Video: Time for another bizarre Democratic constitutional theory of ObamaCare

posted at 5:36 pm on January 19, 2011 by Allahpundit

Yet another embarrassing detour into constitutional theory, progressive-style, via CNS. Serious question: Isn’t it high time for Pelosi to call a caucus meeting so that they can hammer out their talking points on this subject once and for all? The left frets endlessly about its poor “messaging” on ObamaCare, yet I can’t help feeling that not being able to answer a painfully basic question about its constitutionality — again and again and again — might, perhaps, be contributing to negative public perceptions. The obvious answer when this issue is raised is, of course, “the Commerce Clause.” The Commerce Clause, according to the left and generations of Supreme Court precedent, entitles Congress to do virtually anything it wants in regulating the economy. If you can dream it, the Commerce Clause can do it! That’s what a government of “limited powers” is all about, right? And yet, behold the parade of dispiritingly horrible answers offered by top Democrats when confronted about it. Phil Hare and Pelosi herself shrugged off the issue of constitutionality as being almost beneath them; Daniel Akaka flatly admitted he didn’t know of any constitutional basis; Sheila Jackson Lee chimed in yesterday with an incoherent due process defense; and now here’s John Lewis not only bringing equal protection into it but citing the “pursuit of happiness” clause in the Constitution’s preamble. Which, er, doesn’t exist: As CNS notes, that’s a phrase from the Declaration of Independence. What Lewis means, I assume, is the “general welfare” clause of the preamble, which is a lame argument insofar as the preamble doesn’t have the force of law but at least has the virtue of citing a provision that’s actually in the Constitution.

I don’t know what he means by claiming that this is an equal protection issue, unless he’s saying that it’s somehow unconstitutional for private insurers to deny coverage to people with preexisting conditions. Not only does that theory lack a state-action component needed to bring the Constitution into it, but I assume it would be found constitutional under the Equal Protection Clause even if state action were present. Remember, not all forms of discrimination are unconstitutional: It’s perfectly okay to tax the rich more than the poor, for instance. Typically, as long as the state has a good reason for discriminating, i.e. as long as you’re not discriminating based on someone’s essential identity (race, religion, gender), it’s legal. Insurers do, of course, have a good reason to deny coverage to people with preexisting conditions — having to cover them would be prohibitively expensive — but if Lewis is so confident that that argument wouldn’t stand up in court, why on earth did we need to pass a health-care bill last year? Why wasn’t there some big progressive push instead for a class action equal-protection lawsuit by millions of uncovered people with preexisting conditions?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

1776-2006: The Right to pursuit happiness.

2006-____: The Right to happiness.

Liberals: Make me happy, or I’ll see you in court.

portlandon on January 19, 2011 at 5:40 PM

Mr Lewis, what’s a federal jurge?

itsnotaboutme on January 19, 2011 at 5:40 PM

If Lewis is going to cite “pursuit of happiness”, then he should concede repeal on grounds that ObamaCare violates our Right to Life (abortion, IPAB). If the Declaration is coming in, it all comes in.

Jorge Bonilla on January 19, 2011 at 5:41 PM

Why not create a nationwide pool for the “pre-existing condition” folks and allow them to buy into a shared pool before they get sick? You know, like insurance.
 
Why did you have to change mine? (Statement, not a question. I already know the answer. It rhymes with “control”.)

rogerb on January 19, 2011 at 5:43 PM

Lewis “…one federal jurge”.

WTF is that? Judge and juror all rolled into one?

txsurveyor on January 19, 2011 at 5:44 PM

Dumb da dumb dumb dumb!!!

darwin-t on January 19, 2011 at 5:44 PM

They can say anything they want…and their followers will just nod in agreement.
Why even ask these questions, he could have answered any number of ways, and the people voting him in won’t care what he says…as long as he votes the way they want him to vote.

right2bright on January 19, 2011 at 5:45 PM

What Lewis means, I assume, is the “general welfare” clause of the preamble,

“General Welfare” is also found in Article I Section 8…unfortunately. Confedrate Constitution got rid of that mistake…added a bigger one though.

