Charlie Rose

REMant  11/15/2011 11:56 AM Report

Well I think it's much more significant than Bush vs Gore. Twenty-six states joined this suit and the administration couldn't fight it. I would of course take a strict constructionist view of the question. And I think health care's expense is a symptom of monetary policy, like many other things, and not a cause of our economic ills. But I still think a much better approach to the immediate issue would have been to swap a well-controlled single-payer system for a flat-rate income tax package, which I think might have had a chance at passage, and because both our fascists and communists (if you will) are opposed to a market-based approach and to the monetary changes necessary to support it. Failing this health care should be separated from insurance. The most insidious thing about our monetary policy is that it is hawked as insurance, and at some point insurance must become dictate. And since, to be consistent, legal conservatives will have to acknowledge that to rule against the whole idea of govt provision would be to rule against much else instigated by the 14th amendment, putting themselves out of work, the Court will most likely IMHO rule narrowly against the mandate, and return things to the status quo ante.