Wednesday, March 28, 2012

How Roberts and Kennedy can rule Obamacare constitutional

1. both sides agree the government can madate purchase of health insurance at the point of sale as a condition of receiving healthcare.
2. both sides agree that the government could have raised taxes on everyone, and subsequently gave a tax credit to everyone with qualifying health care, which would leave the affected population in a very similar position.
3. both sides agree that the government could have created a government plan that addressed the issue which most of it's critics would think is worse than the current law.
4. If we sever the mandate, we'd be compelling Congress to act in a political season. If we throw out the law we'd be changing 1/6 of the economy.

we can uphold this mandate, while stating it's constitutionalality is ambigious on it's own, but since it could be implemented in other ways virtually the same, it would be judicial activism to throw it out.  Sort of like rejecting a contract because there was a comma where there should have been a period (and all sides agree that's the case).

No comments: