Is mandatory health insurance constitutional?

A while back, I posted that one of the "reforms" that could be enacted on health care is to require health insurance to be purchased by everyone; much like we require car insurance.

I was quickly and correctly called out on the notion that was against the basic civil liberties.

As a libertarian that is true. But if you think about it, you already are forcibly required to pay for your health care at retirement in the form of Medicare. What's the difference?

Frankly, I think lot's of things are unconstitutional and a mockery of civil liberties such as DUI check points, McCain Feingold, hate crime legislation, etc. but that hasn't stopped our Supreme Court to tell us otherwise (remember they brought us "separate but equal").

Here's a piece discussing the constitutionality of mandatory health care.......

In the last few days, a new argument has emerged in the debate over Democratic health care proposals: Are they constitutional? More precisely, can the federal government force Americans to buy health insurance?

"Mandatory Insurance Is Unconstitutional" is the unapologetic title of an op-ed last week in the Wall Street Journal by David Rivkin and Lee Casey, Justice Department attorneys during the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations. Investor's Business Daily wonders: "Where in the U.S. Constitution does it say the government can force people to buy health insurance?" So does an opinion article in the Christian Science Monitor, a discussion on the O'Reilly Factor, and commentary by Fox News' Andrew Napolitano.

For their part, defenders of mandatory insurance haven't engaged very much, in part because courts tend to be so reluctant to strike down federal laws in the first place. Precious few laws are ever erased from the books by the stroke of a judge's pen; lawyers use terms like the "presumption of constitutionality" and "judicial deference to the legislature" to explain this reticence. (See our CBS Evening News coverage of mandated health insurance, and a FAQ on the topic.)

Timothy Jost, a professor of Washington and Lee University School of Law who says he prefers a national public plan, has argued the constitutional principles -- saying in a Politico.com essay that the question was a Republican "talking point" that shouldn't be taken terribly seriously. "A basic principle of our constitutional system for the last two centuries has been that the Supreme Court is the ultimate authority on the Constitution, and the Constitution the court now recognizes would permit Congress to adopt health care reform," Jost wrote.

Read the rest