>I'm not rabid on the subject of Obamacare one way or the other since unlike apparently everyone who is, I am neither an expert on the economics of the health care industry nor am I familiar with every single detail of the thousands of pages defining it.
>
>But I am kind of interested in the ideas of separating partisan passion from constitutional argument. I suggest this article and if there are real constitutional arguments against the point Sowell makes I'm interested.
>
>Hi, Charles, I've read Sowell for years, and if anything, this content is mild for him. Sowell has consistently written that AHCA is unconstitutional (both the mandate and the process of the decision in summer 2012) and has said even stronger words. :)
>
>Side note: if you want to read a classic Sowell book...
>http://www.amazon.com/Ethnic-America-History-Thomas-Sowell/dp/0465020755/ref=sr_1_18?ie=UTF8&qid=1381196996&sr=8-18&keywords=thomas+sowell
>
>
>I'm not directing this to you (though feel free to reply), but there are at least 3 fundamental questions on the table. I've raised all of these in prior posts:
>
>- In any free republic, how can a government establish something as a "right" and yet penalize individuals (largest single demo being young healthy men with no family history) to the tune of 1% of income in the first year, 2% in the second yet, and 2.5% in the third year, simply for not exercising in that right?
>
>- How can the Supreme Court rule the mandate as unconstitutional (because it did not fall under the Commerce Clause), then have one judge re-write the legislation as a "tax", when legislators of the bill did everything to avoid using the word "tax"? Again, Sowell has ripped Justice Roberts for this.
>
>And additionally, how can it then be defended as a "tax" when we have clear constitution processes (Origination clause) on the origin of taxes - processes that this bill never went through? (i.e. must originate in the House) The entire process was bait-and-switch
>
>
>- Regarding the tactics of the House, what laws are currently being broken, what articles of the Constitution are being violated? People can certainly voice their opinions on the tactics, but I think the heavy-handed tactics to push this legislation through have ultimately resulted in the mess we have today. I'm angry that both parties took the entire month of August off when they should have been working.
>
>The fact that Obama/Reid are being inflexible on a plan that funds everything but delays the mandate is not at all a surprise. Hate to say this, but anyone who is surprised does not understand one key point - they really CAN'T give into that, unless they can figure a way out of the corner they've backed themselves into, with the mandate. If you think of this as software architecture, AHCA tightly couples the mandate and anticipated revenue with the entire program. If they delay the mandate but continue with everything else, premiums are likely to rise even further and/or other taxes will need to be raised. It's really that simple. Even proponents of AHCA acknowledge that delaying the mandate will kill AHCA - they're right.
>
>There is no question that U.S. health care prior to AHCA needed reform - with pre-existing conditions and tort reform at the top of the list - but ACHA is a complete train wreck. And I don't buy into this "if the Republicans hate it, why don't they just let it fail and then they'll have proof?" First, there's ample proof - but either way, it's not fair to use American citizens as lab rats.

I have always been a fan of Thomas Sowell. Black Rednecks and White Liberals, the Vision of the Annointed and Intellectuals and Society are currently on my tablet to be read for about the third time.