When I first posted on this late last month, I was skeptical that it would gain much traction.
As regards the (Evil) Individual Mandate that ostensibly free citizens must buy a product from a private vendor:
"[T]the age-old caveat that a contract entered into under duress is non-enforceable. Their stance is that, because insurance is, in fact, a contract, forcing one under penalty of law to sign on the dotted line renders it moot."
Now comes George Will, noting in the Washington Post that:
" [T]he elegant scholarship and logic with which it addresses an issue that has not been as central to the debate as it should be ... The individual mandate is incompatible with centuries of contract law. This is so because a compulsory contract is an oxymoron."
So maybe it is picking up steam.
As regards the (Evil) Individual Mandate that ostensibly free citizens must buy a product from a private vendor:
"[T]the age-old caveat that a contract entered into under duress is non-enforceable. Their stance is that, because insurance is, in fact, a contract, forcing one under penalty of law to sign on the dotted line renders it moot."
Now comes George Will, noting in the Washington Post that:
" [T]he elegant scholarship and logic with which it addresses an issue that has not been as central to the debate as it should be ... The individual mandate is incompatible with centuries of contract law. This is so because a compulsory contract is an oxymoron."
So maybe it is picking up steam.
No comments:
Post a Comment