At stake in ObamaCare is whether the High Court will ignore 225 years of constitutional understanding to ratify the federal government's claim that it can force individual Americans to buy an insurance product—to engage in commerce—so it can then regulate all of the health-care market.
From an op-ed in The Atlantic:
But if the Court were to strike down the act it would be a fundamental reversal of generations of judicial deference to federal economic legislation.
Knowing I can read from multiple sources online, wouldn't these publications be smart enough to concede that there are two sides to this argument, and neither of them are evil?
Someone is going to lose. Either it'll be sick people with pre-existing conditions that no insurance company will accept. Or it'll be younger healthier people who don't have full time jobs and don't want to put all of their saving into a comprehensive health insurance plan they won't use for another 20+ years.
The argument that young people will eventually need insurance is a good one, and I'd be 100% on board if I believed my money was being used efficiently and that there'd be some left when I needed it.
The other concern is that if I'm being forced to pay for people's healthcare, then I'm going to want to criminalize cigarettes. I'm going to want a federal mandate on exercise. If some dumbass gets hurt ski jumping or skateboarding, I don't want him covered under any insurance plan that I am legally obligated to subsidize.
If I am forced to pay for people's healthcare, it becomes my interest to keep them healthy.
No comments:
Post a Comment