ObamaCare and the Individual Mandate

Henry Percy
A commenter on a news blog, sasquatch08, hits it out of the ballpark in his analysis of the individual mandate in ObamaCare, here and here:

Science has determined that two drinks a day for men and one for women is quite beneficial. It reduces the chances of death from any major cause by 18%, and people who drink 1-2 drinks a day (men) or 1 a day (women) have better cognitive functions later in life as compared to those who do not. (USDA 2010 Dietary Guidelines for Americans/Italian study found on MSNBC.)

Therefore; I could make the argument that's made for the ACA: Alcohol sale is interstate commerce, which it most assuredly is, and that "moderate" drinking is good for your health so under the general welfare clause it shall be decreed by Congress and the President that all persons in the United States shall buy a minimum of enough liquor to ingest two drinks a day or face a fine (tax, whatever you want to call it).

Of course we'll have to lower the drinking age, because not doing so would be denying 16-21 year olds their health! Or is it 14-21 year olds?

Further there are studies out there which show that areas of high legal gun ownership have less violent crime than area's with low legal gun ownership.

So we'll cherrypick a few of those studies that show that guns are "good" and add that into the law as well. So go buy your guns and booze... or else! [Nothing could possibly go wrong with that idea, especially if add God knows what to it and make it 2700 pages long.]

And if you're not on board with this idea, clearly you don't care about Americas health, are a member of the "Party of NO", support violent criminals, you're a racist bigot and you probably kick puppies when no one is watching.


_________


If drinking a few makes you healthier, it by definition brings down the cost of healthcare. Healthy people aren't going to a doctor for treatment.

That was my point. Since it's been proven to make people healthier, hence reducing health care costs, does it not make just as much sense as the ACA that we should mandate that people drink on a daily basis? Common sense says yes, it makes just as much sense as any other mandate on health care the government could make.

If Congress can, and "should" (for the general welfare, as the argument is made) mandate things on healthcare such as requiring insurance, than Congress can and "should" also mandate that we act in ways that bring down the cost of healthcare.

That means mandatory gym memberships, healthy diets, two drinks a day, quit smoking programs for smokers etc.

I find it rather odd that liberals argue Congress was well within its powers to pass the ACA, and was morally obligated to do so for the welfare of the country, yet they aren't willing to take the next logical and necessary step, which I just outlined.

Here's the facts: you don't need 2700 pages to reform healthcare, I can do it in 50, or max 100. You also don't need 2700 pages to give the public the few goodies (table scraps if you ask me) that Democrats are championing and Republicans like too, such as no denying preexisting conditions, kids on parents insurance until they're 26 etc. Those things take a page or two at most. Which begs the question: what's in those 2698 other pages?

Why is there a takeover of the student loan industry in the ACA? Could that bill not stand and be judged on its own merit?

If this law is so great why are waivers being granted left and right? Why does it have 10 years of tax increases and payment cuts to pay for 6 years of services? Why does it cut half a trillion from Medicaid? Why does it force states to increase taxes and tell them how to spend it?

Why is it that every time we turn around someone has found a new problem with this law?

The truth is, we're finding out a bit more about this law every week or so and not much of it is good. The law is cumbersome, poorly put together and unpopular,it should be repealed one way or another and replaced with a law or set of laws that actually make sense and do what the authors claim they are supposed to do, that is actually lowering the cost of healthcare.

This law, in my personal opinion, is nothing more than a way to bleed the private insurance industry dry, slowly killing it off so that in a decade or two Progressives can ride to the rescue on the white horse of socialized medicine. All the while claiming that the free market failed, while actually knowing the truth: they strangled it on purpose just so they could claim to have a better solution.

Thomas Lifson adds:

As with ObamaCare, religious exemptions could be granted for those groups whose faith precludes alcohol consumption.
A commenter on a news blog, sasquatch08, hits it out of the ballpark in his analysis of the individual mandate in ObamaCare, here and here:

Science has determined that two drinks a day for men and one for women is quite beneficial. It reduces the chances of death from any major cause by 18%, and people who drink 1-2 drinks a day (men) or 1 a day (women) have better cognitive functions later in life as compared to those who do not. (USDA 2010 Dietary Guidelines for Americans/Italian study found on MSNBC.)

Therefore; I could make the argument that's made for the ACA: Alcohol sale is interstate commerce, which it most assuredly is, and that "moderate" drinking is good for your health so under the general welfare clause it shall be decreed by Congress and the President that all persons in the United States shall buy a minimum of enough liquor to ingest two drinks a day or face a fine (tax, whatever you want to call it).

Of course we'll have to lower the drinking age, because not doing so would be denying 16-21 year olds their health! Or is it 14-21 year olds?

Further there are studies out there which show that areas of high legal gun ownership have less violent crime than area's with low legal gun ownership.

So we'll cherrypick a few of those studies that show that guns are "good" and add that into the law as well. So go buy your guns and booze... or else! [Nothing could possibly go wrong with that idea, especially if add God knows what to it and make it 2700 pages long.]

And if you're not on board with this idea, clearly you don't care about Americas health, are a member of the "Party of NO", support violent criminals, you're a racist bigot and you probably kick puppies when no one is watching.


_________


If drinking a few makes you healthier, it by definition brings down the cost of healthcare. Healthy people aren't going to a doctor for treatment.

That was my point. Since it's been proven to make people healthier, hence reducing health care costs, does it not make just as much sense as the ACA that we should mandate that people drink on a daily basis? Common sense says yes, it makes just as much sense as any other mandate on health care the government could make.

If Congress can, and "should" (for the general welfare, as the argument is made) mandate things on healthcare such as requiring insurance, than Congress can and "should" also mandate that we act in ways that bring down the cost of healthcare.

That means mandatory gym memberships, healthy diets, two drinks a day, quit smoking programs for smokers etc.

I find it rather odd that liberals argue Congress was well within its powers to pass the ACA, and was morally obligated to do so for the welfare of the country, yet they aren't willing to take the next logical and necessary step, which I just outlined.

Here's the facts: you don't need 2700 pages to reform healthcare, I can do it in 50, or max 100. You also don't need 2700 pages to give the public the few goodies (table scraps if you ask me) that Democrats are championing and Republicans like too, such as no denying preexisting conditions, kids on parents insurance until they're 26 etc. Those things take a page or two at most. Which begs the question: what's in those 2698 other pages?

Why is there a takeover of the student loan industry in the ACA? Could that bill not stand and be judged on its own merit?

If this law is so great why are waivers being granted left and right? Why does it have 10 years of tax increases and payment cuts to pay for 6 years of services? Why does it cut half a trillion from Medicaid? Why does it force states to increase taxes and tell them how to spend it?

Why is it that every time we turn around someone has found a new problem with this law?

The truth is, we're finding out a bit more about this law every week or so and not much of it is good. The law is cumbersome, poorly put together and unpopular,it should be repealed one way or another and replaced with a law or set of laws that actually make sense and do what the authors claim they are supposed to do, that is actually lowering the cost of healthcare.

This law, in my personal opinion, is nothing more than a way to bleed the private insurance industry dry, slowly killing it off so that in a decade or two Progressives can ride to the rescue on the white horse of socialized medicine. All the while claiming that the free market failed, while actually knowing the truth: they strangled it on purpose just so they could claim to have a better solution.

Thomas Lifson adds:

As with ObamaCare, religious exemptions could be granted for those groups whose faith precludes alcohol consumption.