He’s not committed to the idea of jail time, but President Obama endorsed the idea of penalizing people who refuse to buy health insurance:
During an exclusive interview with ABC News’ Jake Tapper today, President Obama said that penalties are appropriate for people who try to “free ride” the health care system but stopped short of endorsing the threat of jail time for those who refuse to pay a fine for not having insurance.
“What I think is appropriate is that in the same way that everybody has to get auto insurance and if you don’t, you’re subject to some penalty, that in this situation, if you have the ability to buy insurance, it’s affordable and you choose not to do so, forcing you and me and everybody else to subsidize you, you know, there’s a thousand dollar hidden tax that families all across America are — are burdened by because of the fact that people don’t have health insurance, you know, there’s nothing wrong with a penalty.”
The auto insurance argument is, of course, a non sequitur for two reasons.
First of all, the requirement for auto insurance only applies to people who want to register and drive automobiles; if you neither own nor drive a car, you aren’t forced to but auto insurance. There is no way to opt-out of a health insurance requirement unless, of course, you die.
Second, auto insurance requirements are a requirement of state law, not Federal law. Under the Constitution, the powers of the states were meant to be broader than those of the Federal Government when it came to regulating the details of daily life. Arguably, that means that states do have the power to tell people who wish to drive on public roads that they must obtain liability insurance to protect their fellow drivers from catastrophe. What ObamaCare proposes, however, is a Federal requirement that every American citizen obtain health insurance.
Where in the Constitution is that authorized ?
Yea, I can’t find it either.
November 10th, 2009 at 4:47 pm
Would it make any difference if the mandate came from the states instead of the federal government?
November 10th, 2009 at 4:49 pm
The Constitutional analysis would be different, but I still cannot find any authority for a government requirement that everyone buy insurance.
November 10th, 2009 at 7:24 pm
I love the “you have the ability to buy insurance, it’s affordable” yet whose definition of “affordable” do we use? His? His idea of affordable means using OUR money for trillions in spending.
I have a great idea. If he doesn’t want to spend money on other people’s care, then stop.
Then he doesn’t have a reason to complain about “hidden taxes”.
November 10th, 2009 at 10:04 pm
Cargosquid, it’s OK to want Obama to stop spending money on other people’s care, but he is not spending as much as you might. I know you are probably outrageously healthy and were born at home, but tomorrow you might get H1N1 or be hit by a bus. On your first trip to the hospital you will discover who it is that presently pays for other people’s care. If you are insured, you will only have to pay a portion of the tab. If you are uninsured you will either have to pay three times the value of your care (in order to make up for those who were treated by the hospital and couldn’t pay) or you will go bankrupt and become one of those who is paid for by the rest of us. The biggest “hidden tax” in health care is the amount paid by those who do pay, on behalf of those who don’t. Do a little research. Check out the percentage of people who filed bankruptcy last year due to medical bills and check out how many of them were insured. When you inevitably end up in the hospital, be thankful that your constitutional principles helped you pay for two other people’s care.
November 11th, 2009 at 10:44 am
I agree with you on this one, Doug.
The funny thing is, it’s not even sound economic analysis. For those willing to take the risk, the penalties are not effective enough to compel the uninsured to purchase the contemplated coverage.
Leave it to the Obamorons to get both the Constitution AND the economics wrong.