The latest district court ruling on( ) by Judge Gladys Kessler reveals the totalitarian nature of . She writes:
It is pure semantics to argue that an individual who makes a choice to forgo health insurance is not “acting,” especially given the serious economic and health-related consequences to every individual of that choice. Making a choice is an affirmative action, whether one decides to do something or not do something.
Ilya Somin comments:
This argument suffers from the same flaws as the very similar “economic decision” doctrine adopted in the two previous rulings. It would give Congress the power to impose any mandate of any kind. …
Judge Kessler also relies on what I have previously called the “health care is special” argument: that choosing not to purchase health insurance is an economic activity because we will all use health care at some point in our lives. This argument, however, also leads to unlimited congressional power …
Read Somin’s whole post for the full argument: The DC District Court Decision Upholding the Constitutionality of the Individual Mandate.
But just from the comments above, you can see how the decision is totalitarian:
totalitarian (1b): of or relating to a political regime based on subordination of the individual to the state and strict control of all aspects of the life and productive capacity of the nation especially by coercive measures (as censorship and terrorism) – Merriam-Webster Dictionary.