Liberal Arguments for the individual mandate are the greatest argument against it.
Big Government statists in the press are firing back at the charge that the Obamacare individual mandate is unconstitutional. They take aim specifically at the charge that making everyone buy insurance is an abuse of the commerce clause. Here's a typical line of attack:
Of course this distinction proves essentially meaningless once you realize that not buying health insurance now means paying out of pocket later. Combined with the fact that states generally require hospitals to treat the uninsured in the case of emergency, to say that the uninsured are making a "free choice" is highly misleading. It's government regulation that makes these choices possible in the first place. (Prospect)See how this works? Government causes a problem by “requiring hospitals to treat the uninsured,” creating an opening for further regulation, leading us finally to the individual mandate.
To correctly restate the author’s last sentence...
It’s government regulation that makes these problems possible in the first place.
Back in the old days, people without money or insurance were treated, but they signed a contract with the hospital and paid the bill off in monthly installments.
As Thomas Sowell points out, the cries of “Do something!” have started more government-sponsored calamities…
The verbal gymnastics that statists employ to support the federal government forcing you to purchase insurance is amazing:
Widespread problems with access to health care and skyrocketing costs are certainly big enough to plausibly require a federal solution. . (Prospect)No, the health care “problem” does not “require” a federal solution. That is an unfounded assertion.
Generally, the problem being addressed plausibly requires a federal solution, and the proposed regulation -- even if it does not itself regulate interstate commerce -- is part of a larger regulatory scheme. (Prospect)This is absurd pedantry. The author is saying that the individual mandate, standing on its own, would be unconstitutional. But because it is “part of a larger regulatory scheme,” it’s OK. The dangling tendentia is reminiscent of Homer Simpson’s thinking:
Homer: "No! Homer Simpson never lies twice on the same form. He never has and he never will."Mr. Lemieux’s argument hinges on whether a specific government action is part of a larger “regulatory scheme.” He helpfully cites cases where such an action that was not part of a larger scheme was struck down by the supreme court as not authorized under the commerce clause, thereby drawing his ominous distinction between constitutional and unconstitutional.
Marge: "You lied dozens of times on our mortgage application."
Homer: "Yes, but they were all part of a single ball of lies."
“The fact that the mandate is an essential part of a federal regulatory scheme just underscores why the federal government has not exceeded its authority under existing law.”The Road to Statism
Obamacare’s progressive defenders concede that stand-alone laws that claw freedom from the individual are unconstitutional. However, this is a false concession. They proclaim that government does have such a right if done under the umbrella of a larger regulatory scheme.
The logical result? Create a tentacular, hydra-headed bureaucratic monster, call it a regulatory scheme, and now the federal government can do whatever it wants.
I recommend you go read the entire article. It is a frightening peek into the mind of a progressive statist.