By Egberto Willies March 23rd, 2010
Opposition to the mandate requiring everyone who can afford health insurance to purchase it is fiscally irresponsible given that every American gets care if they get into an accident, gets a heart attack, or some other immediate illness. To expect those of us who have purchased insurance to support those who naively refuse to get their own irrespective of their ability to pay is indirect welfare. It should be noted that those who cannot afford health insurance will be subsidized by this bill.
Just as the Federal Government has the Right to Tax us, it has the right to sanction insurance purchase. Attorney generals attempting to challenge the constitutionality of this mandate know better as they have all been schooled in the constitution and its supremacy clause. They are using this as a tool to divide the country and a fund raiser even though they know their lawsuit will ultimately fail.
Supremacy Clause In The Constitution
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
Many are arguing that this is a states rights case. It should noted that state rights arguments are simply tools that have always been used to attempt to deny people rights, discriminate, or have pockets of inequality. The reality is that it is outdated. Irrespective, there is no way this could be the mandate could be struck down. Otherwise much of income tax, social security tax, and much more would be suspect.