WashJeff on January 19, 2011 at 5:45 PM

I’m sure Lewis can find it in the Constitution. It’s right next to the clause about abortion rights.

50sGuy on January 19, 2011 at 5:45 PM

Lewis “…one federal jurge”.

WTF is that? Judge and juror all rolled into one?

txsurveyor on January 19, 2011 at 5:44 PM

It’s the latest thing in American jurisprudence. Oh and seeing Stretch at the back table was sweet!

darwin-t on January 19, 2011 at 5:46 PM

Equal protection? Really?

If you are going to expand equal protection to include health care, you might as well go all in and say that everyone who works should get the same salary.

rockmom on January 19, 2011 at 5:46 PM

1776-2006: The Right to pursuit happiness.

2006-____: The Right to happiness.

Liberals: Make me happy, or I’ll see you in court.

portlandon on January 19, 2011 at 5:40 PM

Absolutely this^^

JetBoy on January 19, 2011 at 5:50 PM

now here’s John Lewis not only bringing equal protection into it but citing the “pursuit of happiness”

Oh, NOW I understand.

Modern liberals aren’t happy unless they’re screwing over Americans. Makes sense, and puts a lot of things in perspective.

malclave on January 19, 2011 at 5:50 PM

What’s frightening, is that this halfwit of a congressman helps draft laws that affect us all. How does anyone like this idiot even get elected? What a disgrace…

av8tr on January 19, 2011 at 5:51 PM

Stunning!!!! and in broken English.

rjoco1 on January 19, 2011 at 5:51 PM

Oh my goodness. It is a right, not a privelge.
I love that one.

ORconservative on January 19, 2011 at 5:52 PM

Good thing he paid attention when the Constitution was being read in the House.

red winger on January 19, 2011 at 5:53 PM

The obvious answer when this issue is raised is, of course, “the Commerce Clause.”

where’s crr6? c’mon law student? where you at?

ted c on January 19, 2011 at 5:54 PM

If Lewis is going to cite “pursuit of happiness”, then he should concede repeal on grounds that ObamaCare violates our Right to Life (abortion, IPAB). If the Declaration is coming in, it all comes in.

Jorge Bonilla on January 19, 2011 at 5:41 PM

Don’t need to use the declaration to bring in the right to life. Ever read the 5th and 14th amendments in full?

clement on January 19, 2011 at 5:55 PM

people elect brainstems like this guy?….

ted c on January 19, 2011 at 5:55 PM

If I’m forced to pay higher, and higher premiums, and taxes to pay for those unwilling to work, and help pay their share….isn’t that in violation of those who pay taxes pursuits of happiness?

capejasmine on January 19, 2011 at 5:56 PM

here’s John Lewis not only bringing equal protection into it but citing the “pursuit of happiness” clause in the Constitution’s preamble. Which, er, doesn’t exist: As CNS notes, that’s a phrase from the Declaration of Independence. What Lewis means, I assume, is the “general welfare” clause of the preamble, which is a lame argument insofar as the preamble doesn’t have the force of law but at least has the virtue of citing a provision that’s actually in the Constitution.

Oh why must Palin continue to embarrass Republicans with everything she says!!1!!!1

I know, I know. It’s just funny how the dynamic of overamping GOP misstatements and totally ignoring any DNC misstatements creates an interesting world, ostensibly one in which hate-filled smug leftists can try to believe that their side is oh so smart.

joeindc44 on January 19, 2011 at 5:56 PM

citing the “pursuit of happiness” clause in the Constitution’s preamble. Which, er, doesn’t exist: As CNS notes, that’s a phrase from the Declaration of Independence. What Lewis means, I assume, is the “general welfare” clause

No, he was thinking of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness…. because he’s an idiot. Why give this twit the benefit of the doubt.

Vince on January 19, 2011 at 5:57 PM

From Jon Stewart to Democrats everywhere.

