I'm not sure what makes a mandate to purchase health insurance different when it comes from the State of Massachusetts or the Federal government. From a citizen's perspective, it's still a government mandate. The argument that there is some benefit in keeping government closer to the people in the States is, for me, also a little weird. Living in a State (Wisconsin) that has been hi-jacked by the extreme right wing is hardly more inclusive government. Somehow in Wisconsin it is more important that people carry concealed weapons rather than carry health insurance.
Basically, the 26 Republican Governors and the four right-wing Supreme Court justices might seem to be arguing that the Federal government cannot mandate anything. That would be a radical idea about government. Actually, I don't think that is what they are doing. The Federal government can mandate things the right-wing likes (military conscription, invasions of privacy in the name of Homeland security, concealed-carry shootouts at the OK Corral, etc.) and cannot mandate things the right-wing doesn't like (health care, spending for the poor, spending for the elderly, etc.).
It is interesting how the edifice of obscure constitutional arguments is being erected around such a simple, naked, political agenda. A nation with a corrupt legal and political system does not have a great future.
No comments:
Post a Comment