Letter to the Editor

Car insurance analogy fails

Wednesday, December 2, 2009

Congressman Elsworth;

You stated that the health care bill is similar to requiring drivers to have insurance. I have a hard time believing that you genuinely believe that.

Your analogy fails for several reasons.

First, driving is a privilege. There is no right to drive. Anyone who wishes may opt out of the insurance requirement by taking public transportation, walking, riding a bike, or bumming a ride, riding a moped etc.

How do you opt out of being born, getting ill, and eventually dying?

Second, states only require automobile insurance to cover damage caused by drivers to other people. There is no law requiring drivers to cover their own injury and property loss. Isn't there some reason why states cannot require drivers to insure against the loss of their own life, health, and property?

Third, and most importantly, it is unconstitutional. You know that there is no federal law requiring automobile insurance; that it would be unconstitutional.

How much more so this health care bill?

The 13th Amendment to the Constitution states: "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States or any place subject to their jurisdiction. Congress shall have the power to enforce this Article by appropriate legislation."

That is the entire unedited text of the amendment. Two sentences that secured liberty and completely changed the United States; the juxtaposition with this bills 2000 pages!

It is worth noting that the enforcement clause of the 13th Amendment was necessary because the 10th Amendment says that Congress cannot pass any law not strictly within the powers granted to them in the Constitution.

Where does the Constitution grant this power?

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a professional athlete cannot be compelled against his will to fulfill his contract with his team because that would be an unconstitutional involuntary servitude. How can it possibly be constitutional to compel citizens to buy insurance against their will or to compel medical care providers to render their services under conditions that are contrary to their will?

While a majority of Americans do not support this monstrosity, what if they did? Did you not swear an oath to uphold the Constitution? Isn't it your duty to protect American freedom even if the Populous is willing to trade it away?

Benjamin Franklin observed that people who trade liberty for security deserve neither. In truth, they get neither. Franklin's observation is evidenced in history from the writings of the Old Testament through the newspapers of today.

Is there any reason why this bill, a trade of our liberty in how we manage our individual health care for the promise of security offered by the federal government, would be any different?

Thomas Jefferson stated that the will of the people is rarely wrong and when it is, they quickly amend their ways. The American people instinctively know that this bill is wrong.

Must your constituents amend their choice of representative?

Charles Hear