Individual Mandate Say What!!!

Today Virginia Federal Judge Henry Hudson deemed the individual mandate of the health care law known as "Obama-care" to be unconstitutional. While other Federal Judges have ruled in favor of the mandate, a ruling in opposition to the mandate is likely to take the case to the supreme court.

While I don't pretend to be a constitutional attorney, I agree with the judge's conclusion that the mandate is unconstitutional. While congress does have the authority to regulate commerce, as the judge said, it does not have the authority to force you to create it. This judge basically said today that when a person purchases a good or service, that congress can regulate it, i.e, tax it, control the size and scope of the purchase, regulate how the transaction occurs, et cetera; but congress does NOT have the authority to create that purchase (force you to initiate it).

Spot on.

Constitutionality aside, there are some serious problems with the mandate. Simply legislating human behavior won't change that behavior.

Supporters of the bill say that forcing people to purchase health care is "ok" because it is (1) for their own good and (2) reduces the financial impact of the uninsured on the general tax base. If these guidelines justify the forcing of individuals to purchase health care, then why not anything else if it does the same?

For example.......

Purchasing life insurance could satisfy the above criteria. If everybody bought life insurance, then the number of single parents on taxpayer funded welfare would likely be lower and it's obviously good for the individuals who are separated from loved ones prematurely. So why not force everybody to buy life insurance?

Criminals break into homes and assault and kill people all too often. Pursuing, trying, convicting, and incarcerating these individuals is done at massive taxpayer expense. Homeowners would clearly be better off if they were able to defend themselves, so why not require everybody to purchase a firearm and ammunition? Additionally, as a tool is no good to the untrained, we should also force everybody to go to a personal protection firearm school as well. Imagine the taxpayer dollars, not to mention the taxpayers, that would be saved.

Taxpayers spend billions of dollars subsidizing public transportation. It would be much cheaper if we simply built a bunch of private toll roads and required everybody to purchase a car and to drive the tollroads. When the roads get jammed, we'll just widen existing roads and build new ones. Sounds great.

Many people retire poor. It's a shame that some people are forced to eat catfood in their latter years. Wouldn't it be great if we forced everybody to buy into a government controlled retirement fund? That way people would be able to retire knowing that at least they can eat. Oh, wait, that's social security....[retro turntable screeching] ...REMIX!!!!..... Times have changed and inflation has gone up so far that social security alone is clearly not enough to retire. Perhaps we should force everybody to purchase a privately owned retirement account as well so they can once again retire with confidence.

Finally, food stamps, WIC, and other food subsidies cost the taxpayer billions. If these people would just buy their own d@mn food things would be much better for everybody, right? So why don't we just pass legislation forcing people to buy 3 meals a day worth of food?

These examples are ridiculous, I know. However, I chose them for a reason. Many of the rebuttals that show how ludicrous those ideas are also show the insanity of the health care law.

Requiring people to buy life insurance won't solve poverty caused by providers passing away. Some people won't buy adequate coverage.

Requiring people to purchase a firearm goes against the morals of many. For example, a neighbor of mine would rather die than lift a finger in self defense. Many people have religious or personal objections to the requirement.

If everybody drove to work we'd have to build more roads. Expensive. In the meantime, the roads we do have would get worn out and would be incredibly crowded. Crowding and quality would become an issue.

Simply requiring people to buy food won't solve the problem. Some people can't afford it.

Social security was intended, initially, to provide for those who could not afford their own retirement. Widows, the poor, etc. Unfortunately, the program was expanded, and expanded, and expanded. Now it's barely viable. But making people buy another retirement account won't solve people retiring poor. Once again, some simply can't afford it. Additionally, some will just do the minimum then rely on the existing failsafe for their livelihood anyway.

So why is the health care mandate a bad idea? A few reasons: Some won't buy enough coverage anyway, many object to it, crowding and quality of care can become an issue, some people simply can't afford it, and...oh yeah...some people can't afford it, and, as a result, will instead do the bare minimum then rely on existing failsafes (Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP) for their livelihood anyway.