By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Mr Khan said:
The soundest point of your argument here is that the government has the option of trying the public option, but the thing that keeps the mandate limited from a judicial perspective is the fact that this is the only market whereby not purchasing something adversely effects the whole market, being practically the same as an action, and then we move into the fact that this is the only market where the government forcing someone to buy a product is "essential" to the government's ability to regulate the market effectively, due to the nature of the free market.

The non-essentialness comes in the fact that yes, there are other ways they could regulate the market, but it should not be the court's purview to consider the legislation that could be, but rather the legislation that is.

Except it isn't....

 

individual people who don't buy health insurance drive up the costs of healthcare in individual companies which in turn effects companies..

If a solo man doesn't pay his hosptial bill at Mercy General... that only effects Mercy General.

If you want to argue aggregate. 

EVERY market works that way.

Individual peole not buying certain food products inavariably drive up the prices of different companies food prices in aggregate... raising the prices.

If half the people who buy cars now decide not too...  they would drive up the prices of all the car companies in aggregate... raising the prices

 

Your trying to cobble together a bunch of arguements with holes in them and create a circle of justification that doesn't actually have a point that doesn't have a huge gaping hole in it.


Well, unless you think it's constituional for congress pass laws saying everything we can do.