And with good reason! Certainly, with arguments like this, it deserves to be judicially thrown out just for sheer stupidity:
"[I]f I don’t have a 27-inch TV for the Super Bowl, I can’t demand on the day of the Super Bowl that somebody deliver that TV because I have a right to it. On the other hand, if I don’t have insurance, I come through the door of an emergency room and get treated and get cared for, and somebody else picks up the tab,” said Sebelius.
(H/T: CNSNews)
This ranks with that of "well, States force you to buy car insurance, don’t they?" – er, not here in NH. And again, that is for actually DOING something (driving on public roads) and not just for breathing (Obamacare).
That would be HHS Sebelius making the weak talking point – remember, in Obamacare, she is the one that will make over 700 regulation decisions as to how we are to behave and pay. However, morally, she is correct; I have no right to just take the property of a shop owner and have it delivered to me for my own personal benefit. The problem with her argument is that, already, Government has passed laws that force others to pay for these free riders: hospitals have to treat others for free, those covered by insurance end up paying higher premiums, and in some cases, taxpayers already pay up (TANSTAAFL). So in essence, what she decries is already happening (she just won’t talk about it).
And to make it worse, those that cannot afford it will receive a subsidy from the Government. And where does Government get ITS money (when it is not borrowing it)? Yeah – us. So indeed, the 27" TVs ARE being ordered – courtesy of the US Government.
Oh wait! Maybe not! The results of the 27 States suing that Obamacare’s individual mandate is unConstitutional is in:
"I must reluctantly conclude that Congress exceeded the bounds of its authority in passing the act with the individual mandate. That is not to say, of course, that Congress is without power to address the problems and inequities in our health care system. The health care market is more than one-sixth of the national economy, and without doubt Congress has the power to reform and regulate this market. That has not been disputed in this case. The principal dispute has been about how Congress chose to exercise that power here," Vinson wrote.
"While the individual mandate was clearly ‘necessary and essential’ to the act as drafted, it is not ‘necessary and essential’ to health care reform in general," he continued. "Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire act must be declared void."
Yeah – plus the State-breaking unfunded mandate via future Medicaid costs to the states. States Rights? Yessir! But it’s not over until the Supremes opine..
