Rhetoric aside, the debate over the recently passed health care legislation was never about whether health care coverage should be expanded or whether health insurance needed to be made more affordable. All reasonable people, both Republicans and Democrats alike, agreed that it was necessary to increase access and reduce costs. In no uncertain terms, the debate was about one thing: the proper size and role of the Federal Government.
In the end, proponents of small government, such as myself, lost that debate, although not as badly as we could have. While the legislation increases costs, taxes, and governmental regulation, we were able to avoid the socialization of the industry and thereby protect the quality of the world's most innovative health care system. In general, the legislation represents a troublesome but relatively moderate expansion of Federal power. That is, of course, except for one provision: the individual mandate to purchase health insurance. That provision is wholly unconstitutional and sets a dangerous precedent for a fundamental change in the nature of government as we know it.
Under the law passed by Congress, individuals who do not purchase health insurance will have to pay a fine of $695 a year or 2.5 percent of income, whichever is higher. Make no mistake; this provision represents an extraordinarily significant and unconstitutional expansion of Federal power. For the first time in history, Americans will be legally required to enter into a transaction with another private party as a precondition to lawful existence in the United States. If allowed to stand, the provision sets a very dangerous precedent for all of us who value our individual liberty and choice.
America was founded on principles of personal liberty and the Founders were particularly wary of a strong central government. As such, the United States Constitution explicitly limits the Federal Government's authority to a short list of enumerated powers generally relating to foreign affairs, national defense, the printing of money, and interstate commerce. In all other areas of life, the people were to be free from Federal intrusion and any regulation was to be done by the individual states in accordance with local values.
As Americans know all too well, Congress has greatly expanded its reach far beyond these powers to the point where it regulates nearly every aspect of our lives. For the most part, it has justified this expansion by pointing to the Commerce Clause contained in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. The Commerce Clause reads, in relevant part: "[Congress shall have power] to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes." Despite the fact that this clause was intended only to give Congress the power to regulate transactions between people in different states, Congress has since used the clause to justify its regulation of any act that has even the most tangential effect on our system of interstate commerce. For example, in recent years, Congress attempted to pass Federal laws regulating domestic violence and the possession of guns in school zones by claiming that these acts had some sort of indirect effect on interstate markets. While the Supreme Court did strike down these two egregious examples of Federal overextension, noting that the regulation of such acts was the province of the state legislatures, it has unfortunately acquiesced to the vast majority of Congress' Federal power grabs.
Predictably, Congress is now trying to justify the individual health insurance mandate by again pointing to the Commerce Clause. They argue that when people without health insurance get sick or injured, the rest of society bears the cost. By requiring everyone to buy insurance, we will reduce these costs. There are a number of problems with this rationale, not the least of which is that health insurance cannot even be purchased across state lines and thus the relation to interstate commerce is indirect at best. However, even adopting Congress' broad interpretation of its powers to regulate the manner in which interstate transactions take place, the individual health insurance mandate represents something very different and very dangerous.
For the first time in history, the Federal Government is penalizing pure inaction. Congress has effectively mandated that every American take the affirmative step of purchasing health insurance from a private company. Citizens no longer have the ability to weigh the risks and rewards and make a choice for themselves. By simply existing within our borders and not possessing health insurance, you will be violating Federal law.
It is one thing for Congress to regulate an individual's conduct once they have chosen to enter an interstate market, no matter how tangential or indirect that involvement might be. It is another entirely to mandate that individuals enter an interstate market. That is exactly what Congress is doing here. Congress is not regulating anything. It is requiring people, under penalty of law, to take affirmative actions against their will.
Should this provision remain law, it will stand as a dangerous precedent and a distinct threat to individual liberty and choice. If Congress has the power to force individuals into market transactions, the threats to individual liberty are effectively unbounded. What is to stop Congress from requiring people to join gyms in order to reduce the societal costs of obesity? Or, for that matter, what is to stop Congress from effecting the next automobile bailout by mandating that people go out and buy an American car? I would say that we could rely upon the sensibilities of our Congress members, but historically that seems like a bad idea.
