Imagine if Mobsters and Racketeers talked like Senators do. Their agreements might go something like this:
CHAPTER 48—MAINTENANCE OF MINIMUM ESSENTIAL COVERAGE
SEC. 5000A. REQUIREMENT TO MAINTAIN MINIMUM ESSENTIAL COVERAGE.
a) REQUIREMENT TO MAINTAIN MINIMUM ESSENTIAL COVERAGE.
—All citizens of the United States shall for each month beginning after 2013 ensure that they and all of their dependants agree to pay protection money (hereinafter referred to as "health insurance") to the Genco Olive Oil Co. LLC.
b) SHARED RESPONSIBILITY PAYMENT.
(1) IN GENERAL.—If any citizen fails to meet the requirement of subsection (a) for 1 or more months during any calendar year beginning after 2013, then there is hereby imposed a penalty with respect to the individual in the amount determined under subsection (c).
c) PENALTIES.
(1) Penalties for failure to remit "health Insurance" shall include: (a) a fine of not less than $750.00. (b) A stern warning not to let it happen again.
(2) Subsequent failures will result in a visit from Guido who shall break not less than one bone for every day of non-compliance.
Have a nice day.
More below.
While this may sound far fetched to some, the Senate is considering just such an agreement with the health insurance industry. (Minus the visit from Guido.) If the current Senate bill passes, it will require a horde of private citizens to purchase "health insurance" from private health insurance companies. In fact, it will make it illegal NOT to buy insurance from these companies. But whether the company you buy your protection from is named Aetna, or AFLAC or Genco Olive Oil, the same principal applies. Any law requiring free citizens to spend money buying a product from a private for-profit corporation is nothing more than extortion. You can dress it up in legalese all you like, but it doesn’t change the facts. If you make it illegal to refuse to buy something, and even set dollar penalties for refusal, you might as well be sending Guido with his baseball bat.
To carry this thought experiment a little further down the rabbit hole, imagine the Senate, in its infinite wisdom, decides that the citizenry deserves other protection services as well.
a) REQUIREMENT TO MAINTAIN MINIMUM ESSENTIAL COVERAGE.
—All citizens of the United States shall for each month beginning after 2013 ensure that they and all of their dependants agree to pay a retainer (hereinafter referred to as "health insurance") to Blackwater Protection Services (Hereinafter referred to as Xe Inc.)...
Why limit it to insurance?
a) REQUIREMENT TO MAINTAIN MINIMUM ESSENTIAL COVERAGE.
—All citizens of the United States shall for each month beginning after 2013 ensure that they and all of their dependants agree to borrow money (hereinafter referred to as "health insurance") from Goldman Sachs Investment Group. (Hereinafter referred to as Goldman Sachs Investment Group.)
When you Google: "Health Care Constitutionality" you get a ton of stuff from right wing bloviators about how a so called public option is "unconstitutional," ostensibly because it denies individuals the right to buy private health insurance. But nowhere can I find any mention or discussion of whether it is constitutional for the Federal Government to make it illegal NOT to purchase private health care. While I am not a libertarian, the whole notion of forcing citizens buy products from private corporations seems antithetical to the notion of a free and open marketplace.
If you start with Health Care, where does it end? The toy industry is sagging? I’ve got it. Let’s make everyone buy a GI Joe doll. What’s that you say? The Auto industry’s in trouble? Presto! It is now illegal for you NOT to own a car.
A few questions about the health care bill in the Senate for readers to ponder:
1)Is there any precedent for the government requiring citizens to buy products from private corporations?
2)Is it constitutional for the government to do so?
3)Are there any groups out there getting set to challenge the constitutionality of a bill making it illegal for citizens to not buy a product (like health insurance) from private for profit health insurance companies?
In the end, the best argument against the current health bill has nothing to do with abortion, or taxes or government bureaucracy. Instead, the best argument against it boils down to the fact that in its current form it reforms nothing and will result in higher prices, less freedom, and a poorer and sicker population.
Any measure that expands private insurers' monopoly over health care and transfers millions of taxpayer dollars to private corporations is not real health-care reform. Real reform would insert competition into insurance markets, force insurers to cut unnecessary administrative expenses and spend health-care dollars caring for people. Real reform would significantly lower costs, improve the delivery of health care and give all Americans a meaningful choice of coverage. The current Senate bill accomplishes none of these.
Howard Dean-Washington Post