In a recent interview with CNSNews.com, Virginia Senator repeated the argument that I deconstructed in this recent blog posting:  that proposed federal government mandates for individuals to buy health care insurance, with coverage to be outlined by the health care "reform" bill, are analogous to government requirements for auto insurance coverage.  The CNSNews article cites a study by the Congressional Budget Office in 1993 during the Clinton Administration, the last time Congress undertook health care "reform" on a similar scale, namely that  “[a] mandate requiring all individuals to purchase health insurance would be an unprecedented form of federal action.  The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States.”  In response to Sen. Warner's statements, I sent him the following letter:

Senator Warner:

In a recent interview with CNSNews.com, you compared a requirement for individual health insurance coverage, as currently being considered by Congress under the various government health care "reform" proposals, to state requirements for auto insurance coverage.  Such a comparison is not legitimate for several reasons.

First of all, according to a Congressional Budget Office report issued during debate in the Clinton Administration's endeavor to expand government control over health insurance, a "mandate requiring all individuals to purchase health insurance would be an unprecedented form of federal action", as the federal government "has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States."

The analogy to auto insurance further falls apart when considering that states don't actually require auto insurance as a condition for residency; rather, the requirement is only valid for those wishing to drive legally on public roads.  No such mandate is imposed on those wishing to, say, ride in buses, taxis, or other forms of public transportation, nor for those who would wish only to operate vehicles on privately owned property.

Further eroding the comparison is the fact that the auto insurance mandates imposed by state governments on drivers are not an attempt to legislate social policy, but rather an attempt to protect the property rights of other drivers — an uninsured driver responsible for an accident damages the property (and perhaps the health) of others involved; the insurance requirements protect other drivers.  No such mandates exist for "collision" coverage, i.e., damage inflicted on the at-fault driver's own property (such mandates can be required for the extension of an auto loan, but that is the domain of the bank and is based on a voluntary exchange, as the driver agrees to the requirement as part of the terms of receiving the loan).

As Madison wrote in Federalist 45, "[t]he powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite."  A state could potentially define an individual's mandate to purchase insurance; in that case, people can choose to vote with their feet to other states.  But with a federal requirement, the only recourse would be to move to a different country.  This is not in line with the spirit or the letter of our founding documents and principles of government.

Senator, while not a member of your state, your votes still impact my liberties and my rights of voluntary exchange.  I urge you to abandon your advocacy of government-imposed mandates for insurance coverage, as well as government-defined minimum coverages that my family and I might not want or need.

True health care reform would increase competition and choices for consumers by removing government barriers (e.g., buying across state lines, group plans, etc.) rather than imposing more government requirements.

Sincerely,
Dave Smith
Houston, TX