Liberty at risk

The Supreme Court will be taking arguments on ObamaCare, starting next week. ObamaCare is an egregious encroachment on individual liberty, requiring each citizen to buy a product: health insurance.

And, of course, imposing a penalty on those who simply choose to not buy that product. This is the linchpin of the entire sordid mess. You will be required to participate in economic behavior, or pay a fine if you do not.

I’m no lawyer, don’t even play one on television. But a common sense reading of the Commerce Clause tells me that if the central government can force you to buy one product, there’s no end to the products you might be required to buy. All in the name of interstate commerce.

For example, broccoli is grown in California; you live in Maine. Sorry, you must buy broccoli because it’s good for you. And, since it has to cross state lines to get to you, we, the wise federal government, have the right to make you buy your broccoli. Our health enforcement SWAT folks will stop buy later to make sure you’ve also eaten it.

Sound crazy? I say it’s a logical extension, if SCOTUS upholds this noxious health care mandate. The government may, if it so chooses, require economic behavior it deems beneficial. No matter what you, a mere citizen think.

A less egregious example, that is, one we’re almost halfway to: The Chevy Volt. We taxpayers already subsidize it, through government ownership of General Motors and through tax credits to those preening souls who must show their green bona fides by buying one.

It’s clearly in the nation’s interest to have a fleet of electric cars to replace those evil, liquified dinosaur-powered internal combustion engines. After all, Congress has already dictated that we must improve our nation’s miles per gallon average. Hence, you must buy a Chevy Volt. And you thought that products, like cars, should sink or swim on their merits and their price competitiveness. Silly you; welcome to Obama’s America.

The Wall Street Journal today has a lengthy editorial that I can only hope is read by the Justices before they decide. On economic participation, this:

The reality is that every decision not to buy some good or service has some effect on the interstate market for that good or service. The government is asserting that because there are ultimate economic consequences it has the power to control the most basic decisions about how people spend their own money in their day-to-day lives. The next stops on this outbound train could be mortgages, college tuition, credit, investment, saving for retirement, Treasurys, and who knows what else.

That great defender of liberty, Nancy “We have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it” Pelosi, just the other day was claiming that ObamaCare was very much part of the Founder’s cause of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

Don’t know about you, friend, but my “pursuit of happiness” very much does not include the government ordering me to buy a particular product. In fact, that is, as we used to say, bass ackwards.

But wait, John: don’t you buy auto insurance? Yes, as required by my state in exchange for being allowed to drive a car on public roads. Auto insurance indemnifies me against any claims against me because I have chosen to drive.

If I don’t want to buy insurance I don’t drive. That’s my choice, as it should be. Should I choose not to buy health insurance, I would not be indemnified against loss should I require health care. Being uninsured does not mean being unable to get health care. It’s just about how much that health care will cost me.

That’s my problem, and should be my decision.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s