Sunday, April 11, 2010

Schultz (D) Claims no Mandate in The HealthCare Law

It is fairly obvious why she tried to make this false point, and it is two fold. The first is the people do not like the mandate and do not like the notion that the government can require you to purchase something as a condition of citizenship/residence. The second is the legal. The question of if the government has this power is almost certainly going to end up in the Supreme Court. Once there, the likely argument in support of ObamaCare is that it is just a tax. If they can convince five of the justices it is a tax, they can short circuit the argument on the other side and win the day.

Video embedded below.


  1. From Reublican party public relations firm The Heritage Foundation:

    Heritage On Romney’s Individual Mandate: “Not an unreasonable position, and one that is clearly consistent with conservative values.” [Heritage, 1/28/06

    Heritage On President Obama’s Individual Mandate: “Both unprecedented and unconstitutional.” [Heritage, 12/9/09]

    I think the point here is that you may have a partial and incoherent view of majoritarian democracy- which would lead you to the bizarre conclusion that the mandate is really something other then a tax- which it really isn't if you want to defer to some past threads on this blog on the topic.

  2. @Ian Spencer Dubrowsky - I am curious which threads you are referring to. How does my view on Democracy effect my view on if something is a tax or not. The government is forcing you to buy health insurance or it will penalize you. That is not a tax.

    You should read’s-claims.


Related Posts with Thumbnails

Like what you read; Subscribe/Fan/Follow