More essential reading on the mandate as "Stamp Tax"
Shorter: If the Feds can force you to buy health insurance, what can't they force you to buy?
* * *
RL calls, so I can't do this post justice. It's the best I've read on the subject, by far, and it provides a road map for the coming year. And surprise! It's all about the rents! I'll return to it in detail, I hope, since there are more parts to come, but for now here's what I see as the nut grafs:
If this Stamp mandate stands, if it’s illegitimately ruled “constitutional” (as two corrupt judges already have, while one has ruled the opposite), there will be literally no limit on the government’s being able to arbitrarily define the legitimate limits of a market and then require the purchase of a private product.What we see in the two pro-mandate rulings is the doctrine of a pre-constitutional market. Congress has arbitrarily set up this pseudo-market based on private health insurance. It first gave the insurance rackets an antitrust exemption and rigged the market in other ways. Then, when this “market” failed badly enough that a critical mass of people were rationally (and with full moral justification) choosing not to participate in this corrupt market, Obama and the Democrats passed this Republican-designed bailout bill in order to force participation. ....It could be argued that a health care market does have to exist, and we are all necessarily participants in it. But the health insurance “market” doesn’t have to exist at all. It’s a completely gratuitous creation of the government, and in this case, contrary to the judge’s explicit lie, it is specifically a “market created by Congress”.
Remember how single payer opponents consistently conflated health insurance and health care? Here is the same idea, grotesquely inflated to a Constitutional scale.
That’s a bizarre jurisprudence: The government can arbitrarily create an irrational, inequitable market and declare by fiat that everyone has to participate, and all of that is beyond the Constitution’s purview.Instead, the Constitution is simply instrumental toward enforcing the arbitrary markets created by government, and from that perspective a mandate to participate is valid. This is the doctrine which will be enshrined if the mandate stands: The pre-constitutional command economy fiat power of the legislative, and perhaps executive, branch. Looking at the judges’ lies which depict this artificial command market as a law of nature, we see how the real goal is enshrinement of rule by corporate protection rackets. This is another big step in the de facto privatization of the IRS, its transformation into corporate thug and bagman. The FDA is preparing the same mandates for food.
If this mandate is allowed, the Constitution simply becomes nothing but the flunkey of legislative and executive fiat with regard to any command economy measure. They’ll be able to mandate that all purchases have to be done with a bank-issued credit card, for example. Detractors have offered many other examples. According to the logic, the arbitrary fiat is beyond constitutional purview and is automatically, autocratically postulated as legitimate, while the tyrannical application would then follow as legit according to the commerce clause.
Yep. I like this sort of grand unified theory.
From this larger perspective, we can also see the complete and utter uselessness of career "progressive" "thinking" on this topic; all they've done, in most cases, I would think, unwittingly, is obfuscate the key issues on the mandate (and boy, do I remember the ridicule when I first raised it, since the only other people raising it were on the right, and they, of course, wear the wrong jerseys).
NOTE Note that the key issue is.... "consent." Hmmm.....