Many Groups Now See Healthcare Bill as Threat to Civil Liberty
       At the time of the original announcement this week, nearly every state politician, newspaper and civic group hailed the Massachusetts healthcare bill as a “landmark” piece of legislation that exemplified how bipartisan action in government can solve major issues. 
       News sources nationwide speculated that this was the vehicle that Gov. Mitt Romney was going to ride to national prominence, and the New York Times suggested the Massachusetts bill could be a template for a national program.  Now that all back-slapping is done, and the dust has settled, a more sober-minded public is realizing that if signed, the plan would make the type of law that everyone will regret. 
       At the center of the controversy is the so-called “individual mandate,” the requirement that every individual in the state must buy health insurance.  As we reported on April 5, the bill would literally force everyone who could “afford” insurance to buy it or face penalties.  The possible amounts of those penalties have always been downplayed.  Bill supporters have said that in the first year, the individual would lose his or her personal exemption, which would only amount to about $158.  However, few sources are reporting that in the second year of the program, the penalty for not having insurance is 50% of the premium of an “affordable plan”.  The phrase “affordable” is defined by the bureaucrats.
       How much could that be?  The Boston Globe reported on Thursday that the premiums of the new “affordable” products are likely going to be quite a bit more than the preliminary guesses that bill supporters had projected.   The likely cost for a family plan for those who don’t make the poverty guidelines: $7800 a year. Most presume that even that is going to be a low estimate.  Hypothetically, a family who doesn’t have the extra $7800/ year and lapses in their insurance is going to get a tremendous retroactive penalty from the state Department of Revenue at tax time.  If it lapses for the entire year, they are facing a new tax bill of $3900, plus the appropriate penalties, interest and the rest of the fees that the Department of Revenue might assess.  In addition, they are still going to be assessed for additional penalties every month, until they get insurance.  It is expected that the DOR would be looking into garnishing wages or putting a lien on the individual's house to collect on that $3900. 
        In a comprehensive assessment, the libertarian think tank Cato Institute noted that the new bill is the first one in the United States that is making individuals “buy a product simply by virtue of breathing.”   It points out this health insurance is not analogous to car insurance, in that driving a vehicle is a privilege.  Living, however, is not.  The complete analysis, which can be found HERE, concludes that the “individual mandate will almost certainly lead to a cascading series of additional mandates and regulations resulting in a government-run health care system. …An individual mandate, then, is clearly not the way to go.”
       Even groups such as the AFL-CIO have come out in strong opposition against the bill. AFL-CIO President John Sweeney stated: “Massachusetts’ new requirement will bankrupt many middle-class families.” 
       It is very likely that, if signed, libertarian groups will challenge the constitutionality of the state forcing individuals to buy a product as a requirement of being a state resident.  As the Congressional Budget Office noted in 1994: “The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States.”