"' This excerpt from Hudson’s ruling summarizes his verdict well: '"
“At its core, this dispute is not simply about regulating the business of insurance — or crafting a scheme of universal health coverage — it’s about an individual’s right to choose to participate.”
This idea of the "right to choose" or "right to ... participate" (it seems clearer if we break it up the language of the judge's ruling this way) is also present in capitalism, acc. to the following ideas, these being ideas and theories of the present author:
Capitalism works (only) when the individual has the right to participate. In the developing era of capitalism, which is to say up until very recently, the individual could say, "I do not like. Since I do not like, I want to opt out of it," --- effectively "stay on the farm" as cliche' might have it. The point is that an individual -- of my parents', or my grandparents' generation -- could have some chance of "going elsewhere" --- what I mean is that staying with alternative earlier forms of production would be the alternative, the elsewhere here. As capitalism becomes more and more widespread we see that this changes and now ALL of human life on this planet, or almost all, of human life on this globe, is capitalistic -- by which I mean definitively influenced/impacted by capitalism -- and we could also say that we are ruined, by just this all-pervasiveness, which leaves us no "opt-out". Again: we lose the "opt-out." The persons can no longer make a choice not to participate. What this indicates is a fundamental change. Now the condition of capitalism has changed.
This indicates a new set of conditions for capitalism, which new stage distinguishes today's capitalism from yesterday's -- from capitalisms of the past.
(That sounds good: "capitalisms..." Kind o' post-modern and I like it.)
The argument indicates the following: in such a case, society has an increased obligation -- to care for those who are forcibly to be linked-in to the system but are not be getting such a good deal (yes, "deal," just as I wrote that: just like a "business" "deal"). The problem is that they cannot get a decent distribution of the overall capitalist/business wealth. To solve this, what would you do? Here, there is the proposal, this is in the opus of the author, of wealth transfer or grant program, that being an adjustment in the nature of capitalism. I have described this in detail elsewhere.
Thus a free give-away program, to certain persons, or groups of persons, and it must be done globally, is one way to counter-act the problem and address a new capitalist situation. But the idea also seems to hinge upon whether persons think there is a place for something new, or, do they have the laissez faire, "everything's alright" view, like, for example, Larry Kudlow does on the television?