Holder's Defense of Obamacare

Eric Holder and Kathleen Sebelius took to the Op-Ed pages of the Washington Post today to counter the ruling that Obamacare's mandate is unconstitutional. Not that this should surprise anyone, but they feel that Obamacare will eventually be called constitutional when all is said and done. What else are they supposed to say? What is interesting is not what they said, but how they said it. They trotted out the car insurance analogy that the left always seems to go to. Not that these pesky little facts should have to be pointed out again, but we will explain to you one more time just so you can be clear.

1. There is no federal law requiring anyone to purchase car insurance.
2. States require insurance for the damage you cause to someone else's vehicle, not what you do to your own.
3. There is no requirement to purchase a car.
4. If you do not drive on publicly funded roads, you do not need insurance. If you never remove your car from your property, it does not need to be insured.

In the case of health care all you must do is breathe. There is no comparison between the two. But, my very favorite part of the piece was the perfunctory victim that they have trotted out yet again. This time her name is Gail O'Brien. Sadly, Ms. O'Brien has been diagnosed with an aggressive form of cancer and her job as a pre-school teacher doesn't offer insurance. She was delaying the timing of her chemotherapy because of the costs and her savings wouldn't last. A very sad story, indeed. According to the piece due to Obamacare, she is now able to obtain health insurance that will cover her treatments.

 I don't think you find people who will say that she shouldn't be treated and her life saved. But, read the sentence again carefully:

 In March, New Hampshire preschool teacher Gail O'Brien, who was unable to obtain health insurance through her employer, was diagnosed with an aggressive form of lymphoma. Her subsequent applications for health insurance were rejected because of her condition. With each round of chemotherapy costing $16,000, she delayed treatment because she knew her savings wouldn't last.

They themselves are admitting that she had enough money to purchase insurance before she was ill and chose not to. Which completely contradicts what they say later in the piece:

 If we want to prevent insurers from denying coverage to people with preexisting conditions, it's essential that everyone have coverage. Imagine what would happen if everyone waited to buy car insurance until after they got in an accident. Premiums would skyrocket, coverage would be unaffordable, and responsible drivers would be priced out of the market.

So the person that they are setting up of why the mandate is necessary is the person who causes the costs for people who carry insurance all the time to increase? It seems to me that she is not the best example to be highlighting. This woman took the chance of going without insurance and now is complaining that the costs are high for the medical care that she needs. Again, I am not saying that she shouldn't get care, but I don't think she has the right to complain about the risk she voluntarily took. I pay my health insurance bill every three months, even though I rarely use it. It isn't that I have so much money, but since I have had health problems in the past, I know how expensive the costs can be and I do it to protect myself. As my regular readers know, my insurance for the year 2011 has increased by more than 80% because the policy that I have used for the past five years is now illegal. So, because this woman took a risk my payments must go up?

  

If you read the entire piece no where is the answer to the breakdown of the arguments that the judge yesterday very clearly laid out. This is the attorney that is in charge over the federal court system in this country and he can't articulate where in the constitution it says that congress has the right to force us to purchase something? I am no lawyer, but I will tell you that decision yesterday was very easy to understand and well-reasoned. I don't think it is too much to ask that the Attorney General do the same instead of the playing the emotion card and basically just say that it is for the common good. He of all people should understand that we are a nation of laws, not a nation of emotions. I also would like to ask if Holder is so sure that this will pass the muster with the high court, why is he so opposed to a quick ruling? Could it be so that the groundwork for the law will be harder to dismantle the longer this drags on?

Cross Posted at PotLuck