It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
President Obama's solicitor general, defending the national health care law on Wednesday, told a federal appeals court that Americans who didn't like the individual mandate could always avoid it by choosing to earn less money.
For instance, the example that's come up often is the idea of a law in which government forces individuals to eat broccoli.
During the Sixth Circuit argument, Kaytal said that such an example doesn't apply, because if you show up at a grocery store, nobody has to give you broccoli, whereas that is the case with health care and hospital emergency rooms.
Yet that argument assumes that Congress passes such a law as a regulation of the food market. What if the law was made as part of a regulation of the health care market? It isn't difficult to see where that argument can go.
The broccoli example is really a proxy for a broader argument about whether the government can compel individuals to engage in healthy behavior – it could just as well be eating salad, or exercising. There's no doubt that a huge driver of our nation's health care costs are illnesses linked to bad behavior. People who are overweight and out of shape cost more because they have increased risk of heart disease, diabetes, and so on. Those increased costs get passed on to all of us, because government pays for nearly half of the nation's health care expenses, a number that's set to grow under the new health care law. Is it really unrealistic to believe that future Congresses, looking for ways to control health care costs, could compel healthy behavior in some way? More pertinently, is there any reason why that would be unconstiutional under the precedent that would be set if the individual mandate is upheld?
Originally posted by beezzer
I think the whole idea of a government even mentioning what kind of money we should make in order to defend a policy is disgusting.
Yes, of course. These socialists are just out of their friggin gourds. I don't know how else to say it. They think they have the right to tell us how much money to make or not make. They want everyone poverty stricken. It should be very clear. Socialism means everybody is equally poor and miserable.
Originally posted by beezzer
I think the whole idea of a government even mentioning what kind of money we should make in order to defend a policy is disgusting.
Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus... we must pay for other peoples stuff or be poor.