When I responded to Obama’s Health Care Speech I said the following about the potential inclusion of an individual mandate in whatever health care overhaul bill is eventually debated in Congress:
In a nod to the necessity of compromise and political expediency (I do have a pragmatic bone in my body – somewhere) I will keep it out of the non-starter category and say that if it is extremely limited, as liability-only car insurance is, I could accept an individual mandate.
Scott challenged me on that position and I defended it as politically expedient. Now that I have had more time to think about it I believe that I can conclusively demonstrate why the president wanted to rush the health care legislation through before the August recess. His reason was that he understood that the longer people have to process the issue the more people will realize how little government can legitimately do to address this issue and how dangerous it is to allow Congress to employ tools that are not legitimately theirs in order to “fix the system.”
Even I, a very conservative citizen, was willing to consider an individual mandate in the interest of political expediency. Let’s explore the inevitable long-term damage of allowing Congress to use this tool that I even admitted at the time to be extra-Constitutional.
My initial thinking was that an extremely limited mandate would be bearable – what I failed to consider was that no matter what the initial limitations might be allowing such a mandate is nothing less than offering a toe-hold for Congress to expand the mandate in the future.
I refuse to claim that the current members of Congress have a sinister desire to force me to buy and expensive insurance policy that exceeds the needs of some like me who lives a very healthy lifestyle and plans ahead for any predictable medical expenses. (I’m referring to Congress as a body here – I make no claims about any given individual member.) On the other hand, I also refuse to trust that all future members of Congress will lack any such sinister motives – even during the limited span of my own lifetime. Even if I were so trusting it takes no more than a cursory glance at history to determine conclusively that government regulations have an overwhelming tendency to creep in only one direction – the direction of becoming ever more invasive.
When my brain finally kicked in to remind me of this I came to two absolute conclusions. First, no individual mandate, no matter how limited is acceptable in the health care bills. Even if the mandate were that all adults must sign a contract stating that they would pay the first $10,000 of any medical expenses they incur unless they have private insurance with a lower deductible the mandate would be outside the Constitutional authority of Congress and would be too dangerous to support in any bill. Second, there are two relevant definitions of “fix” in politics – one is fix as a noun:
a. The act of adjusting, correcting, or repairing.
b. Informal Something that repairs or restores; a solution.
The other is fix as a verb:
To influence the outcome or actions of by improper or unlawful means.
The noun is that one that politicians usually think they mean and always want citizens to think they are pursuing. The verb is generally more applicable to what they are doing even if they have the best of intentions.
When is a tax not a tax? When the President of the United States says so. Thus an individual mandate to pay for insurance or a penalty for not purchasing insurance is not a tax, and therefore, the campaign promise is kept. Unfortunately for those who have to pay an amount of money to the government it will certainly feel like a tax. From Fox News:
President Obama and ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos got in a testy sparring match Sunday over whether the president’s health care plan includes a tax increase, leading the host to look up the Merriam-Webster dictionary definition of taxes.
In the interview airing Sunday, Stephanopoulos pressed the president on his plan to require people to purchase health insurance.
“Under this mandate, the government is forcing people to spend money, fining you if you don’t. How is that not a tax?” the host asked.
Obama responded: ” No, but — but, George, you — you can’t just make up that language and decide that that’s called a tax increase.”
Stephanopoulos then offered the dictionary definition.
“I don’t think I’m making it up. Merriam-Webster’s dictionary: ‘Tax, a charge, usually of money, imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes,'” he said.
Visibly taken aback, Obama rejected the notion it was a tax increase and said pulling the dictionary out was a sign the host was “stretching” a little.
“No. That — that’s not true, George. The — for us to say that you’ve got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase,” Obama said.
It would be nicer if the president would just fess up rather than play politician. He could just say:
I’m fairly confident that is what he believes – even though he’s absolutely wrong in that belief.
Regardless of whether he were to admit that some might call it a tax, my opposition stands. Even if it were a mandate that did not cost a cent to anyone it would be opening the door for Congress now or in the future to exceed their authority even more by making the mandate incrementally more invasive over time. (In an effort to fix continuing problems of course.)
No matter how the health care bill is packaged, gift wrapped or presented, it is nothing more than a sinister (and I do ascribe nefarious intent on the behalf of certain people) to further intrude into the lives of Americans. The individual mandate robs people of the choice–and the consequences–to make their own economic decisions. The government will have it’s foot in the door so that sometime in the future Congress will be either “compelled” or simply choose to further intrude by removing all private insurance. This a bold-faced power grab by the political groups who believe that certain people should make decision on behalf of the citizens of the United States.
Some might consider me hysterical but I believe there is a real possiblity that there are “secret socities” behind these laws because the laws that are being proposed and being passed continue to point to a government that will eventually control our collective decisions. The more the government wants to tax citizens and businesses, in the name of social justice, the more money will be driven into fewer and fewer decision points, and where the money resides so does the power.
A normal economic recessionary cycle (yes, there were some bad decisions made along the way by Republican politicians as well as recessionary incendiary devices legalized by Democrats that exacerbated the current economy) has been manufactured, packaged and advertised into a crisis of such proportion that anything absent the government taking total control will lead us into oblivion. Hence, in the past 12 months we have seen the essential nationalization of the banking sector, the nationalization of the “American” automotive industry, a blatant attempt at nationalizing energy through cap-and-trade, and now, the attempt at nationalizing health insurance (whoops, I mean health care). I do not spare Republican legislators and executives from my wrath either because of the passage of such things as the Patriot Act that when used impoperly, or not within the scope of the original intent, will erode liberties even further. And just because such laws are or will be enacted by Republicans or Democrats, the other party when in power will use these laws to their own objectives.
The individual mandate is such an action that will lead us further and further into the arms of the benevolent government, and eventually into the arms of tyranny.
You should have benevolent in quotes when talking about “benevolent” government. Government is dangerous by definition – like fire – and should only be used as a respected tool in its properly restricted sphere.
Agreed, it should be “benevolent,” but either way, Tyranny is the real concern! And the current government is being used as a very big and heavy sledge hammer to forge America into something it should never be.
AMEN!
While I’m not as skeptical as Scott of the intentions of our elected leaders, I do think that the individual (and employer) mandates are a way to help bring about a single-payer system. If every citizen has to have insurance, then what happens when people can’t afford insurance? Oh, the “benevolent” government must step in to help them. It can’t require us to do something without assisting those who can’t comply. And so, as government expands Medicaid and other public “options,” health care costs continue to rise and more and more people need help, until we have a single-payer system. I don’t know if this is sinister or not, but it certainly could lead to what liberals want.
Congress is fully capable of requiring us to do something without assisting those who can’t comply – just ask any state government about unfunded mandates. The problem is that they won’t and in “assisting those who can’t comply” on this kind of mandate they either maliciously or benevolently shred the existing system.
Their motives do not matter. The only thing that matters is the fact that the very illusion of a free market will disappear sooner or later if they are allowed to proceed down this path.