Kaytal [acting solicitor general of the United States] responded by noting that the there’s a provision in the health care law that allows people to avoid the mandate.
“If we’re going to play that game, I think that game can be played here as well, because after all, the minimum coverage provision only kicks in after people have earned a minimum amount of income,” Kaytal said. “So it’s a penalty on earning a certain amount of income and self insuring. It’s not just on self insuring on its own. So I guess one could say, just as the restaurant owner could depart the market in Heart of Atlanta Motel, someone doesn’t need to earn that much income. I think both are kind of fanciful and I think get at…”
[Addendum: from The Washington Examiner –Econlib Ed.]
HT to Joe “Skippy” Johnson.
READER COMMENTS
Bob Murphy
Jun 3 2011 at 12:50am
Plus we can always move to Somalia. Quit complaining Henderson.
kurt
Jun 3 2011 at 6:42am
What ever happened to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?
texx
Jun 3 2011 at 8:09am
[Comment removed pending confirmation of email address. Email the webmaster@econlib.org to request restoring this comment. A valid email address is required to post comments on EconLog and EconTalk.–Econlib Ed.]
Ryan
Jun 3 2011 at 9:20am
David H.,
What’s the source for this comment? Not challenging the validity of it, just want to gain some context.
On its face, it’s classic.
Thanks,
Jim Ancona
Jun 3 2011 at 2:51pm
Google found it in a Washington Examiner story:
They link to the audio of the oral arguments, if you want to check the quote.
Æternitatis
Jun 4 2011 at 4:35pm
Actually, Neal spells his last name “Katyal” and is among the smartest lawyers I know (and I know a fair number of them). That he would be reduced to making such a counter-productive argument is a good sign of the weakness of their position.
Comments are closed.