The Obama administration has finally come up with a way in which you can avoid the individual mandate under ObamaCare.  The individual mandate uses the police power of government to force people to obtain health insurance.  Up until this point in our history, the government forcing any individual to obtain any product or service is unprecedented.  There is simply no Constitutional basis for this action.  Think about it – could the government force you to buy an umbrella to protect you from the rain?   This little concept is something known as liberty; a foreign concept to Democrats who believe in the rule of the mob. 

But back to ObamaCare.  So according to the Obama administration, you DO have a choice …  a way in which to avoid this individual mandate.  It’s simple.  Just earn less money.

See how easy that was?

No, this is not an article from The Onion.  No it is not April Fools day .. though many days in this administration seem to be.  Barack Obama’s solicitor general earlier this week defended ObamaCare in federal appeals court saying that if Americans don’t like this individual mandate, they can choose to earn less money.

. . .During the Sixth Circuit arguments, Judge Jeffrey Sutton, who was nominated by President George W. Bush, asked Kaytal if he could name one Supreme Court case which considered the same question as the one posed by the mandate, in which Congress used the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution as a tool to compel action.

Kaytal conceded that the Supreme Court had “never been confronted directly” with the question, but cited the Heart of Atlanta Motel case as a relevant example. In that landmark 1964 civil rights case, the Court ruled that Congress could use its Commerce Clause power to bar discrimination by private businesses such as hotels and restaurants.

“They’re in the business,” Sutton pushed back. “They’re told if you’re going to be in the business, this is what you have to do. In response to that law, they could have said, ‘We now exit the business.’ Individuals don’t have that option.”

Kaytal 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 Hotel, someone doesn’t need to earn that much income. I think both are kind of fanciful and I think get at…”

Sutton interjected, “That wasn’t in a single speech given in Congress about this…the idea that the solution if you don’t like it is make a little less money.”

At a time in which we are desperately trying to turn our economy around, the Barack Obama administration seems determined to penalize wealth and success.  Why will people continue to work hard and earn more if there is little incentive to do so?  You will get more of the behavior you reward.  The opposite is also true.  I am starting to get the sneaking suspicion that Barack Obama believes that government-approved mediocrity is the way to go.