by anyone. n nAs to a mandate to eat broccoli, let us remember we live in an environment in which some school children are now forbidden to eat their home made lunches and must instead eat what the school authorities say they should. How this can continue for more than one week is beyond me, but it is happening. n nDoes anyone doubt that broccoli is on the menu?
for sure, it isn't even a metaphor anymore–actual diet controls are on the way a la Bloomberg. I heard some NPR expert types casually chat as to how government controls on fast foods were necessary because consumers, lulled into hypnotic appetite by advertising, really were incapable of exercising choice in the first place
but the requirement to buy health insurance is not really about having you pay your fair share of the overall health care cost, rather it is about having a large enough pool of healthy (young) people buy a product they don't need to subsidize insurance for relatively unhealthy (old) people who otherwise couldn't afford it–it's about transferring the broccoli you pay for but don't actually eat to the oldsters who get it at a discount. How to pay for health care for us seniors is a conundrum that is the hidden stumper here.
Broccoli is delicious if you don't over cook it. What is the problem with a mandate to eat broccoli as long as it is accompanied by a mandate to not over cook it? Just another case of the Supreme Court not thinking outside the box. Oh wait! That is exactly what they are paid to do; the box being the Constitution.
De gustibus est not disputandum. Whether you think broccoli is delicious or foul may depend upon your genes, some people experiencing it as unpleasant on account of theirs.
Popeye fans don't know how to take this. Shouldn't this be a mandate to eat spinach?
I don't like the healthcare plan,,didn't like it when Romney made a big ballyhoo about using the mandatory approach in Mass. Why does;t anyone apply the broccoli objection to mandatory auto insurance?I don't see any difference
because mandatory auto insurance is not designed to protect the policy holder, but those who may be victims of a negligent motorist without the means to compensate them for the damage they cause. The argument against Obamacare is that government is trying to force us to do things "for our own good" that we should have the right to choose not to do. Mandatory insurance forces us to ensure others that we are willing and able to pay for our mistakes. The only aspect of your argument that has any validity would be if you were able to "self insure" in an amount equivalent to that required by law, and were not allowed to do so. Furthermore, there is no federal mandate for auto insurance. Two states, NH and VA do not require insurance. Both, however, require some proof of minimum financial responsibility. Of course, you could make a better case arguing against the requirement for a driver being licensed as long as s/he has insurance
I didn't make an argument ,I asked a question. The substance of your response is reasonable. I did say that I object to state mandated healthcare,the federal state distinction makes sense in terms of the associated ongoing political battles,but on the ground makes little difference.
the argument is this: you not compelled to buy auto insurance per se–it is a mandatory add-on to your voluntary decision to join the automobile market by operating a vehicle–it is analogous to a requirement to use seat-belts or wear a motorcycle helmet. if, like me, you don't drive, you are never required to buy auto insurance. health insurance, according to this argument is compulsory upon everyone–or as a liberal justice inadvertently admitted, you are assumed to enter the health care market by the involuntary act of your own birth.
So what you are saying is there is a minimum price to live in this country. That price being health insurance of some sort that must be paid. The problem is you don't explain why. Health care is a luxury not a right. If you can't afford it you shouldn't get it. The fact that we made laws forcing hospitals to treat people regardless of cost doesn't make forcing everyone to buy insurance a good idea, it just is another wrong. What you are actually saying is, since we forced the doctors to treat you regardless of cost, we have to force you to pay for monthly insurance. n nIt is easy to go from that point of view to a fine for being obese. After all, it is a cost on the health care system and by being over weight you are increasing the cost. Then you could just make a laundry list of items you could charge people for. And you, are supporting this. I guess leftie doesn't mean a person who believes in freedom but a person who believes in an all powerful federal government to rule the people.
