Mandatory health insurance

Published Jun 20, 2012 at 6:01 am (Updated Jun 20, 2012)

I would like to respond to a letter by Reggie Cheong-Leon, printed in your June 8 edition on the subject of SB-10 which would protect an individuals right not to be forced to purchase health care insurance.

This bill was in response to what is commonly referred to as Obama-care. If upheld by the Supreme Court, Obama-care, would have as one of it's many vague and largely incomprehensible provisions, a mandate to purchase health care insurance approved by some unelected panel of government "experts".

Reggie tries to equate a child paying for their own education to forcing an adult to buy a product that they may, for their own reasons, have no need or desire to purchase. The obvious difference is, a child is not of age to make his own choices or to assume responsibilities. The parents have the responsibility to provide for the child. In a free country, an adult makes his or her own decisions, despite the growth of the nanny state.

Reggie also tried to make the case that since drivers must have auto insurance, that somehow justifies being forced to buy healthcare insurance.

Well, as it turns out, one doesn't have to buy auto insurance unless one wishes to drive a car. In addition, there are many states where the

purchase of car insurance is not required so long as the driver has sufficient cash reserves to meet state liability minimums, in essence, self insuring themselves. Many people choose to do this with regards to health care as well.

In any case, no should be required to buy something the government mandates simply because they are alive. Where is the enumerated power in the Constitution that allows the federal government any authority to mandate the purchase of anything? If it exists, why didn't the founding generation invoke it? It is well known that the founding fathers wanted the population armed to form the basis for the militia. Why didn't they mandate the purchase of firearms? Because the Constitution afforded them no such power and they had respect for the document they penned.

The Commerce Clause doesn't apply because, by definition, if someone isn't buying something there is no commerce to regulate. The Commerce Clause was intended to prevent the several states from enacting tariffs and other barriers to free trade between the several states, not to force the individual to engage in commerce. The states need to push back against this federal overreach and SB-10 is a good start.

Paul Papanestor
Milford