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would improve access to health insurance and reduce health care costs if the law is overturned by the Supreme Court or repealed by Congress.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.
- Suit: Claremont's North Country Smokehouse claims $606,011 spent on diamond, SUV, more - 9
- Winnipesaukee watershed association looking to raise its profile - 0
- New Ipswich cemetery’s future is anybody guess after state objects to graves - 1
- Goffstown artisan gives new face to Wolfeboro tower - 0
- Town may have to fix grave error - 3
- Updated: Winning Powerball ticket sold in Fla.; 2, $1M tickets sold in NH - 0
- No more Winni whoppers: Fishing Derby winner will have to take lie detector test - 11
- Learning the way of the gun in Wakefield - 2
- Peterborough's renovated Adams Pool to open in June - 0
No curbside collections in Manchester on Monday
READER COMMENTS: 0- 65 mph OK for E-ZPass drivers with opening of new lanes at Hooksett toll plaza - 0
- Updated: NH Senate kills House-passed gas, tobacco tax hikes - 0
- Senate Finance Committee rejects Medicaid expansion - 7
- Man wielding pipe robs Cumberland Farms in Goffstown - 0
- Buchholz moves to 7-0 as Red Sox post win - 0
- Gambling bill scuttled, 'Now it is going to be really tough' for budget - 29
- NHIAA Roundup: BG girls’ tennis team sweeps Pinkerton - 0
- NHIAA box scores, summaries for May 22 - 0
- Officials say Goffstown High ‘safe’ after threat of violence - 1
White powder in Salem shipping container posed no serious risks
READER COMMENTS: 0
Sorry, no question available