no, no, no, no, no. Apples and oranges. Inalienable rights: Life, liberty, pursuit of happiness. Social contract. Look at all the other industrialized countries. The issue with Obamacare is NOT whether the government can establish a national health insurance and "force" everyone into it buy paying for it out of taxes, it's whether the *form* that the president was forced to adopt in order to get the insurance company lobbies to back it makes it a purchase rather than a function of government. If the president had been able to get "Medicare for All" through Congress, we would not be having this debate, because the constitutionality of the program would not be questioned." nBy saying that "health care is a luxury not a right" you are saying that health is a luxury not a right, and you open the door to denial of health care to poor children, and the subsequent spreading of infectious diseases among the general population, Health care for the poor is a benefit to all who interact with the poor, so that unless you plan to live laws requiring everyone to wear masks to prevent the transmission of disease, you need to have some other kind of law. And it is NOT easy to go on to the next step, because requiring everyone to have health care INSURANCE is not the same as requiring everyone to stay healthy. The fine for obesity is early death. nFinally, you might want to ask yourself why you had to end your comment with an unnecessary insult. I bet you're a fan of Ayn Rand, too, ain't ya?
Health care is not a right. Health care may be a benefit to the poor but by that definition anything that benefited a person is a right and that is not the definition of a right. To have a right to free speach does not impose a duty on others to actually listen to what you have to say. To have the right to property does not require me to provide you with property. What a right to health care would impose is at a persons request because of their health, you provide them with goods, services and another person is commited against their will to provide service regardless of compensation. The ramifications of making something that requires the material wealth and time of others is staggering. n nI didn't end my post with an insult but an observation. You wish to obligate people with the cost and time to provide a service to another person. The person who requests the service has no obligation to the people providing that service. The only way to force that type of obligation is a power federal government which you are supporting with your arguments of benefiting the poor. You wish to grant people a "right" that does not exist; health care via a powerful federal government. If you find that insulting, evaluate your argument again.
well, if you decide that health care is a luxury and not a right, are you prepared to step over all the dead and dying that will litter you path to work in the morning? We are only one step away from infectious disease epidemics that will become pandemics unless we treat health care as a right. As I pointed out before, the Supreme Court has already ruled that "Medicare For All" health care is constitutional. It is the requirement that people purchase insurance from private providers that is at the center of the Obamacare issue. By the way, do you also favor the elimination of mandatory auto insurance? nI have re-evaluated my analysis of your final sentence. n "I guess leftie doesn't mean a person who believes in freedom but a person who believes in an all powerful federal government to rule the people" is insulting, just as much as you would find it insulting if I were to say that "I guess Quek doesn't mean a person who believes in equality but a person who believes that poor people's children should be allowed to starve and die on the streets while the rich eat caviar and drive Rolls Royces". If you don't find that insulting, then you are either too young or too sociopathic to see how close your philosophy resembles that of the French aristocracy circa 1789 or the South African white aristocracy circa 1990. n
Ah. Let me guess, if I have 20 dollars and you have ten dollars we aren't equal. Health care hasn't been a right in our country ever. Guess what, we aren't stepping over the dead. Further more we have had pandemics and we have stopped pandemics all without health care being a right. I am sorry you don't see and understand that it can be a national interest and not a right. Believing in French aristocracy or South African aristorcracy would be a product of the left, not capitalism as you attempt to imply. Having classes is a social construct of a ruling class. I see it in your Nanci Pelosi's and Harry Reid's who have made their millions as politicans and using Air Force planes as personal planes. Look at our president and vice president, two men who have never held a job outside of politics and both became millionares as politicians selling favors. That is more like the French and the South African regime. n nI believe in equality before the eyes of the courts but I don't believe equality is taking from one person who has wealth and giving to another who is not wealthy, that is just theft. n
Like your patron St. Ayn, you're just twisting words to suit your conceit, so ok. Health care is not a right. It's a national interest. And it's in the national interest to have a health care program. Having said that, I'm not going to even bother with trying to address your poorly worded poorly thought out and poorly proofread specious arguments comparing hereditary and racist regimes to the political careers of democrats with whom you disagree, while failing of course to mention the racist politicians of the American South who, when their party finally saw the light and passed antisegregation laws (with which I'm sure you disagree, since it forced all those fine KKK members to have to deal with the indignity of all those lazy Black people eating at *their* lunch counters) just conveniently took the invitation of Richard Nixon (another man who never held a job outside of politics) to move en masse to the Republican side so that they could preserve their racist agenda. It is they and their descendants, who control the Republican Party today through the seniority system. And do you think that John Boehner doesn't use government transportation when he flies?
