Mandate vs. Mandate
Kevin Drum notes that the current issue of National Review features both an editorial arguing against the individual health insurance mandate because it forces people “to buy a product they would not buy on a free market” and an article arguing that Social Security be replaced with a system “requiring individuals to contribute a reasonable proportion of their income (though some flexibility should be allowed) to an array of investment vehicles to which they hold property rights.”
He concludes by asking:
So what are we to make of the proposition that forcing people to buy retirement annuities is OK but forcing them to buy healthcare insurance isn’t?
It’s a good question.
Now that is hilarious!
Replaced Social Security with a mandate to buy an annuity, then get Supreme Court to declare that mandate unconstitutional. Voila, no more Social Security.
When I saw the subject line in my RSS feed, I thought it was something about a gay dating website. LOL
As Dodd explains in his judicial activism post, it’s all about the process….or something.
Well, don’t forget that a significant portion of Republicans were in favor of health insurance mandates up until Obama added them to his bill. So I think what it says is that the National Review will take the opposite side from Obama on every issue, whether the aggregate ends up making sense or not.