The Individual Mandate

Note: This post was written and posted on Facebook in early November, before I started this blog. I thought it would be a good first bit of actual content. Enjoy.

Yesterday, the House of Representatives passed a health care "reform" bill. Included in this bill is an "individual mandate." This mandate requires that every man, woman, and child that is a citizen of the United States of America purchase health insurance. If you do not purchase heath insurance, the government will tax you. (Incidentally, our President denies that this fine is a tax, even though it is administered via the tax code, collected by the IRS, and violations are prosecuted by the IRS. Orwell is proud.) If you choose not to pay the tax, the government will throw you in jail.

I, for one, find this a very troubling development. Our elected representatives have, in essence, decreed that they have the power to compel the citizenry to do whatever those in power in Washington DC see fit, contingent merely upon a citizen being alive. If you defy that decree, the government will throw you in jail. No justification in the US Constitution or the enumerated powers therein are cited. When queried about the Constitutional legitimacy of such a mandate, the Speaker of the House replied, incredulous, "Are you serious?" and moved on to the next question.

This is a radical departure from other, previous mandates. Car insurance mandates are contingent upon a person choosing to drive upon the public roads. If you choose not to drive, you are not mandated to buy insurance. Jury pools draw from voter registration records or driver's license databases; if you don't want to serve, you can choose not to register to vote. The "individual mandate" is contingent upon your existence alone: if you're a living US citizen, you must buy health insurance. Think of it either as a "citizenship tax" or a "breath tax."

Even the Supreme Court cases that dramatically expanded the scope of federal power involved an overt act on the part of the person being regulated (though I think those cases were wrongly decided). Filburn was growing wheat to use on his farm that he otherwise would have had to buy. Raich was growing marijuana for persona medicinal use that she would otherwise have had to buy illegally. These "economic" acts were used as justification for the federal government's ability to regulate the transactions. In the case of an insurance mandate, there is no transaction or economic act. If you are breathing, the mandate and regulations apply to you.

So now we have a government that asserts that it is able to compel its citizens to buy whatever goods and services the rulers require, even if those purchases go against the citizen's better judgment. If this sort of "regulation" is within the government's power, where does it end?

Will a heavily-conservative government compel all citizens to purchase guns, using the rationale that a well-equipped citizen militia is necessary for the security of the state?

Will a environmentally-conscious government compel its each of its citizens to purchase hybrid cars in order to combat global warming?

What protection do we have from the government dictating what we spend all of our money on?

The incredulity with which Speaker Pelosi replied to the query regarding the Constitutionality of this act speaks volumes to me. Our government no longer considers whether its acts are justified, legal, or Constitutional. They have goals, and they will pursue them. The 10th Amendment is a quaint anachronism, and holds no legal weight. The ends justify the means.

Thomas Jefferson said "if we can but prevent the government from wasting the labours of the people, under the pretence of taking care of them, they must become happy." This mandate is nothing if not the government wasting the people's labor under the guise of taking care of them. And I, for one, am very unhappy about it.