Ah, the last vistage of someone with a poor argument. Resort to calling the other person, or implying the other person is a racist. I will remind you the KKK was the party of the southern Democrat and it took the minority republicans to vote for civil rights. The republicans voted for it by 80%. You implied I support something like the South African regime which is racist, seems you made the implication first. I responded in kind that your party, the democrat party is one who believes in privalege and aristocracy not the republican party. I see it is many of the old democrats who don't believe the tax code applies to them even when they sit on the tax commitee such as Rangel. Get sweet heart loan deals like Dodd and Frank. Register their boats in other states to avoid paying taxes like Kerry. You brought the race into the argument. And why do you think the poor need your help? Because you look down on them as not as capable as yourself. How concieted is that?
1. "visage" or "vestige". Pick one. I'd suggest 1. is more appropriate, but you probably meant 2, which is so incorrect it is absurd. n2. No self respecting progressive denies that the KKK was protected by the Democratic Party of the Southern States. My point had nothing to do with party politics, and you should have recognized it. n3. I never said that you, personally, supported racism. I said that your philosophy by extension supports racism. There is a difference, you know. For a reasonable fee, I'll be happy to explain it to you n4. And please quote me where I said that the poor are not as capable as I. nGod, you're young….
When you refer to someone supporting the South African regime what else could you mean? You mention the KKK, I responded it was an organization of the democrat party. Robert Byrd comes to mind. You imply I am a racist but you injected race into the conversation. Secondly with your numbers below, n138 divided by 172 is .802 or 80% of the house republicans, vice 248 divided by 152 or 61% of house democrats. 410 members of the house at that time, with 39% of democrats voting against civil rights. So without a majority of support of the republicans it would not have passed. So it was 80% and it makes my claim look good using your numbers. So what is your point? A lack of math skills? Or does it not fit the racist narrative you are attempting to launch but it gets no traction. n nAlso the Senate numbers were interesting as well. Although a clear majority in the senate, it would not have passed without republican support. 67 democrats in the senate, 68% (46) of them supported it. 33 republicans, 81% (27) of them supported it. Again, the 80% claim stands and it stands that without the support of the republicans it would have failed.
Look, silly kid, I never said you support the regime. I said that the principles you espouse can be used to support the kind of repression I mentioned. If you can't see the difference between the two concepts, then do us all a favor and come back after you've graduated from kindergarten. nSecondly, your math skills notwithstanding, I wasn't pointing to raw numbers. I was pointing out that while republicans were admittedly necessary to pass the laws, a greater percentage of Democrats, northern AND southern voted for the legislation than did republicans northern OR southern, and a greater percentage of Republicans Northern or southern voted against the legislation than Democrats Northern AND southern. It was not a Democrat/Republican issue. It was a North/South issue because the South had vested interest in preventing Black voter franchise no matter what party they favored. You can argue all you want about Democrats as racists, but the honest answer is that it had nothing to do with party policy. When the Republicans saw the chance to grab racists away from the Democratic Party in order to increase their national power, they did it without hesitation, despite knowing that it was a virtual certainty that within 10 years those racists would take over the leadership of the party just because they would be more likely to remain incumbent while northern seats seesawed back and forth thus changing the nature of the Democratic seniority. nGet it now? Or do I have to try to find words of one syllable to use so you can better understand it? n n I there have been a number of good books written by conservative scholars which discuss how and why Republican support for civil rights went down the toilet after the 1960's. When you're reading above grade 5 level, let me know and I'll recommend some to you. The point is that all the democratic racists fled en masse to the republican party in 1966, and they have had leadership positions in the House and Senate ever since because of their seniority. The KKK was not an organ of the Democratic Party. It was an organ of racists, who at the time belonged to the Democratic Party in the south and were scattered between the parties in the north. The reason that they were so concentrated in the south as Democrats was due to the fact that the Republican Party was the party of Lincoln and Grant. nGod, you're young.
