Our great nation is suffering from an acute deficit of wit. To solve this problem, I intend to propose a plan for universal humor coverage. To achieve this worthy goal, I suggest we implement a universal mandate which requires, under threat of tax penalty, that everyone be witty.
I intend to offer subsidized whoopie cushions and rubber chickens to all. Your left of funniness will be evaluated yearly by a panel of tax experts.
Anyone who disagrees with me is obviously against people having fun. Only my plan will ensure that everyone is humorous!
What are you, some sorta boring depressive freak? Are you into emo?!. You make me sick, you hear that? Sick! Now I need my health insurance coverage!
On a more serious note, there are good economic reasons for healthcare mandate, chief among which being the adverse selection problem (i.e. people 'gaming the system', only buying insurance when they expect to need it). However, as things stand now, such a mandate would be unfunded.
Which brings me to the real problem with the health insurance debate in this primary; more specifically, to Hillary's position.
She claims that only her plan will cover everyone. In a certain sense, this is true -- for a particular meaning of the term 'cover'. She could similarly propose a plan which requires everyone, under threat of penalty, to buy a TV whether they wish to or not -- but claiming afterwards that her plan provides everyone with a TV would be, shall we say, strange.
The bottom line IMO is that any time you are hearing a claim that Hillary's plan covers everyone, you hear a statement which is at best misleading and deceptive, and at worst an outright 1984-style language control.