I would think with all the [supposedly] brilliant minds arguing the case for the mandate to SCOTUS, they would have been a little smarter when it comes to responding to Antonin Scalia's comment that the government could then,
define the market as food, therefore, everybody is in the market; therefore, you can make people buy broccoli.
That's just ludicrous!
Health care is not food, and broccoli is not health insurance. Arguing that is akin to the government forcing individuals to by a heart transplant, which they don't want or don't need, and that's not what is being argued in front of the SCOTUS.
Under the [straw man] analogy presented by Antonin Scalia, the government might be able to force everyone to buy food insurance (assuming there was such a thing) in the event people were without the ability to buy food due to a job loss or other catastrophic occurrence, but they could not force them to buy one particular item of food. It would be especially apt, if the government mandated grocery stores provide food to anyone, regardless of their ability to pay, like they force health care providers under the EMTALA.
How come I didn't hear anyone on the progressive side argue that? Did I miss it? Is it any wonder conservatives find it so easy to walk all over progressive ideas?
Want to eliminate the health care mandate? That's fine with me. Just be sure to eliminate the EMTALA mandate, forcing health care providers to work for free, because if there's one thing I am sure of, forcing people to work for free is nothing more than slavery, and I would hope unconstitutional.