Every resident of the U.S. must, by law, be enrolled in an adequate health care plan to cover major health care costs. This requirement would imply a compact between the U.S. government and its citizens: in return for the goverment’s accepting an obligation to devise a market-based system guaranteeing access to care and protecting all families from financial distress due to the cost of an illness, each individual must agree to obtain a minimum level of protection.
The Heritage Foundation: A National Health System for America (PDF)
Now, of course, the Heritage Foundation writes of the mandate:
It Is an Unconstitutional Violation of Personal Liberty and Strikes at the Heart of American Federalism
Heritage is clearly envisioning a national system—so it doesn’t seem concerned about implications for either personal liberty or federalism. How do we reconcile Heritage’s vehement opposition to its own idea?
It’s not so hard. The 1989 piece was written for the purpose of offering an “alternative” to rumblings about a proper single-payer system. It wasn’t an an idea that was actually supposed to happen. And it definitely wasn’t an idea that democrats were supposed to get credit for.
Now that their idea has become a reality, Heritage wants a new alternative.
In case you didn’t learn the first time: Beware of Conservatives Bearing Alternatives.
The Supreme Court can legitimately overturn Obamacare?” asks a headline on the French news site 9 POK . The article slowly walks through the legal rationale behind the court’s right to wipe away Congress’s legislation. “Sans précédent, extraordinaires” reads the article. In the German edition of The Financial Times, Sabine Muscat is astonished at Justice Antonin Scalia’s argument that if the government can mandate insurance, it can also require people to eat broccoli. “Absurder Vergleich” reads the article’s kicker, which in English translates to, “Absurd Comparison.” In trying to defeat the bill, Muscat writes, Scalia is making a “strange analogy [to] vegetables.