noname2200 on 26 March 2012
| Kasz216 said:
It essentially set the precedent that by existing... people are effecting the economy, therefore there the government can regulate anything they do. |
That's far too broad a reading. It's more like "a person is inevitably going to need healthcare. Healthcare costs money. Monetary activities are prone to federal regulation. If the person does not have the money to pay for his own healthcare, that cost is borne by other parties. Therefore, the government may either require you to get health insurance in order to deal with your own inevitable costs, or issue a monetary penalty on you in order to pay for your own inevitable costs."
This isn't like 99.999% of activities a person can do. It's not completely clear-cut, but I can see the distinction.