The precedent set by the individual mandate would transform a constitutionally limited Federal Government into one of limitless power. There would literally be nothing that Congress could not do. Congress would have the authority to mandate that individuals take any action that it deemed socially beneficial. The nature of the forced action would differ depending upon which party controlled Congress at any given time, but we can be sure to an absolute certainty that Congress members of both parties would not pass up the opportunity to impose their values on the people through the use of their newly found draconian powers.
The precedent set by the individual mandate fundamentally alters the nature of government as we know it. No longer will government be our ostensible protector, regulating individual conduct to ensure that our actions do not harm others. It will now be our master, capable of compelling us to act against our will. This is exactly the type of government that our Founders feared and all of us, both Republicans and Democrats alike, should be equally concerned today. No matter one's view of the health care bill generally, it is imperative that all of us contact our representatives in Congress and tell them to tear up the blank check they have given themselves in the form of the individual mandate. The cost of inaction will not simply be paid in the form of a $695 fine, but in the erosion of personal liberty and choice. That is a cost that none of us should be willing to pay.
If you recall, allowing insurance to freely operate across state lines ie: establish an interstate market was hawked as a big GOP idea, in effect forcing consumers into the interstate market.
Your idea that "for the first time in history, the Federal Government is penalizing pure inaction" is pure bunk. The federal government punishes inaction on a daily basis some examples: draft registration income taxes various rule and regulations.
On the other hand, inaction by federal government is how we find ourselves in the economic mess we are in today.
Have we not learned anything?
And now she will be taxed / fined for not buying insurance? Good bill there Obama and congress. What a way to look out for our seniors. I challenge a supporter of the health care bill to tell me how this helps her, before she is dead.
Kudos, guy.
I will take issue with you on one point: Quote: "the legislation increases costs". Actually I believe the CBO said it will reduce costs.
Dino and one poster here made an excellent point about the deterioration of personal liberties that this bill represents. THe example was about how to fight obesity, one of the most significant health threats to ever face our country. I recently read one report that says that more than 50% of the population is overweight and a HUGE (no pun intended) percentage of our children are obese. It is becoming, and will become--if not addressed--a bigger health issue than smoking and cancer combined. So why wouldn't it be reasonable, after passage of the Healthcare Bill, to MANDATE that every US Citizen buy a gym membership? The logic used by the Democrats and their herd of sheep to justify the mandate to buy health insurance is that if you DON'T have health insurance and get sick, everybody else has to pay for YOUR lack of health insurance, right? So by that logic, people who allow themselves to get morbidly obese by NOT working out and taking care of themselves are also a burden on the system. My 400 pound neighbor is going to have a lot more health problems based on his obesity than I will, and therefore, I have an undue burden to pay for his healthcare since I am healthy and work out regularly to maintain my health.
The question that Dino raised is a good one--WHERE DOES IT END?
It is also not ILLEGAL to buy health insurance, it is a choice. If you choose to not buy health insurance you choose to be taxed. It is not as if you are sent to jail, or put on trial. It is similar to paying a tax on smoking, you choose to buy cigarettes, you choose to pay that tax.
But by all means, if taxes are illegal remove them.
I think Dino made a very good
"Protect the quality of the world's most innovative health care system"
you are contributing to the mass misinformation spewing from your side of the party line.
I wish it were so, but you simply cannot say things to make them true. We DO NOT have the most innovative system in the world; this is precisely why we needed reform in the first place.
Also, you go through much trouble to explain that citizens will have
"to take affirmative actions against their will"
Who are these people exactly? Your rhetoric attempts to suggest that everybody in america does not want healthcare at all.
Listen closely: Most able-minded individuals understand the importance of health care. If a small portion of the 300-and-something citizens of this country have to play along with something they should arguably want in the first place, so be it.
And correct me if I'm wrong, but did you imply that it was a shame for congress to regulate domestic abuse??
