Home » Opinion » Editorials
June 28. 2012 12:14AM
The mandate question: Power and personal liberty
A legitimate criticism of Republicans regarding Obamacare is that they have not talked enough about how they would improve access to health insurance and reduce health care costs if the law is overturned by the Supreme Court or repealed by Congress. A legitimate criticism of Democrats is that they have not drawn a clear line around the state’s power to compel particular individual behaviors should the law be upheld and maintained. And that is really what this debate is about.
Remember that in the Democratic primary race in 2007 and 2008, Barack Obama opposed an individual mandate. At a South Carolina debate, he said, “A mandate means that in some fashion, everybody will be forced to buy health insurance. ... But I believe the problem is not that folks are trying to avoid getting health care. The problem is they can’t afford it.”
Note his use of the word “force.” The issue, as he stated, was the use of state power to force people to do something the state concluded was good for them.
Once in office, he either changed his mind or revealed his true plan and backed an individual mandate. But his reversal did not negate the fundamental question: is it a violation of individual liberty for the state to compel people to buy a private consumer product?
The President and his party continue to maintain that it is not. They say the state may do so because it is in the public interest and it is the best way to solve a difficult policy problem. What they avoid addressing is the obvious follow-up: Then where does the government’s power to pursue specific policy objectives through individual mandates end?
They avoid the question because their answer is so repugnant to the American ideal of personal freedom: The power does not end. The state, in their view, may use “force” (Obama’s own word) to compel people to undertake actions the state deems good for them (not good for the state, which is a different test).
The Supreme Court is expected to decide that question today. If the justices strike down the mandate, Republicans need to tell the people how they will improve health care and insurance in this country. If the justices uphold the mandate, then the people must immediately begin work on a constitutional amendment to restore the liberty that was just revoked.
Remember that in the Democratic primary race in 2007 and 2008, Barack Obama opposed an individual mandate. At a South Carolina debate, he said, “A mandate means that in some fashion, everybody will be forced to buy health insurance. ... But I believe the problem is not that folks are trying to avoid getting health care. The problem is they can’t afford it.”
Note his use of the word “force.” The issue, as he stated, was the use of state power to force people to do something the state concluded was good for them.
Once in office, he either changed his mind or revealed his true plan and backed an individual mandate. But his reversal did not negate the fundamental question: is it a violation of individual liberty for the state to compel people to buy a private consumer product?
The President and his party continue to maintain that it is not. They say the state may do so because it is in the public interest and it is the best way to solve a difficult policy problem. What they avoid addressing is the obvious follow-up: Then where does the government’s power to pursue specific policy objectives through individual mandates end?
They avoid the question because their answer is so repugnant to the American ideal of personal freedom: The power does not end. The state, in their view, may use “force” (Obama’s own word) to compel people to undertake actions the state deems good for them (not good for the state, which is a different test).
The Supreme Court is expected to decide that question today. If the justices strike down the mandate, Republicans need to tell the people how they will improve health care and insurance in this country. If the justices uphold the mandate, then the people must immediately begin work on a constitutional amendment to restore the liberty that was just revoked.
- David Harsanyi: Get the IRS out of the speech business altogether - 9
- Another View -- Ryan Gallagher: The U.S. government spies on reporters all too frequently - 4
- John Stossel: Who has true grit anymore? - 0
- Another View: New Hampshire would take a risky bet on casinos - 6
- Ramesh Ponnuru: In flextime fight, liberals play to their stereotype - 0
- Jonah Goldberg: Benghazi's smoking guns - 1
- Another View: Nashua does need to conduct its own review of commuter rail - 1
- George Will: Forgetting the lessons of Watergate - 0
- Charles Arlinghaus: Screeching lies does not count as debate - 2
Charles Krauthammer: Redacted truth, subjunctive outrage
READER COMMENTS: 0- Man shot to death on Manchester street late Saturday - 2
- UNH hires firm to redesign one of its logos - 10
- Disengaged: Obama's lousy excuse - 11
- Underestimating NH: Gun control picks two wrong targets - 19
- Roaming jihadis: A terrorist visits Manchester - 3
- Ted Siefer's City Hall: School board on the defensive over Cupcake-gate - 1
- Garry Rayno's State House Dome: All eyes on House as casino vote nears - 2
- 43 killers on lifetime parole - but where? - 3
- Official says NH abortion sites need state scrutiny - 13
NY man stable after destroying classic Porsche 911 in Route 16 wreck
READER COMMENTS: 1
Sorry, no question available



