Allahpundit asks a question which has been intriguing me:

If it's constitutional to impose an insurance mandate, i.e. "you must purchase a product from this industry," why would it be unconstitutional to refine that to "you must purchase our product from this industry"? In fact, assuming that the feds gave you a choice between not buying a car at all and having to buy GM if you did choose to buy one, the GM hypothetical would operate more like auto-insurance laws -- which are, of course, fully constitutional -- than the true mandate that's found in ObamaCare.

And I am still thinking about that wonderful Yuengling beer I've been missing since I moved to Michigan -- a beer which, as I only recently found out, happens to be President Obama's favorite beer.

So... if it's constitutional to impose an insurance mandate (and if the government can ensure universal access to readers for all writers), I don't see why the government couldn't require beer drinkers to buy Yuengling.

That would certainly solve my problem!

As to those who don't like Yuengling beer as much as their current brand, how can they be so selfish?

Obviously, they need beer reeducation camps!