Constitution? We don’t need no stinking Constitution!

What greater reason could there be for everyone to read our highest law.

Speakup on January 19, 2011 at 5:58 PM

Auto insurance is required if you drive. ObamaCare makes health insurance mandatory no matter what you do.
Auto insurance is required only to cover liabilities for hurting others or damaging their property. ObamaCare is required to cover your personal health maintenance.
Does Lewis want auto insurance to cover oil changes & new tires? That’s what ObamaCare is like.

itsnotaboutme on January 19, 2011 at 6:00 PM

Suddenly, the frontrunning Democrats are (incorrectly) citing the constitution as they try to shoe horn an agenda into it that is antithetical to the document itself. Pathetic.

RadClown on January 19, 2011 at 6:01 PM

Serious question: Isn’t it high time for Pelosi to call a caucus meeting so that they can hammer out their talking points on this subject once and for all

I think these ARE the talking points.

“You need to purchase insurance because we tell you too and it’s for your own good.” doesn’t cut the mustard, especially when the majority of the populace object to the outright theft of our liberties to enact this.

You cannot make a cohesive message built around what they’ve done that defends their actions or this bill.

So, you do a shotgun style (forgive me for invoking such violent rhetoric) message campaign where you appeal to the emotionalism of why you’re doing it. (The poor neeeeed health care, insurance companies are eeevvviilll, repealing this takes away riiights weeee gave you).

One, there’s no culpability, when the DNC leaders are confronted with the the rhetoric they can just wave their hands and say the guy was ranting but what he says is true.

Meanwhile the messaging seeps into the public’s mind like a whisper campaign. (especially the leftists).

The whole thing is backhanded and devious and frightens me that this is what’s considered good government leadership these days. The whole point of debating a bill into a law process was to a> Write the idea down onto paper, b> debate the idea and amend it to make it better or clean up the language and then c> take a final vote. Now we don’t even debate on the language of the bills themselves but what they may or may not mean and then bypass the entire process and make law by fiat.

And what freaks me out the most is the (so-called) liberals are applauding the act because the people need to be told what’s best for them while claiming they support freedom and rational discourse. When this is anything BUT!

Where is my country from just 20 years ago?!

Skywise on January 19, 2011 at 6:02 PM

isn’t that in violation of those who pay taxes pursuits of happiness?

capejasmine on January 19, 2011 at 5:56 PM

Conservatives aren’t entitled to any rights.

malclave on January 19, 2011 at 6:03 PM

Lewis is part of the new TIPOVER GUAM Caucus in the U.S. House.

PappyD61 on January 19, 2011 at 6:06 PM

BTW, repeal of this job and people killing bill has PASSED.

yippie ki yay mother f*ckers.
/bruce willis

ted c on January 19, 2011 at 6:06 PM

Thank-you Congressman Lewis for showing us exactly what the left “thinks” justifies the governmental control of health insurance. The United States of America can afford your inanity no longer. Please retire.

ROCnPhilly on January 19, 2011 at 6:08 PM

Would someone, ANYONE, please, please, PLEASE, explain the concept of “insurance” to these idiots? The more they spew their verbal sewage, the more they display that they do not a have a clue in the world what “insurance” actually is.

And while you’re at it, please read the Constitution to these morons also.

oldleprechaun on January 19, 2011 at 6:10 PM

Well, in his defense, I’m sure one of the talking points is to never use the word “welfare” in connection with Obamacare.

phelps on January 19, 2011 at 6:11 PM

When law and fact are on your side, quote them. When they are not on your side…..try to baffle them with bullshit.

GarandFan on January 19, 2011 at 6:13 PM

Guy looks like a Tea Partier spit on him and called him an ethic slur as he walked along on Congressional business. I know it’s true because I heard it on Hardball. Is that why he’s angry?

a capella on January 19, 2011 at 6:20 PM

but at least has the virtue of citing a provision that’s actually in the Constitution.

