Courtesy of Congressman John Lewis. When asked about the constitutionality of the individual mandate provision of Obamacare, he cited the "pursuit of happiness" language of the preamble to the Constitution. Only problem with that is, "pursuit of happiness' is not in the preamble to the Constitution. It's in The Declaration of Independence. Oops. But then again, who am I to get all technical on politicians knowing what's in the constitution and what isn't? We don't get all technical like that around here. Plus, when's the last time any of these guys had to read the Constitution (or hear it read aloud)?
And on a sidebar, what political debate would be a political debate without somebody calling somebody else a Nazi, a Marxist, a Socialist, or a Communist? Right on time. Which is sort of ironic, given that Cohen looks so much like Major Toht from Raiders of the Lost Ark (the evil SS agent whose glasses melted off with his face at the end). But at least we have bipartsian agreement on one thing in Congress: 'Civil disagreement' can still go fuck itself. Apparently they were watching Real Housewives reruns instead of Obama's eloquent speech at the Memorial Service/Wildcat rally last week.
But back to federal insurance mandates. Since John Lewis won't make a reasonably logical argument for the mandate, I'll go ahead. Yes, I am in favor of an individual insurance mandate -- conditionally. I just don't think it's constitutional. But then again -- who fuckin' cares. There's a lot of shit that's arguably unconstitutional that we don't even so much as bat an eyelash at (because it's sensible). This is an insignficant argument (that tragically will become signifcant because the SCOTUS will evidently have to hear it). But anyway -- I say I support the mandate "conditionally" in the sense that I'm accepting that we are stuck with Obamacare (which I didn't support) and have to face reality. Down to the details: if you're going to guarantee issue of insurance coverage to all, and also guarantee hospital care to all -- then everybody has ante up. It's that simple. You can have one or the other, but not both without someone paying for it. Otherwise, existing insurance premiums balloon like female college frosh. Or you pay via higher fees and taxes. So to those who oppose the mandate: pick your poison, fuckers. It's coming out of your pocket one way or the other. Individual mandate seems to be the fairest solution given the circumstances. Or you can go back and re-argue that people with pre-existing conidtions should be denied coverage, or that people without insurance must be turned away from the ER. Good luck with that.