This guy used to be Senate majority leader? Over a Politico, he wants to remind us that "Health insurance isn't like broccoli." First off, he says - gee whilikers - the only difference between other entitlement programs and Obamacare is the way it's funded:
The only difference between these mandates and the insurance mandate is that Congress chose to use its constitutional taxing authority, rather than the commerce clause, to enact them.No. No we wouldn't because of that single word highlighted above. But this administration could never pass the legislation with trillions in new taxes, so they dreamed up the individual mandate to tax (mostly younger and healthier) Americans by other means. And as we all know, some people really hate to pay taxes.
This raises the question: Would we even be having this debate if this administration and Congress had done the same?
Tom quickly turns away from this dead-end argument and back to broccoli:
But back to broccoli and Congress’s authority.Is this guy serious? It's a metaphor, Tom! A metaphor that goes right to the heart of the question of whether the Commerce Clause has any limits. Congress is not going to compel you to buy broccoli (I can't say the same about Brawndo.)
The power of this simple idea has its genesis in a trite bit of logic: “the nose under the tent” argument. If we require people to purchase health insurance, the reasoning goes, with that nose under the tent, why not broccoli next?
That logic comes as close to insulting one’s intelligence as anything I can imagine.
Yes, Congress could require Americans to purchase broccoli. But who would be stupid enough to even suggest it? Does anyone actually believe that we could find 60 votes in the Senate and 218 votes in the House to support it?
What remains is boilerplate mish-mash about how we could have this great new system if only we're willing to give up this tiny bit of our liberty. It's all been said and will soon be disposed by next Monday's Supreme Court ruling.