Still Don't Buy It
Unless I have to-health insurance that is. In the battle of former soliciters general I hate to say it, but the Bush one won out on the Commerce clause constraint arguments. Congress is authorized to regulate COMMERCE not CONSUMERS. They can't tell consumers what they must buy and at what price. They can regulate interstate fees, tarrifs, pricing to an extent to satisfy anti-monopolistic reasons, taxes, regulatory compliance in all the areas we do, etc. But they cannot regulate THEIR CUSTOMERS.
That I believe is the distinction with a difference.
Dellinger, Clinton's Soliciter General made the argument that health insurance is different and should be in a sui generis category all by itself because everyone at some point in their life will need it.
But will they need it before they hit medicare age?
I hope not. We already have it for everyone over a certain age don't we?
And is there a conscientious objector sort of excusal for christian scientists or really healthy vegans who prefer to treat with medical mary jane in California and the occasional Merlot?
Seriously- this does not pass the 'get the feds out of my kitchen medicine cabinet' smell test to all the Cato-ist libertarians, nor does it particularly sit well with people who try to take really good care of themselves so they don't ever have to go to the Doctor.
Look how France does it- I prefer to be sick in France.
--------------------
Still looking at how whacked that reasoning is:
think about how many things that argument could be said-- everyone needs toothpaste-so the government will mandate that you buy toothpaste (at $200. a tube every month) in the interest of regulating health and welfare. Come on! Women need sanitary items only for women- in the interest of general health and welfare -$400 a box.
There is nothing in the commerce clause allowing regulation of consumers. Sorry.
No comments:
Post a Comment