For quite a while now, the right has been arguing against the constitutionality of the new healthcare law passed in March 2010 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act). The crux of the argument against it's constitutionality is the individual mandate (the federal requirement that an individual must purchase health insurance through a private company). Now despite the degree to which I disagree with many of the details that finally made it into the law, I have to say that I disagree that it is unconstitutional. The recent ruling in Florida (full text here) bases it's central argument around this:
"At issue here, as in the other cases decided so far, is the assertion that the
Commerce Clause can only reach individuals and entities engaged in an “activity”;
and because the plaintiffs maintain that an individual’s failure to purchase health
insurance is, almost by definition, “inactivity,” the individual mandate goes beyond
the Commere Clause and is unconstitutional" [page 13]
Now before I address the lack of precedent mentioned in the ruling when it comes to distinguishing between "inactivity" (supposedly the position on the right) and "activity" (supposedly the position on the left) I would like to comment about how I personally believe that one's "inactivity" (the choice to not buy insurance) is actually (in modern society) an "activity". And not surprisingly, my argument does not stray very far from many of the arguments made during the health care debate. A person's lack of health insurance costs other people money. Now whether or not you believe that this "lack" constitutes an "inactivity" or an "activity", no one can dispute this cold hard economic fact. Even though I am involved in a strictly private health insurance market (a large source of my discontent over the final bill), I am subject to the expenses involved in taking care of others and these costs emerge from within this same private market without my consent. I am not free, in an abstract sense, from the obligation to pay for others and I hardly believe that even the staunchest of the laissez-faire crowd believes that a civilized society without this obligation would be a better place (if so, I hear the rent is cheap in Somalia!)...but I digress. The point is that there are many cases when a persons negligence is considered an action in itself, or to word this in a way that may help you conjure up a few examples of your own: there are many cases (even at the federal level) where you are not allowed to not do something. Anyone try not paying their federal taxes? Taxation is not commerce, yes, but this principle can be applied to a myriad of issues to varying degrees. This may seem ironic - that I (a social/modern liberal) am complaining about paying for others. I have thought about this quite a bit. Why on the one hand do I mind my premiums being high because I have to pay for the uninsured, yet on the other I fight for the institutions of our welfare state such as Medicare and Medicaid (which I pay into)? I find the answer to that question in this fundamental belief of mine: the weak and unable should be protected and the able should contribute their share. We can fuss and fight about where these two groups end and begin, but to allow those who are able to insure themselves continue to put it off at our expense, like a welfare cheat, they are burdening society with their irresponsibility. I have serious doubts that many disagree with this reasoning. At least regarding people buying health insurance so others won't suffer the cost in their premium payments. Is the other side really so idealistic that they believe the system comes before the people rather than the system existing for the people, or is this ruling just complete partisanship at its worst?
No comments:
Post a Comment