March262010

text

Why the Personal Mandate to Buy Health Insurance Is Unconstitutional

Editor’s Note: I support the Healthcare Reform Law.

A mandate requiring all individuals to purchase health insurance would be an unprecedented form of federal action. The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States. An individual mandate would have two features that, in combination, would make it unique. First, it would impose a duty on individuals as members of society. Second, it would require people to purchase a specific service that would be heavily regulated by the federal government.[1]

This statement from a 1994 Congressional Budget Office Memorandum remains true today. Yet, all of the leading House and Senate health-care reform bills being debated in Congress require Americans to either secure or purchase health insurance with a particular threshold of coverage, estimated by CBO to cost up to $15,000 per year for a typical family.[2] This personal mandate to enter into a contract with a private health insurance company is enforced through civil and criminal tax penalties in section 501 of the House bill[3] and with a freestanding mandate and equally questionable civil tax penalties in sections 501 and 513 of the pending Senate bill.[4] (full article…)

The Heritage Foundation | Why the Personal Mandate to Buy Health Insurance Is Unprecedented and Unconstitutional (Published on December 9, 2009 by Randy Barnett, Nathaniel Stewart and Todd Gaziano)

Posted via web from Engine No. 9 | Comment »

Tags: /healthcare reform /personal views /politics