61% of the democrats voted for it, 80% of the republicans, how is that a greater percentage of democrats. A great many books say a lot of things about the republicans. Most try and make it out that they were really racists attempting to gain power and didn't care about the issue of race. I guess Lincoln didn't care about slavery either and that is why he was in the republican party which was founded in 1854 by anti-slavery activists. This is the kind of crap we get from you old lefties and the lefties who write the books you talk about. The voting history and history of the republican party they try as hard as they can to paint them as racists as you do. Every vote for rights and fight against racism and slavery is turned into some argument about them doing it for power. You imply the republicans are racist and use examples like South Africa and want to play the race game. The fact is, the KKK supported the Democrat party as late as the 1960's. All you have is to make an implication about racism, I have facts to back up the racism of the democrats. As far as racists taking over the republican party, who? Give an example of that racism. I can give plenty or recent examples of it with the democrats. I believe the difference between socialism and slavery is only in the way they are spelled. It has nothing to do with race. You started the race argument.
1) 80 per cent of the republicans were less than 61 per cent of the democrats. n2. 100 per cent of the republicans in the southern states voted against it. as opposed to 93% of the democrcrats in the southern states. n3. 94 per cent of the democrats in the northern states voted for it, as opposed to 85 per cent of the Republicans in the northern states. n4 In the following election, 95% of the southern democrats who voted against it changed parties. n nDo you understand now? Or do I have to draw a graph for you? Or are you going to continue a specious argument in the hopes you'll wear me down? n nAs for Lincoln and slavery, that it too complex an issue for me even to begin with someone as narrow minded as you. Read any one of the biographies, and then get back to me. Given what seems to be your intellectual prowess, that should be in about 5 years. The KKK supported the Democratic party in the South. It certainly didn't support it in the North where Blacks were being elected on the Democratic ticket. I never denied that southern Democrats were racist. I simply pointed out that they all became Republicans in the 1960's. As for examples, start with Strom Thurmond, go from there to any of the Southern senators who became Republicans in the 1960's. nNow go take your nap. n n
Wow. You are digging as fast as you can. I am sorry you have such a poor math background. Only 61% of the democrats voted for it. 80% of the republicans did. I don't care how much you want to dice up them numbers, they are numbers and they can't really be argued with. "Most Democrats from the Southern states opposed the bill and led an unsuccessful 83-day filibuster, including Senators Albert Gore, Sr. (D-TN), J. William Fulbright (D-AR), and Robert Byrd (D-WV), who personally filibustered for 14 hours straight." None of which changed parties to republican. They all stayed democrats. Many voters converted to republican and the republicans became a majority in the 1990's, so they didn't become republicans as you imply but lost to the republicans eventually. I certainly won't excuse Strom Thurmond or his actions, but I see you aren't above protecting your party regardless of the facts. n n
oh, by the way, the vote for the civil rights act was divided along geographic lines. You really need to do your homework if you intend to make statements that survive a challenge for speciousness. nThe original House version: n Southern Democrats: 7–87 (7–93%) n Southern Republicans: 0–10 (0–100%) n Northern Democrats: 145–9 (94–6%) n Northern Republicans: 138–24 (85–15%) nThe Senate version: n Southern Democrats: 1–20 (5–95%) n Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0–100%) n Northern Democrats: 45–1 (98–2%) n Northern Republicans: 27–5 (84–16%) nNote that the percentage of northern republicans that voted against was greater than the percentage of northern Democrats that voted against it, and the percentage of southern democrats who voted for it was greater than that of the percentage of southern Republicans who voted for it. nDoesn't quite look as good as your 80% claim, does it? Maybe you had better take a vacation from posting for a while until you're better at research and patience. Otherwise you're likely to end up looking like more of a fool than you do already.
I would also address your comment on the obese. Obese people tend to have many health problems that are caused by being obese. They, on average, have more doctor visits and use more medical resources then people who are not obese. They spend more on health problems. Therefore, why not fine them because of the drain they will put on they system? Just like smokers and the cost of various smoking related diseases right? They may die earlier but they cost more. I don't support doing this but it is a logical step from the argument used in requiring people to carry health insurance in the first place.
