Opinion: Universal Health Care
Nicholas Lawrence
Issue date: 10/14/07 Section: Opinion
- Page 1 of 3 next >
Well universal health care might not be a new idea, but it certainly seems to be one that is gaining traction. And you do have to give Senator Clinton some credit: unlike Rep. Dingell, who has introduced the exact same proposal for universal health care for the last 52 years, Senator Clinton has at least modified her proposal since her failed attempt in the 1990s. What with pretty much all the leading Democratic candidates jumping on the bandwagon it seems pretty much certain: if a Democrat wins the presidential election you can almost count on some sort of increased mandates for health care. The proposals run the gamut from Rep. Kucinich's proposed "Medicare for all" to Senator Clinton's (and Senator Dodd's, and former Senator Edward's) proposal to require individuals to purchase health insurance, to Senator Biden's "insure everyone under the age of 18".
What I have not heard much discussed is the constitutionality of any of this. While I can see the constitutional power of the Congress to expand Medicare, or to insure everyone under the age of 18 (I take it this is sort of SCHIP on steroids), I have more trouble with the apparently popular "individual mandate" plans endorsed by Senators Clinton, Dodd, and Edwards (and as far as I can tell Governor Romney). Perhaps this is because detailed explanations of how these plans would actually work are so hard to come by, but I'm really having trouble visualizing it….the ever popular comparison to mandatory automobile insurance isn't particularly helpful either.
This is so because you are not required to purchase automobile insurance, you simply have to purchase automobile insurance if you wish to be licensed to drive on a public roadway. Furthermore, as far as I know you are only required to purchase liability insurance. In other words the insurance isn't really for you, it is for the protection of others you might injure or kill on the roadway.
Health insurance on the other hand is dramatically different. Health insurance is not for the protection of others, it exists very specifically to insure that you personally will be able to receive medical care that will hopefully alleviate some sickness or disease that is afflicting your person. Furthermore, the purchase of automobile insurance is justified because it is not really mandatory at all. It is only mandatory if you choose to drive an automobile. Unless the "individual mandate" plans are going to come with a newly required "license to live" I have difficulty seeing how the comparison of health insurance to auto insurance is helpful at all from a constitutional perspective (although it appears to be a superficially clever explanation).
What I have not heard much discussed is the constitutionality of any of this. While I can see the constitutional power of the Congress to expand Medicare, or to insure everyone under the age of 18 (I take it this is sort of SCHIP on steroids), I have more trouble with the apparently popular "individual mandate" plans endorsed by Senators Clinton, Dodd, and Edwards (and as far as I can tell Governor Romney). Perhaps this is because detailed explanations of how these plans would actually work are so hard to come by, but I'm really having trouble visualizing it….the ever popular comparison to mandatory automobile insurance isn't particularly helpful either.
This is so because you are not required to purchase automobile insurance, you simply have to purchase automobile insurance if you wish to be licensed to drive on a public roadway. Furthermore, as far as I know you are only required to purchase liability insurance. In other words the insurance isn't really for you, it is for the protection of others you might injure or kill on the roadway.
Health insurance on the other hand is dramatically different. Health insurance is not for the protection of others, it exists very specifically to insure that you personally will be able to receive medical care that will hopefully alleviate some sickness or disease that is afflicting your person. Furthermore, the purchase of automobile insurance is justified because it is not really mandatory at all. It is only mandatory if you choose to drive an automobile. Unless the "individual mandate" plans are going to come with a newly required "license to live" I have difficulty seeing how the comparison of health insurance to auto insurance is helpful at all from a constitutional perspective (although it appears to be a superficially clever explanation).
Be the first to comment on this story