Posted by
Dave Smith on Thursday, October 15, 2009 11:00:33 PM
With a
lone Republican vote
-- Maine's Senator Olympia Snowe -- another of the multitude of health
insurance "reform" bills moving through Congress has cleared committee,
in this case Chairman Max Baucus's (D-MT) Finance Committee. The bill
is less government-centric than some of the other bills that have
passed various committees in the House and Senate, in that while it
does impose a personal mandate to purchase health insurance and new
taxes, the bill does not contain the so-called "public option" -- the
establishment of a government-run health insurance plan to "compete"
with private insurance plans.
Of course, the Baucus plan does
not remove the government mandates and prohibitions that currently
serve to limit competition: prohibitions from buying across state
lines that would increase competitions and allow individuals to escape
costly minimum coverage state mandates; group plans that would enable
organizations like the American Diabetes Association, the American
Institute of Architects, or even the NAACP from pooling members
together and negotiating group rates for its members; or changes in the
tax code that would provide individuals with the same tax advantages to
buy their own insurance that corporations have to provide it for them,
that would make health insurance portable as well as allow for greater
individual choice. None of the Democratic plans offer these
fundamental (and inexpensive) reforms that would lessen the impact of
government in favor of empowered individuals and families.
But
even though Baucus's plan does increase government intrusion,
particularly with the personal mandate (for which I can find no
Constitutional justification), it is receiving criticism from many
desiring a more intrusive, statist "reform". And in one sense, the
criticisms from the left are correct. In establishing a government
mandate that each person must buy health insurance (with subsidies
provided to those who "can't afford" coverage), the health insurance
corporations are getting a tremendous boost. What could be better for
any business than having the government force people to buy your
product?
Often during the health insurance debate, when mandates
are criticized, advocates of government expansion pull out the example
of auto insurance, and state mandates that one must purchase certain
minimum insurance. However, this is not a good analogy for several
reasons. First of all, nobody actually is forced to buy auto insurance
-- only those who wish to operate vehicles on roads paid for and owned
by the public; thus, the public decides what protections of public
property are necessary to use those roads; if I do not wish to drive,
or wish to drive only on my own private property, I require no such
license.
Secondly, auto insurance is a competitive market;
there are state licensing requirements for insurance companies that can
be used to protect bigger companies from competition, but because it is
purchased individually, there is much competition. And, while there
are minimum requirements by the state imposed for the protection of the
property of others should a driver cause a wreck, there are no such
impositions on what one must get for coverage of one's own vehicle
(although most banks do impose such requirements to procure a loan,
again, this is voluntary, as no one is forced to buy a car or to get a
loan to do so). A car insurance customer has free reign to shop around
with various competing companies (no "public option" provided) and mix
and match coverage options. Also note that auto insurance is used for
big ticket or catastrophic expenses. Oil changes, wiper blades, and
new tires aren't the purview of auto insurance.
Thirdly, it isn't the
federal
government providing the mandates to citizens to buy auto insurance,
but rather state governments. I personally disagree with the decision
in Massachusetts to establish an individual mandate; however, as
Madison explains in
Federalist 45, the state governments have much wider latitude than the federal government:
The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the
federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State
governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised
principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign
commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be
connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the
objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties,
and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and
prosperity of the State.
The
states were expected to establish different policies and laws, with
people able to "vote with their feet" should a state government become
oppressive or incompetent. Thus while I disagree with high taxes in
Michigan and California, the state governments are well within their
rights to implement bad policies on a broad range of "numerous and
indefinite" issues. Not so the federal governments, whose powers are
"few and defined" -- with no authority for a personal mandate mentioned
in the Constitution.
Mandates by a state government forcing
individuals to purchase health insurance are misguided,
counter-productive, and oppressive; those same mandates by the federal
government are all those things, but add "un-Constitutional" to the
list. A state could choose to establish a single-payer government plan
if it so chose; the federal government has no such authority.
Whether
or not any of the proposed health care plans will pass either House of
Congress, much less both, is still uncertain. Let's hope that in the
name of "reform", we don't get the imposition of more mandates that
limit the choices of individuals and families to define their own
health care coverage.