No, the preamble is text in the Constitution. The provisions are the various Articles and Amendments.

We conservatives differ from liberals on the interpretation of the phrase “the general welfare”. Our interpretation comes closest to the expression of limited government made in Thomas Jefferson’s First Inaugural Address. Their interpretation comes closest to those thoughts expressed in Wickard v. Filburn — that the Government can force a private person to buy things in interstate commerce.

Both positions are obviously Constitutional. The question is where each interpretation leaves the rights of the people.

unclesmrgol on January 19, 2011 at 6:20 PM

Video: Time for another bizarre Democratic constitutional theory of ObamaCare

Well, that was facepalm-worthy.

crr6 on January 19, 2011 at 6:20 PM

He got rocks in his mouth? What’s a federal jerdge?

darwin on January 19, 2011 at 6:26 PM

Admire John Lewis and everything he did for our country, but it is time to go.

Ted Torgerson on January 19, 2011 at 6:29 PM

Pursuit of happiness?

I think Lewis might want to concentrate on the pursuit of a clue.

nico on January 19, 2011 at 6:29 PM

but if Lewis is so confident that that argument wouldn’t stand up in court, why on earth did we need to pass a health-care bill last year? Why wasn’t there some big progressive push instead for a class action equal-protection lawsuit by millions of uncovered people with preexisting conditions?

His argument wouldn’t stand up in court, but I think the obvious answer to your question is that passing a bill prohibiting insurers from discriminating against those with preexisting conditions would end the “discrimination” more speedily than a lengthy court challenge.

crr6 on January 19, 2011 at 6:30 PM

Well, this show has indeed reached a new low. But for the sake of those on the left who do base all their “Constitutional” arguments on the preamble, have they ever bothered to read what comes after the preamble?

Blacklake on January 19, 2011 at 6:32 PM

So how do these waivers they’re handing out square with Your Federally Required Constitutional Rights???

BigWyo on January 19, 2011 at 6:33 PM

You know, reading our Constitution was not satisfactory. I am sure the left needed an interpreter. Might think about that next time.

mobydutch on January 19, 2011 at 6:37 PM

And another thing. I’ve totally underestimated all of Congress…They are all sacrificing Their Federally Required Constitutional Rights.

What unselfish leadership and commitment!!!!

BigWyo on January 19, 2011 at 6:39 PM

Embarrassing…

d1carter on January 19, 2011 at 6:39 PM

I want to be happy….. will something like our government, please, make me happy… It is my right.

mobydutch on January 19, 2011 at 6:39 PM

BTW, the House just repealed ObamaCare…three Dems crossed over.

d1carter on January 19, 2011 at 6:40 PM

Saith Allahpundit: I don’t know what he means by claiming that this is an equal protection issue

Permit me to explain.

This is part of the Dems’ vaunted “messaging” strategy.

The idea is to portray ObamaCare as a civil right and the Dems trying to save it as the new “Freedom Riders.”

Indeed, please note just who it is that are the primary “voices” behind this constitutionalism narrative –black legislators, one in particular with ties to the bloody civil rights marches in Selma, etc.

FlameWarrior on January 19, 2011 at 6:47 PM

It’s sad when a foreigner such as myself understands the meaning of the Constitution’s wording better than a citizen.

OldEnglish on January 19, 2011 at 6:48 PM

The ignorance of these so-called leaders is amazing. But fun to watch.

n0doz on January 19, 2011 at 6:48 PM

. Insurers do, of course, have a good reason to deny coverage to people with preexisting conditions — having to cover them would be prohibitively expensive — but if Lewis is so confident that that argument wouldn’t stand up in court, why on earth did we need to pass a health-care bill last year? Why wasn’t there some big progressive push instead for a class action equal-protection lawsuit by millions of uncovered people with preexisting conditions?

Done.

ladyingray on January 19, 2011 at 6:49 PM

Loony Lewis, if I don’t own a car, do I still have to have care insurance?

That argument and you interpretation of the Constitution is flat Wrong.

