Court ruling against Obamacare is...amazing
But to appreciate what a slap-down this decision was, you need to read just one footnote. Judge Roger Vinson wrote,
[I]n 2008, then-Senator Obama supported a health care reform proposal that did not include an individual mandate, because he was at that time strongly opposed to the idea, stating that "If a mandate was the solution, we [could] try...to solve homelessness by mandating everybody to buy a house...”Devastating--the judicial equivalent of a laser-guided missile.
(If you're skeptical there's a video of Obama during the presidential campaign arguing that his health-care proposal is superior to those of rival Hillary Clinton because his did NOT have the mandate while her proposal did.)
Now certainly politicians can't be faulted for changing their mind on fundamental issues, presumably after getting new information or reconsidering earlier data. The point of the footnote isn't Obama's hypocrisy for the switch, nor the folly of believing that tough problems can be solved by a government mandate. Rather, it's that if the government can force you to buy health insurance, what legal barrier remains to prevent it from ordering you to buy a house?
And presumably--as with the so-called Health Care Reform Act--people who couldn't afford a house would still be "forced" to "buy" one. Of course in reality the government would buy one for them, using your tax dollars.
Sweet deal for the 40 percent of Americans who don't pay federal income taxes. Not so sweet if you're a taxpayer.