good lord you do know that all of these scary scenarios you listed have actually happened throughout history upon the rise of government power???, and like they werent overnight, yet you mockingly list them off as if they cant possibly ever have happened or will ever happen

Would you say that deference to Congress is not a legal principle? Not the same, I know, but related.

For the second part, you might get disagreements from every incumbent who lost their job in 2010.

Stretching the definition of "forced to buy insurance" to absurd lengths itt.

Can I pick anything in my life that someday I may have to pay a little more if I don't do and call it "forced"? Hey guys I'm forced by Best Buy to get that extended warranty. I mean sure I don't have to. But it's possible someday I'll have to pay to get my TV fixed if I don't pay now. FORCED!

So, are people who are opposed to Obamacare also opposed to school vouchures and the Ryan plan to turn Medicare into a plan where people buy subsidized private insurance?

They voted for a bigger bill than a broccoli bill. I suspect if congress passed a sweeping grocery list bill that required you to buy government vouchers for (only healthy) food that you then redeemed at the grocery store, that that would be a more comparable bill to obamacare.

Deference to Congress most definitely is a limiting principle. But it is not a limiting principle on the scope of the commerce clause, which is what the court is searching for. (I think that) All acts of congress go before the court system with a presumption of constitutionality, which is the mechanism the court uses to defer to congress. (If not all, certainly most--there's an argument, i guess, that statutes subject to strict constitutional scrutiny don't actually realize any benefit from such a presumption because of the rigor of the strict scrutiny test, but this is an area of law I claim no particular expertise in).

grunching

If the court votes to overturn the law, isn't that a case of super-aggressive legislation from the bench, which is the very thing those who would vote to overturn the law constantly rail against? Is anyone else a bit disgusted by how hypocritical that position is?

um, no. It is just a garden variety exercise of the power of judicial review of the scope of congressional power.

so is your argument because governments in the past have done it it's plausible in the united states?

quick sidebar.

How do you feel about a supreme court ruling that either a) allow for a healthcare mandate using something other than the commerce clause or b) allows for it under the commerce clause but explicitly recognizes the unique nature of the health care "market" in some way

yes? American exceptionalism really has rotted your brain.

yes (wow)

lol, exactly. But it is also plausible that the US government will do it because the US government has done it repeatedly and recently:

Holocaust and slavery?

The government would never mandate the purchase of a product whose effectiveness depends on it being used/consumed.

A brocoli mandate would only work if it also required consumers to eat brocoli. Requiring consumers to actually ingest a certain type of food would be a huge intrusion on civil liberties. What if people are allergic? What if they don't like the taste? What if they have religious objections? The same goes for a gym membership - a membership itself does not make people healthier unless it's actually used. Requiring people to actually go to the gym is a lot different than requiring them to carry insurance.

So I think if you are looking for a limiting principle, or a way to distinguish health care insurance from other products, it's that it is an intangible product whose effectiveness does not depend on the consumer taking any additional action aside from simple ownership.

yeah it could get that worse again in our life time, if thats what your asking.

just gotta make sure we vote the right people in tho amirite!