The Nanny State: Healthcare "Reform"

 

Today a federal judge in Virgina ruled that the government can not tax inaction. The offical text from the judges decision follows.

"While this case raises a host of complex constitutional issues, all seem to distill to the single question of whether or not Congress has the power to regulate and tax a citizen's decision not to participate in interstate commerce. Neither the U.S. Supreme Court nor any circuit court of appeals has squarely addressed this issue. No reported case from any federal appellate court has extended the Commerce Clause or Tax Clause to include the regulation of a person's decision not to purchase a product, notwithstanding its effect on interstate commerce."- (Source)   

The next step on the legal challenge of the health care reform bill will go before the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals or go straight to the Supreme Court. Currently there are 20 states sighed on to the bill, Washington State being one of those states. The individual mandate of the bill has been one of the most controversial sections of the bill. The individual mandate forces you to buy health care or get a massive fine. 

The big controversy is whether the government should be allowed to regulate inaction or simply put forcing to you act, or in this case buy something. The lawyers in support for the mandate state that this ability is justified under the interstate commerce clause, but then again so is everything under the sun... This key issue being debated is should the government be aloud to force people to purchase a good? If so they could force us to buy G.M.C. cars, or even force us to buy less or more of good. This situation is what many people call a slippy slope as in; once something like this becomes law it makes a foot hold for more radical reform. For once the federal government acquires a power it rarely (actually...never) gives it up.