Is the Individual Mandate the poison pill in ObamaCare?
Every health care bill on Capitol Hill has it: the requirement that everybody in the country buy an insurance policy. If you don’t do it, you pay a fine. It is disturbing that nobody on the left seems to think twice about the government ordering private citizens to purchase something they may not want to buy. On its face, the thing is a giant invasion of people’s individual freedom to make their own decisions about their lives and, in particular, their health.
The Wall Street Journal talks about how both parties are assailing the individual mandate, but note that only GOP opposes it on the principle that there is simply no Constitutional authority for it.
The idea of an “individual mandate” to carry insurance is an integral part of Democratic efforts to expand health coverage to nearly every American. Any final legislation is likely to include some type of annual penalty for those who forgo health insurance and are deemed able to afford it.
Many Republicans charge that such an unprecedented requirement could violate the Constitution. Some Democrats are concerned it would penalize people for not buying something they simply couldn’t afford. . . .
Sen. Orrin Hatch (R., Utah) argued that the mandate may not be constitutional, since it would require Americans to buy a product or service they hadn’t chosen to purchase. While Democrats often cite the requirement that all individuals carry car insurance, Republicans have countered that owning a car is optional. A Congressional Research Service report exploring whether the mandate is constitutional concluded the measure is a legitimate exercise of Congress’s tax authority, but raised some questions about whether it goes beyond the bounds of its commerce powers.
And there is the rub. Republicans have been pressing for legislation to allow people to purchase health insurance across state lines. The fact that people cannot do that now, obviously means that health insurance is not sold in interstate commerce. If there is no interstate commerce involved, then Congress has no authority to regulate it under the Commerce Clause in the Constitution.
The reason you never see a federal law requiring you to individually purchase something you don’t want is because there is no authority for the government to do that. The United States has a Constitution. This is not Europe, although the Democrats sorely wish it were (and govern as if it is), where governments can can do whatever they want to their citizens. Our government is, by design, restricted in what it can order us to do. Ordering Americans to purchase health insurance is patently unconstitutional. The fact that the mandate is in every Democrat plan is simply a poison pill waiting to undo all the liberals good intentions.
But hey, even if a judge throws the whole thing out, the Dems can probably still win the Nobel Peace Prize. Good intentions make you a shoo-in for that.
Post Your Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment
T/S Members
Log in with your True/Slant account.
Fair enough.
So, why don’t Republicans start assailing auto insurance for carrying the very same type of mandate?
Is it because they consider their cars to be more important than our poor?
Their hypocrisy is so rank, it’s beginning to smell like cheese.
There is a fundamental difference between car and health insurance. Driving a car is a privilege. If you want to drive, you need insurance. Health care goes to your continued existence. Little more critical, little more important. If they want to raise taxes and give the uninsured some insurance, that is permitted by the Constitution. A mandate for me to buy it is not.
In response to another comment. See in context »No. This is not the fundamental difference. The difference is purchasing a car is an option – not an obligation. Nobody is forcing you to purchase a car therefore nobody is forcing you to purchase insurance for your non-existent vehicle. You have a choice.
The constitutional argument against mandated health insurance is, as you point out, you are being forced to purchase something.
There is an argument to be made, but most reasonable constitutional authorities agree that it would be permitted under the taxing authority. That said, I agree there is an argument to be made on your side- but it is clearly an argument, not a given. To suggest that this is patently unconstitutional is just silly. It is not ‘patently’ anything.
With respect to the commerce clause, your argument also, more than likely, fails. Ageed that there is an argument to be made for your point of view, but by virtue of the fact that insurance companies have been exempted from federal anti-trust laws, and have been subject to federal authority in a number of ways probably makes clear that Congress has regulatory authority in this instance. Again, I can see your commerce clause argument and it does have some merit, but to state it as a ‘no-brainer’ simply misleads a reader who is less familiar with Constitutional law. What is the upside of doing that?
In response to another comment. See in context »Yeah…except that it was the Republicans who originally favored an individual mandate- until Obama agreed with them.
From the Washington Monthly, published September 23, 2009-
“As recently as a month ago, Chuck Grassley, the same senator bashing the idea of a mandate yesterday, announced that the way to get universal coverage is “through an individual mandate.” He told Nightly Business report, “That’s individual responsibility, and even Republicans believe in individual responsibility.” Earlier this year, Grassley told Fox News that there wasn’t “anything wrong” with mandates even if some may view them “as an infringement upon individual freedom.”
