Obamacare is under constitutional scrutiny. The individual mandate is the problem. The left believes that the individual mandate will stand up under the scrutiny because the constitution says taxes may be collected for the "general welfare" of the people. The left also has been attempting to claim car insurance is mandatory so they don't see the problem with health insurance. Additionally, the left is selling that health insurance is necessary to have health care. The left is delusional in their logic.
Here is the problem with the "general welfare" argument. If Congress can force people to purchase a private good or service in the name of the "general welfare", then what will ever stop the federal government from mandating citizens purchase only General Motors or Chrysler cars? The Government utilized tax payer dollars to purchase a significant share of General Motors and significantly altered the business plan of both GM and Chrysler during forced government mandated bankruptcy proceeding. So we the citizen own a stake in GM, in order for us to have a return on our investment GM must be profitable. It would be good for the "general welfare" of the investor to turn a profit. So again I ask what is stopping the left from forcing us through a law to purchase GM products only? The answer is nothing if the Supreme Court upholds the health insurance mandate. The government would no longer operate by the will of the people, we the people would become subservient to the government. Rather than a representative democracy we would become a socialist State. The government could mandate anything they deemed for the the "general welfare" of the State. Instead of the people being represented, government would be enabled to determine what we think, what we eat, what we purchase, or what we consume. We the people would be at the mercy of the Government elitists. The political establishment would make the rules, and serve the good of the elitists. Certainly that seems eerily similar to Communism as run in China.
Liberals also believe that car insurance is mandatory so what the big deal about health insurance. The problem is that car insurance is not mandated and car insurance is not necessarily designed or intended for the policy holders personal property. To understand this one must understand that car insurance is only mandatory to drive a car. Car insurance is not mandated to get a drivers license. Car insurance is not even necessary an individual product. See I could allow a person to borrow my car. The person I borrow the car to can drive it as long as they have a drivers license. My insurance policy would cover my friend in the case of him not having insurance. That don't sound like a mandated insurance purchase to me. Additionally, car insurance is only mandated to cover a third party's property, not the owner of the policy. We are only mandated to cover the personal property of others or the property of the lien holder when the car is utilized as collateral. Car insurance not mandated to cover my expenses, rather it protects the property of others. Health insurance is expected to provide coverage direct;y to the individual, and our government has decided to take the decision away from the individual. Unlike car insurance whereas I have the decision making authority to what I want covered that is personally owned by me (liability only as long as there are no leans), health insurance is designed to pay for my personal expenses yet government is decided what I have to cover. Only dishonest people would push the canard that car insurance mandate is similar to health insurance mandates.
Another favorite of mine is how the left seems to push the idea that health insurance means health care. Nothing could be further from the truth. Health insurance is a product sold to people to cover medical expenses. If I so chose, I could go without insurance and pay cash for my doctor visits. That is what is wonderful about being able to make individual decisions. If I choose not to have insurance and decide that I will pay my own expenses out of pocket, who is the government to say that is illegal and wrong, and force me into additional tax burdens? See as long as I have money to pay for services, I have health care. From experience, I can tell you that had I not had insurance when my son was born, I would have has a hospital bill of $2,800. That was the itemized bill. Yet because I had insurance, the hospital bill was over $5,000. That is an increase of almost 80% charged to the insurance company over and beyond what I would have been liable for had I just paid that out pocket instead of paying for health insurance. See I would have received health care with or without insurance. The only difference is I would have been liable for only what it really costs, whereas the insurance paid the average cost of every child birth not just mine.
This insurance mandate has to be found unconstitutional. The mandate is indefensible. The mandate is only necessary to have the young and healthy subsidize care for higher risk patients. Isn't that what got Ma Bell in trouble in the 1980's? I mean Ma Bel was charging more for local to subsidize long distance calling. This lead to an obstacle to entry for other providers. The government broke up Ma Bell. We need to break this health insurance mandate. Subsidies will in in the form of the individual mandate will lead to obstacles to entry for additional insurance companies. Our government is forming an insurance monopoly.