Yesterday, I presented a rebuttal to the ridiculous "tenther" argument. Tenthers are the ones who claim the 10th Amendment is being violated by this administration in general, and health reform in particular. I was pleased to learn my argument resonates with members of congress.
Rep. Chet Edwards of Texas is one member who did attend gatherings dominated by boisterous opponents of health reform.
At a meeting in Waco, a man asked him what constitutional authority the federal government had to get involved in health care. Edwards replied, "Article One, Section Eight," which empowers Congress to provide for the "general welfare of the United States."
Rational people agree there is a constitutional mandate for government involvement in health care, the devil is in the details. Right now there is talk about mandating universal coverage, but it is divorced from what people refer to as "the public option." This raises a serious question (h/t wiseacre):
If we are forced to buy private health insurance without a public option, is that involuntary servitude?
It is deeply ironic that involuntary servitude would be a topic of debate at this historic moment in American history, but irony is the flavor of the day.
I'm not the first person to raise this issue. In the crazy chorus of tenthers, birthers, deathers, teabaggers, toters, and ranters are people I call "TEENTHERS." These are the people who claim any service to this "usurper" represents a form of slavery and violates the 14th Amendment. Never mind the fact that we have a long history of presidents exhorting citizens to national service. Roosevelt and Kennedy come to mind, but their calls fall on the deaf ears of right wing nutcases.
To show you how far out of bounds the "teenthers" are, consider the fact that conservative luminary, Bill Buckley, supported the idea. He wrote an entire book, Gratitude: Reflections on What We Owe to Our Country, advocating for national service as a means for "volunteers to fulfill the debt they owe to past generations while molding their character and binding them to civilization." Who knew Buckley was a closet socialist/fascist intent on destroying our freedoms?
Although the teenthers are raising frivolous arguments, involuntary servitude is a serious issue woven deep into the fabric of American society. We've fought wars over it. We've fought ourselves over it. We amended the Constitution by adding the 14th Amendment to address it.
Here are the relevant parts of the 14th Amendment that speak to that question:
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
For those who accept equal protection but wonder if congress has the authority to address that:
Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
If you accept, as I do, that Article 1, Section 8 also gives congress the necessary and proper power to provide for the common defense and promote the general welfare, then you have to accept that any action congress takes has to protect the equal protection rights of all citizens.
This brings us face-to-face with the original question:
If we are forced to buy private health insurance without a public option, is that involuntary servitude?
I believe the answer to that question is "Yes."
Some might argue this is justified because we already have universal mandates for auto insurance, or homeowners insurance. My response to that argument is, "That's true, but irrelevant."
Owning a car is a privilege, not a right. Owning a home is a privilege, not a right. If you want to exercise those privileges, you have to assume certain liabilities. If you act in an irresponsible or negligent manner, it is entirely possible that you could injure or even kill other people. That could even happen if you are acting responsibly and exercising due vigilance; accidents happen. Mitigating those costs requires insurance.
You don't have to buy the insurance if you are unalterably opposed to the notion. But if you are not willing to share the risks associated with your privilege, you don't have to enjoy the privilege. You can use public transportation and you can rent. Millions of people do either or both of those every day and live perfectly happy, fulfilling and comfortable lives. People afflicted with asthma don't get to choose alternative ways of breathing.
If we were forced to buy private health insurance without a public option like Medicare we would be forced to pay whatever the insurance companies demanded in order to enjoy our right to life, liberty, or property guaranteed us by the 14th Amendment. We won't have a lot of control over that process now. Health care costs are already responsible for more personal bankruptcies and home foreclosures than any other single cause. Giving the health insurance industry all that control and a captive audience will make things worse.
Forcing people to accept that violates the equal protection rights of Americans because you will force people -- regardless of their circumstances -- to buy something they may not be able to afford. I'm sure there are those who will counter that by saying, "Yes people are going to get screwed, but we're going to screw everyone so its ok." These are the same people who reject arguments calling capital punishment "cruel and unusual" by saying "Its not unusual, get over it." Personally, I think the issue of health care is too important to be left in the hands of someone like Scalia.
Ironically, I expect corporations to challenge our right to a public option as a violation of their equal protection right. That argument will find lots of support -- in the corporate board rooms of insurance companies. It will also find support amongst the tenthers and teenthers. Returning to the report of the town hall in Waco:
[Rep. Chet] Edwards asked the man if he opposed "the federal government being involved in Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and children's health care." The man said he was, and the room roared its approval.
Hopefully, people in the White House and congress will follow the courageous example set by Rep. Edwards when it comes to dealing with the crazy chorus.
"I will wear it as a badge of honor that I was shouted at by people who oppose Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and children's health," Edwards said. The shouters, he added, did not speak for most of his constituents, but for "the Ron Paul libertarian position that represents 2 to 5 percent of the country."