So I am watching “The Rachel Maddow
Show”. The argument is Republicans first suggest and individual
mandate. This was to allow for individual responsibility. But now are
opposed to it.
At the time it took the use of
filibusterer to stop the Clinton's and Democrat's plans. Now we are
seeing it might have been good for the other side to learn to
compromise better. Don't be quick to dismiss an idea. Especially one
you promote about sixteen years later.
This idea had specifically stated it
was to be a Tax, if health insurance was not purchased. One of the
problems of the current plan is they avoided calling it a tax. So in
oral arguments we have one day it is not called a tax, but on another
day of argument it is a tax. The 'its a tax' and 'its not a tax'
argument hurt the Government’s case.
The other issue is the question of
limits. The Government needed to be able to argue this would not give
congress limitless power. The Government needed to show it could not
require people to purchase any item in the name of commerce. They
needed to show it would not lead to tyranny.
To address per-existing condition, some
form of mandate would be necessary. To address per-existing
conditions with out using a mandate would put undo pressure on
insurance companies. So when the broccoli issue was raised the
Government needed to argue broccoli represented a form of health care
received. Vegetables would represent health care in general. Not
everyone needs to Broccoli or Carrots. But if an industry was created
to cover the cost of vegetables something who nutrients are needed by
everyone. To deny vegetables would deny their right to life, to allow
all access to vegetables but not protect the means of payment for the
vegetables, would result in a denial of vegetables to all.
The Government failed to handle this
question, it seemed to be a dismissal by people as irrelevant. A
great answer to this question could have been the key to the
Government winning this case.
Posts
