An Idiotic Comparison

Again and again politicians defending the individual mandate of the health care overhaul will use an incorrect comparison that misleads the public. The individual mandate requiring all Americans to buy health insurance is, for some reason, compared to mandatory automobile insurance for car owners. The argument is that since ‘the government’ can force someone to buy car insurance, it must be constitutional for ‘the government’ to force someone to buy health insurance. Unfortunately after hearing such an argument, the uninformed listener will be satisfied with such an explanation and incorrectly agree with the constitutionality. Even worse, the counter-argument explaining why such a mandate is unconstitutional is lengthy and complex. Maintaining people’s attention and ensuring a real understanding of such an explanation is incredibly difficult.

So please, follow the reasoning for why individual mandates are unconstitutional while mandates requiring auto insurance are indeed, legal.

First, mandatory automobile insurance is required by state law. So when it is said that ‘the government’ can force someone to buy car insurance, the person speaking is intentionally omitting that a state government is compelling the purchase. Whereas ‘the government’ compelling the purchase of health insurance is the federal government, a different government with different powers. The use of the overly broad term ‘the government’ is an intentional manipulation that incorrectly combines 51 different governments into one. Comparing a state power to a federal power is outright invalid, and making such a comparison incorrect to begin with.

Second, why is it that every person in the United States does not have car insurance? Every state requires it, therefore everyone should have it, right? Well, not everyone owns a car! If someone is not engaged in the commerce of automobiles they are exempt form mandates relating to that commerce. Therefore, people still maintain the ability to refuse a contract with an insurance company. The difference is that the federal government tried to require that everyone buy health insurance, whether they wanted it or not. Worse yet, the Department of Justice argued that since someone may eventually engage in the commerce of health, that mandate is somehow constitutional under the commerce clause.

The most unfortunate aspect of this debate is the ‘automotive’ comparison spouted by ignorant politicians intentionally misleads the public. Using a simple term like ‘the government’ allows for misleading associations and incorrect constitutional arguments. Countering such a comparison requires too much time and attention to be effective. Once people hear the words ‘state’s rights’ or ‘commerce clause’ they stop paying attention.

The silver lining is that federal judges, and especially Supreme Court justices, are not so naïve and impressionable. Individual mandates stand no chance in federal courts. In the end, the Supreme Court will likely agree, as they have done before, that inactivity is not commerce, and Congress does not have the ability to mandate everything they choose.