We routinely save babies that other countries don't even consider human life! (E.g. smallest baby every born was 275g, and Germany and France don't even consider that a baby. Anything under 500g is essentially considered a miscarriage and not counted toward their infant mortality rate. Japan and Hong Kong have extended this out until 24hrs after ANY birth). We develop drugs that save even the smallest minorities of diseased individuals. Our orphan drug industry is helping people who were previously ignored almost entirely because their numbers are so small (e.g. 5,000 people in the world... Thats about 0.00007% of the world population.).
We need to improve our access, and provide protections who have experience medical emergencies, not destroy our healthcare innovation by reducing pay (good students won't go into medicine if we end up with doctors, like in the UK, making $80,000/yr--it's not worth the 15yrs of academic hell and quarter million in student loans!) and imposing economic restrictions that will stifle innovation.
Its not about money. And thats why need reform. We need reform in the way people think.
Coming from somebody who loves and deeply understands numbers, They can almost never tell the whole story.
I don't consider us the most innovative because of how we handle health in this country. And anyone who claims we can't simultaneously have health care for everyone and innovation by your definition is a bigger cynic than I
The Republicans may agree that something needs to do about the cost of health care, but they've done diddley over squat about it.
Yes, we have the most innovative health care in the world, but it's not worth much if it isn't available to all of our citizens. Might explain why we rank 38th in overall life expectancy and 33rd in infant mortality. So much for innovation.
As to the constitutionality of the Health Care Bill, time will tell and the Supremes will decide. Most of the Constitutional Laws folks I've talked to seem to think it has a good chance of being upheld. I agree.
But, you're right. The republicans have done nothing. Neither the republicans nor the democrats actually care about anything other than "control".
As for our overall healthcare "ranking", you're buying into silly anti-Capitalist propaganda. When it comes to medical treatment outcomes, we have THE BEST in the world. There is nowhere else that you'd like to be treated. Our ranking is a result of our number uninsured. Now, the one that REALLY gets me is this ridiculous idea that we have high infant mortality rates. This infant mortality myth is a result of two factors (a) reporting methods (b) attempts to save. The US reports every child that could have conceivably lived and didn't as an infant mortality. Many countries don'd do this. In fact, if a child is under 500 grams in Germany, France, etc it is NOT even considered a child by them--it is by us. In hong kong or Japan, if a child dies within 24hrs of birth, it's considered a miscarriage--not by us. Some countries extend this out weeks!!! It's ridiculous. But, what's even more ridiculous is that we're ultimately ridiculed for doing more to save more children, and reporting more honestly than anybody else.
Congratulations on being a sheep.
Well...we can, as a country, be cruel and say to all doctors: " If the person in front of you cannot pay, then you no longer have to treat them."
Because that is NOT the case, then that payment has to come from everyone who can afford it...either by taxes or by paying into an insurance pool. Of course, the government can also train and provide health care directly, but it will be a while before we are ready for that.
- Emancipation Proclamation by Lincoln
- Women's suffrage by Wilson
- Lend/Lease by FDR
- Desegregation of the military by Truman
- Civil Rights Act by Johnson
Who would stand against those today?
I do want to say that I appreciate your post enormously. You present a reasonable argument that will certainly be decided in the courts and not by snarky back-and-forth blog comments. We all tend to seek out the comforts of the echo chamber and I struggle to find well-articulated, non-emotional, and respectful opposing viewpoints (or even well-articulated, non-emotional, respectful viewpoints like my own!) I don't agree with you, but thanks for your thoughts.
As to the claim that the US health care is the most innovative in the world, I would agree, but I don't see that the insurance industry has contributed toward that end in the slightest. I'd be happy to see evidence to the contrary, where the insurance industry has funded fundamental research, or recast their payments structure to reward doctors and hospitals for providing better care at a lower cost, etc. I haven't seen any such efforts, but I have seen lots of money spent on advertising, inordinately high executive salaries, and other wasteful practices.
The Republicans put a lot of stock in polls that show that a significant number of people don't like the new plan. I don't either -- I would have MUCH preferred a Medicare for all single-payer plan, or at the very least a public option, but given the Republican's obstructionism, and in particular the best Senators and Congressmen that money can buy, that just wasn't going to happen.
If all this leads the health insurance companies to get out of the business entirely over the next several years, then so much the better.