>>Once again someone here makes a false statement about what I posted. I find that to be tiresome.
It wasn't an analogy it was an example, and not one I created. If the example is to be considered valid the details of it are important. An analogy would just be a way to present an argument, if the analogy was faulty it doesn't show that the argument behind it is faulty, but using car insurance as an example is not a way to present the argument, it is an argument itself, if its faulty in its details than the argument is faulty. <<
It wasn't a metaphor, but it was an analogy. You were saying that the analogy between the mandate for car insurance and that for health insurance was imperfect, and that the case for mandating health insurance was, therefore, flawed.
I see them the two cases as being imperfectly analogous, too, but that fact alone doesn't invalidate the argument in favor of government mandates for health insurance, since the government and private healthcare providers incur costs when people who are uninsured use healthcare services in emergency situations. Because that is the case, I believe that the mandate would fall under the "provide for the general welfare" concept of governmental responsibility.
You don't believe the Commerce Clause gives Congress the power to require people to buy health insurance. There is legal disagreement about that, and I imagine that the Supreme Court will eventually be forced to rule on the question. But even if the mandate is struck down on that basis, it may well stand under general welfare. |