Kini on January 19, 2011 at 6:51 PM

Required to buy insurance? This reeks of a poll tax to me.

Mojave Mark on January 19, 2011 at 6:52 PM

Jorge Bonilla on January 19, 2011 at 5:41 PM

Alright! Gratuitous introduction of abortion, abortion, abortion, abortion, abortion, abortion, abortion, abortion, abortion, abortion, abortion, abortion in just the 3rd post this thread. Congrats to this tool.

MJBrutus on January 19, 2011 at 6:52 PM

“You talk about the pursuit of happiness.”

Isn’t this really about the “pursuit of another government check”?????

RADIOONE on January 19, 2011 at 6:57 PM

I liked him when he played General Akbar in Return of the Jedi.

princetrumpet on January 19, 2011 at 6:57 PM

I am still trying to figure out exactly how certified bozos like Sheila Jackson Lee and John Lewis managed to bamboozle and B.S. their way into Congress to begin with, and why the voters keep insisting on sending them back each time they are up for re-election.

When it comes to their general knowledge of U.S. History, it is a wonder these two fools even know how to spell U.-S. H-I-S-T-O-R-Y to begin with!

pilamaye on January 19, 2011 at 7:06 PM

The left frets endlessly about its poor “messaging” on ObamaCare, yet I can’t help feeling that not being able to answer a painfully basic question about its constitutionality — again and again and again — might, perhaps, be contributing to negative public perceptions.

…it’s all rather simple, and so it’s easy to see how those “deep thinkers” on the Left keep missing it:

A) The U.S. Constitution was written to both unite disparate local sovereignties who saw themselves as legitimate sovereign states…which is why we call ‘em states and not counties, provinces or gaus.

B) The U.S. Constitution was equally intended to limit the power of the collective government thus created. As the former colonies had broken off from the mother country because of the mother country’s tendency to play the “because I said so” card, the second part should be obvious to anyone who’s actually read the document. Create enough government and no more.

C) The Left sees itself not empowered and not guided by the Constitution. It sees itself stiffled by the Constition.

D) “C” above is directly related to “B” above. The Founders knew humnan nature.

…as to the all-encompassing “Commerce Clause”, notice that it deals with the simple act of selling widgets across state lines…NOT ensuring a levelling of all facets of life across the board, turning citizens into subjects.

…so…no wonder the Left is befuddled.

…and, by the way…once again it must be pointed out the the Constitution starts out with “provide for the common defence” and “promote the general Welfare”. The Left, once again, tries to defend switching the nouns in those two clauses.

Puritan1648 on January 19, 2011 at 7:07 PM

With Dems harping on all these Constitutional theories about ObamaCare, any fool can see what frightens them most: ObamaCare is unConstitutional.

petefrt on January 19, 2011 at 7:09 PM

Driving an auto/truck / cycle is a right — not a privilege — got more tickets than the Jets — “”just Kiddin “”

wheels on January 19, 2011 at 7:11 PM

Auto insurance is required if you drive. ObamaCare makes health insurance mandatory no matter what you do.
Auto insurance is required only to cover liabilities for hurting others or damaging their property. ObamaCare is required to cover your personal health maintenance.
Does Lewis want auto insurance to cover oil changes & new tires? That’s what ObamaCare is like.

itsnotaboutme on January 19, 2011 at 6:00 PM

+1000!!!!

This cannot be said enough! It shows how ignorant the people are who make that argument!

