Sorry, Associated Press, There Was No “Misunderstanding” By The Supreme Court On ObamaCare
The defense of ObamaCare is getting ever more desperate. Now they’re even turning to obvious logical fallacies (and even borderline falsehoods), trying to argue that the Justices might have “misunderstood” the oral arguments.
WASHINGTON (AP) — A possible misunderstanding about President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul could cloud Supreme Court deliberations on its fate, leaving the impression that the law’s insurance requirement is more onerous than it actually is.
During the recent oral arguments some of the justices and the lawyers appearing before them seemed to be under the impression that the law does not allow most consumers to buy low-cost, stripped-down insurance to satisfy its controversial coverage requirement.
In fact, the law provides for a cheaper “bronze” plan that is broadly similar to today’s so-called catastrophic coverage policies for individuals, several insurance experts said.
The central argument, however, is not the cost of whatever policy the government wants to force you to buy, it’s that the federal government does not have the authority to compel you to purchase anything simply by virtue of being alive and a citizen of the United States. The whole cost argument they’re dragging out now is nothing but a gigantic and very smelly red herring.
Hey, Associated Press… it does not matter how much it costs; no matter whether it costs $1 a month or $10,000 a month, it’s just as unconstitutional, and we the people know that, so you can quit trying to peddle your fish stories here.
However, the desperation of their defense does make me cautiously optimistic that they think the Supreme Court is likely to overturn this monstrosity of a law.