I was delighted to see an op-ed in the Christian Science Monitor today taking on the constitutionality of proposals to require Americans to purchase health insurance. Co-authors Karl Manheim and Jamie Court distinguish between state mandates such as liability insurance for drivers and the idea, supported to varying degrees by Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, of compelling families to purchase private health plans. A key passage:

A health insurance mandate is essentially a forced contract, in
which one party (the insurer) gets to set the terms. You must buy their
policies, even if you prefer to self-insure, rely on alternative
medicine, or obtain treatment outside the system. In constitutional
terms, such mandates may constitute a violation of due process or a
“taking of property.”

Requiring Person A to give money to Person B is a
“taking,” whether or not something of value is given in return. Let’s
say the state required every resident to buy milk, on the rationale
that milk consumption benefits public health. That’s either a
constitutionally forbidden taking (of money) or a violation of due
process.

As is evident by the conclusion of the piece, you don’t have to prefer market-based health reforms like tax neutrality and health-savings accounts to feel queasy about what Clinton and Obama (and like-minded politicians and activists in North Carolina) have in mind.