A breathtakingly pithy legal argument ...
Well, today editorial page editor of the Roanoke Times, Dan Radmacher, uses the same rationale, but without mentioning the Constitution, to support the soon-to-be trashed nationalized health care program.
The argument for the individual mandate, in one paragraphIn so many words: Constitution, monstimution. Forget what that rag prohibits the federal government from doing to us. We need forced participation, damn it, or ObamaCare will not work.
From New York Times economics columnist David Leonhart, here’s the clearest argument I’ve seen explaining the need for an individual mandate for effective health care reform:
"Without the mandate, the cost of insurance in the individual market would rise, perhaps sharply, because some healthy people would not be paying their share. Just look at Massachusetts. In 1996, it barred insurers from setting rates based on a person’s health but did not mandate that individuals sign up for insurance. Premiums then spiked. Since the state added a mandate in 2006, more people have signed up, and premiums have dropped an average of 40 percent."
I sure am glad that we own all the guns. Otherwise I'd be concerned about jokers like these.