Mr Khan said:
That's the beauty of politics, though. Hate it when it's being used against you, love it when you can use it.
Nobody's taking anyone to task about it, especially since the Republicans have been just as hypocritical (since they're the ones that brought it back into the modern legislative lexicon, and now they're the ones calling it tyrrany)
@Badgenome, i agree. The whole problem with claiming a standard of living right is the question of where it ends, is it an inherent right or is it just the have-nots being whiny about how the economic system screwed them over? I contest that it is a right, but the question of where it begins or ends is definitely a foggy one, and could lead to dangerous places, but most good ideas lead to dangerous places when taken too far (like the capitalism that enriches the world daily, but also led some people to believe that they could make money by lending money to people who clearly couldn't handle it, then securitizing that for some reason and spreading their stupidity all over the market) |
I think it's an inevitability that once the government is in charge of our health care, they'll slowly but surely come to be in charge of every aspect of our lives. Government always seeks to extend its reach anyway, and since freedom (or power) and responsibility go hand in hand, then by handing over responsibility to the government we're necessarily giving them the right to decide what we can and cannot do. It has always seemed profoundly illegitimate to me that any sort of recreational drug could be illegal to a person who is paying for their own health care. Meanwhile (to use an extreme example), surely a proponent of universal health care must admit that the public should not be forced to pay for this idiot's sick desire to ruin her body.
With this bill in particular, there are tons of constitutional issues. Can the federal government actually compel citizens to purchase a particular good or service? In an effort to be respectful to a particular religion, the Senate included in its bill a provision that exempts Christian Scientists from the mandate. How does that square with the First Amendment's decree that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"? But both of those may pale in comparison to the Constitutional crisis that will arise should the Democrats employ the so-called Slaughter Rule to pass this abominable thing.
