What happens if ObamaCare is overturned?

[Mr Khan]

Kasz216 said:

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 all 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.

The only hole is that the individual mandate is necessary to enable companies to not deny coverage without having to hike prices through the roof, which is where the circular logic comes from, and inevitably morals are injected into the equation. In order to preserve the market as it stands, and to amend it in this manner (and none would argue that forcing companies to not deny business to certain individuals based on circumstances these individuals cannot control isn't the purview of the government), then the individual mandate is necessary under the commerce clause.

It  is as you said, the only problem here is that this is not necessarily the way that the government has to enforce universal healthcare access, but it is the way to do so to insure the endurance of insurance companies, which amounts more to market intervention.