Saturday, June 23, 2012
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.