In response to this editorial in the Chronicle concerning lawsuits by state Attorneys General against the health care "reform" bill's individual mandate, I sent the following letter:

re:  Sore losers:  Health care lawsuits are a misguided continuation of the partisan fight

The Chronicle editorialists are more correct than they realize:  with the passage of the health care "reform" bill Sunday, with its imposition of new mandates, prohibitions, taxes, bureaucracies, and government control, we are are losers — losers of liberty.  Unfortunately, the Chronicle board is probably ultimately correct — if past history is any guide, the courts will side with the government expansion over the liberties and freedoms of individuals and families.  That does not make the fight any less just, however.

To compare the "individual mandate" — the new government requirement, enforced by the IRS, that each citizen must purchase the health insurance coverage package that the government mandates — to other individual requirements such as income taxes and Social Security is to ignore two important facts.  First, those other requirements are taxes paid to the government; taxation is mentioned in the Constitution, and an obvious requirement for any government is the raising of funds; however, an individual federal obligation to purchase health insurance is a requirement to purchase a product from a private entity.  In an August 1994 ruling, the Congressional Budget Office had this to say about such an imposition:  "The imposition of an individual mandate, or a combination of an individual and an employer mandate, would be an unprecedented form of federal action."

Secondly, the clause of the Constitution most commonly used to justify such government action as the "individual mandate" is the "Commerce Clause" — Article I, Section 8, which gives Congress authority over interstate commerce.  However, the federal government prohibits the purchase of insurance across state lines — the purchase of health insurance is an intrastate activity, as opposed to an interstate activity.  In seeking to limit the level to which the health insurance market is open, free, and competitive, it would seem that Congress has limited its authority to force us to participate in it.

So Congress is taking action that is unprecedented and un-Constitutional.  It would appear that we have much to be "sore" about.

Sincerely,
Dave Smith
Houston, TX