The point is simple, if Health Insurance becomes a required purchase because Constitutional precepts allow for it, then wouldn't the same logic hold up in any other case for ANYTHING the gov't mandated the public buy?
This would mean the gov't has complete control over our lives when the Constitution was written to ensure the PEOPLE had complete control over the gov't!
The whole point Scalia was making is Broccoli is healthy, therefore would the gov't then have a Constitutional basis to force people to buy it and eat it because it would prevent certain diseases?
I guess a related question is, why would anyone spend the money for Princeton tuition if Krugman exemplifies the poor quality of faculty there?