A total crock. We have had "national health" in the form of Medicare and medicaid for a generation now and no one has ever tried to argue that people should be fined for lifestyle choices. So your "logical step" is again proven false. Let me remind you again, in as simple terms as possible so you can understand it, that the constitutional issue is *not* whether government can institute national health care. That has been decided, and the answer is *yes* for many reasons that if you'd like to pay me to provide you a bibliography I shall be happy to provide, and for an extra charge explain to you. The constitutional question is whether government can force people to buy a product from the private sector because the government can't get the racist greedy members of our society to agree to a national health program that would easily pass constitutional muster, since it would benefit all those lazy minorities and ruin those those health insurance companies whose administrative costs are dozens of times higher per capita than that of our present limited national health system. After all, we have to keep them afloat, their associated businesses had such a terrible time when the housing bubble they created burst. nYup, kid, you keep believing in selfishness as the means to your ends. It will at least give you something to talk to yourself about when you find that you have no friends and those people you thought were your friends because they believe as you do screwed you at the first sign that it was in their best interest to do so.
wait a second. You mean "fine them" as in "deny them coverage" for "preexisting conditions" or put them in a "higher risk pool" and charge them higher premiums because of their conditions? Horrors! Who would ever do something like that????? Oh, the private insurance companies do it now? What a shock!!!!!!
If freedom to you means not having to eat broccoli, by all means, do not eat broccoli. This has no application to a health insurance mandate, where a decision not to purchase means others will pay for care received. If you don't eat broccoli, nobody else is on the hook for your lack of it. If you decide not to carry health insurance and wind up in emergency care with insufficient funds, others pay the freight. n nBy your logic, food rationing during World War Two was unconstitutional. How can government tell you how much to eat! n n
If people don't eat broccoli, their health could suffer, requiring them to receive more healthcare. That would cause the cost of healthcare to rise for everyone. n nSo other people are on the hook. n nIf you consider the broccoli argument absurd, where exactly would you draw the line? That's the problem with the law. The attorney arguing for Obamacare in front of the Supreme Court could not answer that simple question. That's the problem with the law. What do Enumerated Powers mean if Obamacare becomes law? n nAlso consider that under Obamacare a young person does not have the right to buy the cheapest and most cost-effective form of insurance — catastrophic insurance is not allowed. n nThat's right, Obamacare prevents young people from buying the best medical insurance. In fact, it makes buying it a crime. Well, a crime may be an overstatement. The reality is they can't buy it and if they refuse to buy Obamacare, they have to pay a fine. n nBut no matter, this election will come down to arugula. Obama is loosing ground with the middle class.
as reported by a person who does not know how to spell "losing"….. "cheapest and most cost effective" does not necessarily translate into "best". And the young people who are so selfish that they cannot understand the social contract, then perhaps this country deserves to become the third world culture it will if we continue to ignore the needs of the community at large. Then those few young people with their catastrophic coverage can live with all the chronic problems they will have and watch the few with enough money to buy the better life spend a good portion of their largesse on security measures, bullet proof cars and guards….
Your superior logic convinced me. n nI'm now on your side, comrade oldleftie. I can only hope there will be a mandated spelling and typo course in our utopian future. n n n
anyone who wishes his ideas to be taken seriously, and represents an elitist viewpoint, had better be prepared to be criticized when he fails to exhibit the rigor to fulfill his mundane tasks. Before you expect anyone to accept you as the elitist you wish to portray yourself to be, you should either learn the basics of the trade, wait before you post until you acquire the maturity to understand the responsibility of the elite, or pay someone else to proofread your work before it is published, ghostwrite your autobiography, and create a better personality for you than the one you have presented here to date. I'll be happy to fill that position for an appropriate fee with the caveat that I may not be able, no matter how good I am, to improve your personality because you may not, no matter how hard you may try, be up to the task of suppressing your narcissism for a sufficiently long enough time span to get your point across without blowing it….
this problem resists solutions left and right–all of us don't need a lot of stuff when we are young that we will require as we age–and as life expectancy increases and us oldsters hang around longer and longer with our damn needs those not yet in our situation (though one day they will be) are going to get progressively restless at carrying our freight.
