Missing the point entirely

"President Obama's solicitor general, defending the national health care law on Wednesday, told a federal appeals court that Americans who didn't like the individual mandate could always avoid it by choosing to earn less money."

Neal Kumar Kaytal apparently managed to keep a straight face when he made this ludicrous argument before the Sixth U.S. Court of Appeals on Wednesday.  How is encouraging people to earn less money (and thus pay less taxes) so that they can receive expensive government-funded (and ironically taxpayer-financed) health care for "free" going to solve anything, much less our nation's current bankrupt status?

We also fail to see how this sort of juvenile reasoning would address the primary issue at hand, which is that Obamacare forces citizens to buy a product or service regardless of whether they wish to own or use it.  Such a practice, regardless of what one may believe about the nobility of it, is illegal because that sort of coercion isn't one of the clearly enumerated powers given to the Federal government by the Constitution.

"Throughout the oral arguments, Kaytal struggled to respond to the panel's concerns about what the limits of Congressional power would be if the courts ruled that they have the ability under the Commerce Clause to force individuals to purchase something."

Because he and his boss Dear Leader firmly believe there should be no such limits or checks on the power government can exercise over the peasants.  If this law is allowed to remain in place Congress would be able to point to it whenever they arbitrarily decided to saddle Americans with whatever requirements they wished - the most-used recent example being if they required people to purchase and eat broccoli because it would reduce health care costs to the government.  Regardless of any supposedly beneficial merits of the law, the sort of unbridled authority it represents is why it needs to be immediately thrown out as unconstitutional.

"In arguments before the Fourth Circuit last month, Kaytal also struggled with a judge's question about what to do with the word “regulate,” to the point where the judge asked him to sit down to come up with an answer."

We are positive we would trip haplessly over our words as well had we been asked to argue this indefensible position.  Nice try, Mr. Kaytal, although we believe your pitiful efforts ultimately and deservedly will be for naught.