One difference between a single payer system and a system that includes a mandate to buy private insurance is that the federal government has the actual authority to institute the former whereas it does not have, by any fair reading of the Constitution, the authority to institute the latter. A mandate to buy private insurance, I believe, can only be constitutionally supported by the interstate commerce clause but the argument that that clause provides the authority is, to borrow a term, weak sauce. The constitution clearly authorizes the federal government to impose taxes to promote the general welfare, however, so I believe there is no constitutional problem with a single payer system. To me, the distinction is important. To the extent the government acts beyond its legitimate authority, it is a government of men and not laws.

by Corpusless on 03/19/2010 07:18:45 PM EST

[ Parent ]