| noname2200 said: That said, I can also see the counterarguments. For starters, there is already regulated economic activity when utilizing health care. No one disputes that this area is legitimately susceptible to federal regulation. Add to that how, in the US, some amount of health care is nearly a right; hospitals are forbidden by law to turn away patients regardless of inability to pay. |
But the fundamental question remains: can the government force you into economic activity in order to regulate it? And if the government creates a problem with its regulation - your example of forbidding hospitals from refusing patients, for instance - it's a bit worrying that the solution is invariably more government control. It's also downright illogical, although I certainly understand why the government is always going to be for more government control.
On a less talked about note, I also think the law runs afoul of the establishment clause. In an attempt to accomodate people like Christian Scientists who don't believe in seeking medical care on religious grounds, the law grants an exemption to members of any recognized religion. But, of course, the government doesn't have the power to recognize any religion, and in fact is expressly forbidden from doing so? Besides, why should a Christian Scientist be more entitled to such an exemption than just some sincere nut with "real religion" in his heart? Obviously, this part of the law has more severability than the mandate, as if the mandate is removed, the law is basically unfunded and thus falls apart.
