When asked whether any compulsory insurance purchases are constitutional, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was genuinely astonished: "Are you serious? Are you serious?" l
Because of socialized medicine imposed on us from on high, for the first time in American history, the federal government is requiring each American citizen to enter into a contract with a third party (a health insurance company). Should you fail to do so, you will incur a criminal penalty (a fine). There are no exceptions. It applies to all citizens and permanent residents. (While it does not apply to illegal aliens, that is a mere formality as Obama plans on offering Amnesty to illegal aliens. He actually refuses to use the term "illegal aliens", instead he refers to them as "soon to be registered Democrats".)
Now whenever Congress passes a law, we should all be in the habit of asking "Where do they get the power to do so?" Congressional power & authority is limited by the U.S. Constitution. Usually, in the law itself, you will find language that cites the specific provision in the Constitution that grants Congress the power to enact that law.
In the socialized medicine bill, Congress says that the commerce clause of the Constitution gives them the authority to require that every American purchase health insurance.
While there is no question that Congress has the right to regulate interstate commerce, this bill compels Americans who choose to NOT engage in interstate commerce to enter into a contract or face a criminal penalty.
So the Constitutional Question is: Does the reach of the commerce clause extend to Americans who choose to NOT engage in commerce? In other words, if I don't want to buy health insurance, does the federal government have the authority to make me do so under the penalty of law?
Now our liberal friends, who are soft of mind and bleeding of heart, argue that since there is a "social good" that comes out of mandating that we all purchase health insurance, it is perfectly acceptable to require Americans to enter into a contract against their will.
That is a very scary argument to make my friends.
If you think that compelling Americans to enter into a contract or buy a product against their will is constitutional because: (1) the underlying activity affects interstate commerce; and (2) there is a "social good" that comes from requiring them to so, then where does it end?
What other products and services can we be compelled to buy?
If the President tells us that energy conservation is important, can he compel us to purchase a windmill or solar panels or face a criminal penalty? If you think mandatory health insurance is constitutional, you HAVE to think this would be constitutional as well. Energy use, like health care, is an interstate activity, right? And energy conservation much like universal health insurance, is a common good, correct?
Can the Congress pass a law requiring that FAT BASTARDS like Baldman purchase a StairMaster from a government approved manufacturer? Can they put an ankle bracelet on Baldman's FAT ankle to ensure that he is using it? Why not? Doesn't the costs of obesity effect interstate commerce? Wouldn't it help society if the Baldman's of the world lost weight?
You may try to shrug off the examples above as being extreme. But they are not. Requiring Americans to enter into a contract against their will is the extreme thing. And the unconstitutional thing.
And that is now the law.