Here’s a new wrinkle in the health reform debate we haven’t heard before: A federal mandate requiring individuals to purchase health insurance is unconstitutional, according to one political think tank.
The Fund for Personal Liberty (TFPL) — a group which is also sponsoring a lawsuit against Medicare challenging the rule that anyone who refuses to accept Part A must sacrifice their Social Security benefits — says it will “challenge the constitutionality of any government mandate requiring individuals to purchase health insurance” should such a decree come out of health reform legislation.
“Any mandate to purchase health insurance is an invalid exercise of the powers granted to Congress by Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution of the United States,” said Kent Masterson Brown, lead counsel for the TFPL. Translation: Such a mandate would be unconstitutional — at least according to TFPL.
TFPL was created for the purpose of “litigating for individuals’ healthcare liberty and freedom,” said Brown. It promises to challenge the constitutionality of any mandate passed down from Washington to purchase health insurance.
“A one-size-fits-all solution to our health care needs denies us our freedom to individually contract for insurance on terms acceptable to each of us — or, not at all,” said Martha de Forest, executive director of TFPL.
Currently, TFPL is providing legal counsel in Hall v. Sebelius, a lawsuit in which five senior citizens are challenging the constitutionality of Department of Health and Human Services and the Social Security Administration policies forcing citizens to enroll in Medicare Part A or lose their Social Security benefits.
Do you agree with TFPL’s stance that an individual health coverage mandate would be unconstitutional? Let us know in the Comments Box below.