Mr. Etch-a-Sketch was right. A mandate was needed to avoid the people for paying for healthcare for freeloaders.
And are you willing to stand behind this logic for any and every contingency that might result in a public expense; the burial insurance mandate, for example? Should we be insured against any potential expense that we might incur that the state might feel compelled to pay on our behalf? Or, to ask the question that the Court is surely wrestling with, is there ANY limiting principle on this notion? It seems to me to open a broad new category of so-called "responsibility" that would require us to "pre-pay" for a wide variety of potential outcomes. Is that really how we want society to work?