Repost this in every thread about Obamacare! We have to edumacate these IDIOTS one at a time!

csdeven on January 19, 2011 at 7:14 PM

And just how stupid is the reporter? Why did he not challenge that idiot on the two obvious points? (driving is a privilege and the pursuit of happiness) Did he himself not know? If not, this is the reason our elected officials get away with the lying or being idiots or both.

csdeven on January 19, 2011 at 7:20 PM

Rs will never win this argument unless, at every turn, they say that when you give something to someone you are taking something away from someone else.

the general welfare means the general welfare. not the welfare of designated people, or designated states.

the press of course is way too stupid to understand this…it is all a progressive game to them. if it doesn’t fit into a three word sound bite they don’t care. Free Health Care fits nicely.

but sadly the left understands the game well. Three word sound bites plus back room deals plus corruption and you have Obamacare.

r keller on January 19, 2011 at 7:22 PM

Funny how liberals find preambles relevant when they want to. The preamble of the California constitution says that we have a right of self-defense, but our courts have told us that it’s a meaningless phrase in a non-functional part of the constitution, so STFU.

Socratease on January 19, 2011 at 7:24 PM

Auto insurance is required if you drive.

No, it’s not. It’s required if you drive on public roads, which make sense since taxpayers own them and can set conditions through their representative for their use. You can drive all you want without insurance on your own piece of pavement.

Socratease on January 19, 2011 at 7:26 PM

Gee, I wonder if the drafters of the constitution had something in mind when they said provide for the common defense but just promote the general welfare. Provide means get’er done. Promote means create the conditions to make it possible, but no guarantees.

tommylotto on January 19, 2011 at 7:32 PM

I actually think the two (the individual mandate and auto-insurance mandates) are fairly analogous for purposes of making a policy argument. Both require all parties who will likely enter a certain market at one point to purchase insurance, in an effort to prevent those people from externalizing their costs to society once they get in an accident/get sick. Granted, The two are not analogous for purposes of making a legal argument, since the constraints on federal power are very different from those placed on state power.

Auto insurance is required if you drive. ObamaCare makes health insurance mandatory no matter what you do.

Why is that a meaningful distinction, from a policy standpoint? The former relates to a machine which not everyone has, the latter relates to a body, something that everyone has. If everyone had a car, the auto insurance would apply to everyone as well.

Auto insurance is required only to cover liabilities for hurting others or damaging their property. ObamaCare is required to cover your personal health maintenance.

Again, why is that a meaningful distinction? You might as well say “well they’re different because auto insurance is spelled differently from the individual mandate.”

crr6 on January 19, 2011 at 7:33 PM

Again, why is that a meaningful distinction? You might as well say “well they’re different because auto insurance is spelled differently from the individual mandate.”

crr6 on January 19, 2011 at 7:33 PM

Wow are you a simpleton.

Pssst one is for your liability to others and the other is not. Sheesh college girl you sure are dim and now you are really stretching.

The former relates to a machine which not everyone has, the latter relates to a body, something that everyone has. If everyone had a car, the auto insurance would apply to everyone as well.

Once again dipshite the reason for the required insurance(actually I believe in most cases it is called financial responsibility) is FOR the damage you do to others. Even if everyone had a car the present financial responsibility laws in most state would not touch YOUR own car. GET IT? Sheesh you are thick and annoying.

CWforFreedom on January 19, 2011 at 8:14 PM

generations of Supreme Court precedent

Therein lies the culprit to all of our woes.

You can drive all you want without insurance on your own piece of pavement.

Socratease on January 19, 2011 at 7:26 PM

We own several vehicles that are not licensed, nor insured.
Bcs we drive them on our own property, all over the ranch.
You be surprised what a wonderful pasture cruiser a 90′s Caddy makes.

Badger40 on January 19, 2011 at 8:31 PM

What does john lewis know about car insurance? He’s too stupid to pass a drivers license exam. The people of georgia should be ashamed of themselves for inflicting that idiot on the rest of the Union.

peacenprosperity on January 19, 2011 at 8:41 PM

Thank you Lyndon Baines Johnson!

Inanemergencydial on January 19, 2011 at 8:46 PM

What does john lewis know about car insurance? He’s too stupid to pass a drivers license exam. The people of georgia should be ashamed of themselves for inflicting that idiot on the rest of the Union.

peacenprosperity on January 19, 2011 at 8:41 PM

Is he the Guam idiot? Who thought the island was going to tip over?

