filed under: mulligan

I wrote a little piece in And this week that argued the case of SCOTUS v. POTUS... not an earth-shaking piece, just a little look-see into what the President and his men were saying about the court in the wake of the healthcare case.

Now comes word that the Supreme Court didn't understand the provisions of the law.  And apparently the President's man didn't either, since he forgot, according to the article, to argue the Administration's case for "the bronze plan" in his defense. (The bronze plan is a catastrophic plan that is "skinny." It's low cost. It is lean.

Maybe Verilli was out playing golf with the President when this was covered in their Court prep day.  It sounds like now they want a mulligan.

But I guess my question would be: if I held one guy up for a thousand dollars and another guy up for a hundred... wouldn't I have robbed them both?  In other words, if something is illegal (read: unconstitutional), does it matter that it's going to cost you less?

The key sentence in the article: "The minimum that people will be required to buy under the health reform law is clearly a catastrophic plan," said Levitt.

The key phrase: "people will be required to buy"...

The bronze plan... ahh, the gilded age.