Dear Congressman [name went here]:
I am writing you today regarding the various healthcare reform bills which are currently being formulated by committees in the House and the Senate.
Although I reside in your congressional district, it is doubtful that I resemble your typical constituent: I do not own property, do not belong to the Republican party, and I am exceedingly poor; these facts and others yet to be stated are directly relevant to the issue of healthcare reform: In particular, although I am an educated person, holding a Master of Science degree in an academic subject, I do not embrace the suburban way of life (property ownership and child rearing). To the contrary, I choose a simpler path; working occasionally, saving extensively, and paying my expenses with my savings when I do not work. And as I move into my mid 30s, I become more and more comfortable with my lifestyle and further removed from the 9 to 5 existence of “mainstream” citizens.
What does this have to do with healthcare legislation? Provisions of the proposed bills are a direct threat to my lifestyle – which is to say my right “to pursue happiness.” I speak of the “mandate” provisions in these bills which would require individual citizens to purchase an insurance product or face severe financial penalty. This provision is destructive in two ways:
Firstly, it seeks to force low income earners who do not receive any government social services into the system. There are citizens (myself included) who are blessed with superior health, who neither want, nor need, nor will pay for health insurance. I have no need for doctors and I have never visited an emergency room seeking any sort of “free” care. Unfortunately, those of a particular philosophy seek to brand me and my kind (we are legion) as somehow antisocial; as if we have a duty to purchase a commercial product (health insurance) in order to subsidize the cost of this product for people who have health problems.
Please do not misunderstand, I sympathize with anyone who becomes afflicted by disease regardless of who they are or the circumstances of the malady. But I do not believe that it can be morally or legally justified that the free spirits (for want of a better term) of this nation should be financially crushed in the name of helping those who are less fortunate. To put my argument in context, if the proposed law (as reported by the news wire-services) offers a “generous subsidy” to citizens with limited income, even a liability of $30 to $60 per month ($360 to $720 each year) could have disastrous consequences: many in the growing ranks of the educated poor already have sizable student loan obligations; loan obligations that we take quite seriously, often sacrificing quality of life (for example, by buying less food) in order to make our monthly payments. But the fundamental difference between my direct student loan (a direct debt to the United States Department of Education) and the notion of compulsory health insurance is that I chose to take out my student loan and voluntarily signed a contract to repay the borrowed money with interest. I will expound on this last point in the next paragraph, but returning to the main idea of this section: the added debt from forced insurance (or severe sanction for those who resist) will irreparably damage (if not outright destroy) the minimalist, free spirited, and yes, nonconforming way of life. It may be difficult for you to appreciate this perspective but I will emphatically state the following: We are not vagrants, we are not deviants, we are not “trailer trash,” nor “hillbillies,” nor “rednecks,” nor are we mentally ill. Rather many of us seek to parlay our often advanced education into an alternate way of life; a way of life which is both moral and legal (I pay my taxes) but rejects the soul-annihilating, office-cubicle-existence that less fortunate people must suffer. We are the itinerants, the adjuncts, and the independent contractors: what those of libertarian stripe might call “free traders.” This lifestyle is not for everyone since it offers a limited margin of error: by not working 40 hours per week, 50 (or more) weeks a year we must be very conservative with our limited resources; and indeed we are: we shun credit card debt; we have no home equity lines of credit; and we utterly reject assorted frivolous and/or superfluous obligations such as car leases and loans, boat loans, and (perhaps most ludicrous) vacation loans! In short, we do what my parents (who were born prior to World War II) would call “living within our means.”
By imposing an obligation to purchase an insurance product on my people (as we are a distinct class, as deserving of dignity and accommodation as much as the majority) you will surely deprive us of the right to “pursue happiness” as we see fit: within our means, independent of government largess, and free from a life of corporate serfdom.
Secondly, I will address in brief the grave constitutional ramifications of the proffered legislation. As you know, our Constitution provides Congress with a limited set of enumerated powers[1] with all other powers reserved to the states[2]. If the Congress approves legislation which is subsequently signed into law by the President, requiring individual citizens to purchase an insurance product, they will be asserting an arbitrary power far removed from Article I, section 8 of the Constitution. Simply stated, nothing in the Constitution gives you the right to force individuals to buy any product or punish them if they refuse to do so.
Placed in historical context, when Congress originally enacted an income tax law[3] it was struck down as unconstitutional[4]. Only the ratification of the Sixteenth amendment made direct income tax laws permissible. The proposed health insurance legislation would establish a dangerous precedent, emboldening Congress to violate our privacy and unlawfully take our property. Some have speciously argued that the so-called “mandate” is no different than a state requiring automobile insurance. This is a clever but flawed analogy; driving a vehicle is an optional activity, one which a state clearly has the authority to regulate under the powers devolved to it by the tenth amendment. Whereas being alive is not generally an optional activity – we are alive whether we like it or not. Can it ever be morally justified to force individuals to purchase a product (insurance) or face financial penalty (a tax, you might say) simply because they have the audacity to be living human beings? While an individual state (such as Massachusetts) may technically have the right to impose such an obligation, Congress (as per the Constitution) does not. To assert otherwise, even if in the interest of doing good, may alter the fundamental character of our unique and heretofore free Republic.
In closing, I appeal to you to not impose a tax on being a human being in the United States of America. Please reject this arbitrary and socially corrosive concept of an “individual mandate.”
Sincerely,
J.
No comments:
Post a Comment