Badger40 on January 19, 2011 at 8:47 PM

This guy and Jackson-Lee are ostensibly smarter than their constituents. Think about that come re-districting time.

jamie gumm on January 19, 2011 at 8:59 PM

What does john lewis know about car insurance? He’s too stupid to pass a drivers license exam. The people of georgia should be ashamed of themselves for inflicting that idiot on the rest of the Union.

peacenprosperity on January 19, 2011 at 8:41 PM

Is he the Guam idiot? Who thought the island was going to tip over?

Badger40 on January 19, 2011 at 8:47 PM

No, (sigh) that’s another Georgia idiot that our state has inflicted on the nation, named Hank Johnson.

slickwillie2001 on January 19, 2011 at 9:01 PM

I have lived in Lewis’ congressional district for decades. If someone would lend him 50 IQ points he still would not break acieve a triple digit score. This guy is a worthless village idiot, he isn’t even funny.

David in ATL on January 19, 2011 at 9:47 PM

I have lived in Lewis’ congressional district for decades. If someone would lend him 50 IQ points he still would not break acieve a triple digit score. This guy is a worthless village idiot, he isn’t even funny.

David in ATL on January 19, 2011 at 9:47 PM

^^^^^ That guy is a retard.

David in ATL on January 19, 2011 at 11:21 PM

In order to continue with my personal pursuit of happy, I want a flat screen tv, a maid and a rainbow colored pony. Make it law. Thank you. After all it is in the constitution, ask any Jurrrrrrge.

nwpammy on January 20, 2011 at 9:00 AM

I hope they don’t start thinking we need a Cadillac to be happy. I can’t afford to buy one.

Herb on January 20, 2011 at 9:06 AM

crr6,

Your question seems to answer itself regarding the distinction. From your quote (emphasis mine):

I actually think the two (the individual mandate and auto-insurance mandates) are fairly analogous for purposes of making a policy argument. Both require all parties who will likely enter a certain market at one point to purchase insurance, in an effort to prevent those people from externalizing their costs to society once they get in an accident/get sick. Granted, The two are not analogous for purposes of making a legal argument, since the constraints on federal power are very different from those placed on state power.

The distinction is that the market of driving ones own car is a purely optional market for a party to enter into…there are numerous alternatives and no one is intrinsically bound to participate in that activity. The “market” of life does not have those alternatives and is not optional (well, one could commit suicide, but at that point he ceases to be a party on concern, so it’s moot).

You’re framing the argument incorrectly: you’re trying to reduce the situation into an analogy that presumes no viable distinction, and then challenging people find the distinction within the analogy you’ve crafted (i.e. assuming it’s analagous to this, show how it’s not analagous to this) I feel like a broken record, but that seems like it’s begging the question: introducing the analagousness of the individual mandate to auto insurance is simply reframing the point of contention…that can’t, then, be used as the basis to settle the point of contention.

The distinction of necessary ubiquity precludes the legitimacy of an analogy that ignores necessary ubiquity. Trying to equate an optional market activity with a necessary one seems to be the root of disagreement.

It’s like saying: well, we tax gasoline; why shouldn’t we tax the air we breathe?

BlueCollarAstronaut on January 20, 2011 at 10:05 AM

To me, the bottom line is that the government does a inefficient job of delivering services the private sector can deliver because there are zero incentives to do better when there is no competition.

saiga on January 20, 2011 at 11:49 AM

The hell is a “jurdge”?

Note to dopey congressman, if I don’t want to purchase auto insurance I can simply choose not to drive an auto. If I don’t want to purchase Obama-care I need to choose not to live.

Alden Pyle on January 20, 2011 at 12:15 PM

Why ask ignorant representatives like Shiela Jackson Lee and this gentleman? Pin it on the ones with actual clout in congress and that have the ability to reason.

scotash on January 20, 2011 at 12:17 PM

If there’s one thing statist liberals get in the way of it’s the pursuit of happiness.

Merovign on January 20, 2011 at 8:07 PM