I have news for you. Everyone winds up with health problems, broccoli or no broccoli. When you show up for your doctor's appointment, the staff asks to see your insurance card. They don't ask what you had for dinner last night. It's up to your doctor to tell you your diet sucks, and that you should eat more vegetables. It's up to Congress to regulate interstate commerce, which includes health insurance.
Congress should have the right to compel us to purchase metaphor insurance.
HelloDare makes a good analogy but it is one that does not consider the likelihoods of occurrence. n nTrue, "not eating broccoli may cause your health to suffer, requiring you to receive more healthcare, which would cause the cost of health care to rise for everyone." n nThe mandate to buy health insurance, by providing insurance companies with a pool of money from young, healthy persons, helps insurance companies pay for persons with pre-existing conditions and people in the individual market whom they otherwise would not cover. Without it, the insurance companies would most certainly raise their premiums. The mandate is the compromise that bought insurance company support to cover the expanded pool. n nThe connection between eating broccoli and good health is a matter of playing the odds. The connection between not having the mandate and raising premiums is much more of a sure thing. If the healthcare law did not have the mandate, the insurance companies would most certainly raise their premiums or go out of business. n nThis month, the Supreme Court ruling is supposed to come out. Keep an eye on the prices of healthcare stocks. Some of them are already rising in speculative anticipation of the additional revenue from the mandate. Let's see what happens to them if the Court strikes it down.
your argument is wrong on two counts. a) emergency care is not free–you will be billed by the hospital if you have no insurance; yes, they have to treat you but they then will send you a bill–like so many other things you can choose not to pay and take the consequences but it isn't set up as a free service; 2) compulsory service is not meant to prevent those who don't have it from refusing to carry their own load of the freight, it is intended to widen the pool of the insured to transfer money from relatively healthy people who don't really need so that insurance is not exorbitant for people who are sicker and older. It isn't food rationing but involuntary confiscation of food from the well-stocked to give it to the hungry.
This has no application to a health insurance mandate, where a decision not to purchase means others will pay for care received n nBecause of government interference in the health care market. But if the healthcare of others is a concern to you nothing is stopping you from paying for it now. Why do you need government to force you to do what you consider the right thing?
" if Congress can require every citizen to purchase health insurance simply because it was perceived to be in the national interest, then it could make people buy broccoli, too." nOf course, Congress "makes" people "buy" a lot of things, only they do it by taxing people and then using the money to buy it. Selective service is also in the same league. An argument following this line of reasoning would indicate that a "single payer" system or "Medicare for all" would pass muster. But I'll be content if those of you supporting Mr. Tobin's argument simply refrain from taking lifesaving measures promoted by those with whom you otherwise disagree, for what you should be able to see as such an obvious reason I should not have to embarrass you by baldly stating it…..
taxing transactions at point of purchase is a different constitutional activity than compelling commerce and nobody here is contesting the right of Congress to tax people's income, go into the commercial stream, and distribute regulated goods. You are spot on and such opponents of ObamaCare as (very) right wing radio host and lawyer Mark Levin have stated openly that a "single payer" system of "Medicare for all" is very much Constitutional. Obama chose a means of doubtful Constitutional propriety to avoid the "socialistic" hurdle of single-payer and got burnt. n
taxing transactions at point of purchase is a different constitutional activity than compelling commerce and nobody here is contesting the right of Congress to tax people's income, go into the commercial stream, and distribute regulated goods. You are spot on and such opponents of ObamaCare as (very) right wing radio host and lawyer Mark Levin have stated openly that a "single payer" system of "Medicare for all" is very much Constitutional.
Nanny Bloomberg has just mandated that New Yorkers can't purchase certain drinks in containers above a prescribed size. This is just the negative version of government forcing people to eat brocolli.