Further, why do you assume ‘the left’ is so in favor of this? The purpose of mandates is to widen the insurance pool to make up for the additional costs that insurance companies will incur now that they will have to accept everyone, even those with pre-existing conditions. If it were up to ‘the left’, this wouldn’t be an issue at all as the government would be providing coverage, thus negating any need for individual mandates. In point of fact, it was the health insurance companies who pursued the idea of the mandates so as to greatly increase their base of customers. I mean, it doesn’t exactly suck for them that virtually every American will have to buy their products or pay a fine for not doing so!
I don’t happen to think that the mandate is going to work out as I explained in a piece a few days ago. The experience of the various states that have dabbled in this sort of thing has not turned out to be particularly successful. However, ‘mouthing’ the party line is not particularly useful in arguing the issue. Many Republicans were, in fact, all for mandated insurance until they decided to be against it. So, rather than paint this as a ‘left vs. right’ issue, maybe we would all learn a bit more if the discussion were on substance rather than couched in more foolishness?
As for Steven’s question regarding auto insurance, opponents of mandated health insurance would point out that purchasing a car is optional where health care is pretty much not. It is not a very compelling argument but this is the pitch typically made to differentiate.
As I noted, I don’t think mandates are going to work – but it has nothing to do with the Constitutional nonsense being put forth in this post. Mandates will pass Constitutional muster although I suspect they will not, ultimately, make it politically.
Conservatives do not believe in individual mandates, despite whatever some Republicans may believe.
I attribute the mandate to the left because all of the bills are written by Democrats. If your point is that the Socialists who want single-payer don’t favor the mandate, then fine, but single-payer isn’t happening (at least not explicitly – though the public option is the Trojan Horse for it). So if Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid and Barack Obama all support the individual mandate, it is hard to argue that it is not a position held by the left.
So, let me be sure I’m clear on this. Because Obama, Reid and Pelosi support individual mandates, then it is a position held by the left. Please correct me if this is not precisely what you said.
Then why is it when Grassley vocally supported the notion, John Kyl did not raise his hand in the Finance Committee when Baucus asked whether anyone was against the idea and, oh yes, Mitt Romney strongly supported the idea while Governor of Massachusetts, it is not a conservative idea?
I mean, if the supporters are the basis for determining what is ‘left’ and what is ‘right’ – although I find this to be a ridiculously simplistic approach to a complicated matter – then why does the support of those so completely associated with conservatism not ‘count’?
These are your words…”Conservatives do not believe in individual mandates, despite whatever some Republicans may believe.”
Only to be followed up with…” So if Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid and Barack Obama all support the individual mandate, it is hard to argue that it is not a position held by the left.”
You really don’t see the problem with this argument? I think you do or you’re not as smart as I think you are.
In response to another comment. See in context »Bill I’m impressed you not only managed to incorporate all your party’s talking points but you also managed to close on especially bitter note. If Beck ever needs a stand in maybe he’ll look you up. Can you cry at will?
BTW Bill you do know that Europe is a continent, not a coutry (hey it’s cool, that one trips up Sarah Palin too) Most of the nations of the European continent have a written constituion, i.e.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_France
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_Law_for_the_Federal_Republic_of_Germany
Mr. Dupray,
If there really were a constitutional issue here, why would not the Republicans be trying to repeal Medicare, or the Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration which manages the National Flood Insurance Program which is a 100% “public option” program, or Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation? These are all insurance programs run (successfully) by the Federal government. They would all fail the same constitutional test that any Federal health insurance program would fail. Since the Republicans are not fighting to repeal the flood insurance program, it is clear that they do not in fact believe that there is any such problem with the constitution or even with Republican principles, just with the financial base of their campaign committees.
I am for single payer and I abhor the mandate. I will not purchase for-profit insurance, even if I am fined.
The mandate is the idiotic result of the Democrats being afraid to take on their major “donors,” the Insurance Industry. Instead of increasing the risk pool through universal coverage — which works well throughout teh civilized world, I might add — they chose to appease the industry with a mandate against the people instead. They learned the wrong lesson from the Clinton healthcare attempt, they abandoned the interests of the people for the interests of big business.
The mandate becomes even more ridiculous when you strip away a robust Public Option (yet another giveaway to Industry). I agree with your title premise: the mandate is a poison pill.