Senator Baucus (left) discusses health care reform with President Obama and Vice President Biden during a private lunch on May 6.

In the ongoing fight to stop the government takeover of the health care industry, the Democrats keep coming up with ever more disagreeable and dangerous plans. The latest is from Democratic Senator Max Baucus of Montana, who, if he gets his way, will make health insurance mandatory for all Americans. Those refusing will be hit with a substantial federal fine.

Under the language of the Baucus plan, "Beginning in 2013, all US citizens and legal residents would be required to purchase health insurance or have health coverage from an employer, through a public program (i.e., Medicare, Medicaid, or CHIP), or through some other source that meets the minimum creditable coverage standard."

To offset the cost of insurance, the plan promises federal tax credits, but for those who insist on exercising their right to spend money as they see fit, rather than how the government tells them how to spend it, a nasty surprise would remain in store. Those individuals who refuse to follow the government's order to purchase insurance would be subject to substantial fines, as described by the Baucus plan:

For taxpayers between 100-300% of poverty, the penalty for failing to obtain health coverage is $750 per year with a maximum penalty per family of $1500. For taxpayers with incomes above 300% of poverty, the penalty for failing to obtain coverage is $950 per year with a maximum penalty per family of $3800.

According to the Associated Press, the government mandated coverage would be "just like auto coverage," a dismissal of concern over the mandate that is supposed to make Americans feel better. There are, however, several important differences.

First, and not insignificantly, it is the various states that mandate auto coverage for drivers. The federal government has no constitutional role to play in such mandates. Second, the mandate for auto coverage derives originally, at least in part, from the fact that most cars are collateral on auto loans. As such, insurers have a legitimate claim on the vehicles to be covered and an interest in making certain that drivers and their vehicles are covered. By contrast, what claim does the federal government have over the lives of the citizens? If you're answer is "none," you would be correct — though politicians in both parties have long been eager to make such claims and to pass legislation that thereby infringes on rights.

Whatever else you might say about the plan to put the government in charge of health care (and there is plenty to say, such as where does the Constitution authorize such a thing?), the audacity of federal legislation mandating, upon penalty of fine, that individuals must purchase health care is breathtakingly un-American.

In fact, it strikes yet another blow against the idea of private property. To be free, if the word has any meaning at all, is to be able to hold onto the product of one's labor, i.e., property, and use it as one sees fit, with the proviso that such use should not harm another person or prevent others from exercising their own natural rights.

The Baucus plan, however, in that it would require the purchase of health care insurance, amounts to a dictatorial edict directing each American to dispose of property without their consent and it amounts to an unjust claim on the lives of each. It is without question a measure that would limit the freedom of the American people.

To take action to prevent the government takeover of healthcare and its concomitant attack of rights and freedoms of the American people, click here.

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (5)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Show/Hide comments

danwhitehead1 said:

	Now this Baucus - - - - - - creep is obviously another piece of slime mold found underneath a rock. He needs to have HIS property confiscated by force. After all, if it's good for the people who work at real jobs, it should be good for creeps like this who undoubtedly have MUCH, MUCH more than the people who are paying them; namely, the private citizens.
	report abuse vote down vote up

September 08, 2009
Votes: +2

Kenneth Creech said:

	... Baucus plan. Order citizens to buy health insurance. If you do not I will fine you. Sounds like dictatorship to me! How much dictatorship will AMERICANS take before we rise up and remove any trace of socialism from our elected offices. Remove them in 2010 and never reelect any incumbent who shows socialist leaning tendencies. Now(2010) is the time!!!
	report abuse vote down vote up

September 08, 2009
Votes: +2

Still Free said:

	Let's tax them for NOT being on the plan! Great points, Gentlemen. One answer: Ron Paul in 2012! Still Free in the USA! Yours for Less Government, More Responsibility, And-with God's Help - A better World
	report abuse vote down vote up

September 08, 2009
Votes: +2

Kenneth Creech said:

... Activate everyone you know to call or write your house and senate members to reject cass sunstein from zcar over regulation. NO farmers raising food etc because of incrementally squeezing them out of business with regulation. This is major fundamental change in AMERICAS eating habits. NO food. And the tinkering is a little piece here or there till we are all in regulated straight jackets. Do not give up AMERICANS just tighten up and eject all incumbents!!!! Here comes 2010!!!

report abuse vote down vote up

September 09, 2009
Votes: +1

Stophel said:

	This far and no farther. Baucus and Obamarx can stuff it. I refuse. This far and no farther.
	report abuse vote down vote up

September 10, 2009
Votes: +0