Tuesday, November 15, 2011

Individual Mandates

So the Supremes are going to look at Obamacare. The section of the bill most frequently attacked is the "individual mandate" section, which requires most Americans to have some sort of health insurance. The (far) right jumps up and down, screaming "uncontitutional! unconstitutional!". But is it?

Historical precedent

On May 8, 1792, just four years after the constitution was ratified, President George Washington signed the Militia Act of 1792. The act enrolled every able-bodied white male between 18 and 45 to join a militia. But it also said this:

"every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack... "
Militia Act of 1792

 The constitutionality of this bill was never challenged. It remained in effect for more than 110 years. All able-bodied white males were individually mandated.

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain

What I find curious about the claims from the far right that individual mandates for health insurance are unconstitutional is that just 22 years ago, they themselves advocated individual mandates for health insurance. Yep, that's right. In 1989, the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, published a paper by its Director of Domestic Policy Studies (Stewart Butler), which said this:

"Mandate all households to obtain adequate insurance. Many states now require passengers in automobiles to wear seatbelts for their own protection. Many others require anybody driving a car to have liability insurance. But neither the federal government nor any state requires all households to protect themselves from the potentially catastrophic costs of a serious accident or illness. Under the Heritage plan, there would be such a requirement."
"Assuring Affordable Health Care" on the Heritage website