“Lift the lid on the argument over a government health program and you find this:
It is not an argument over whether the government should interest itself in health. There is a government health program now. The problem is how far should such a program, backed with government money and some government control, be allowed to go.”
Think this quote is recent? Think again, it comes from an article written in April 27, 1949, by James Harlow.
It is now 63 years later and America finds itself still facing the same dilemma with health care reform.
But how far did the federal government go when it comes to reform? Pretty far — reform greatly extends the government’s role in health care, allocates more money for federal health programs than ever before, and requires every citizen to purchase health insurance or pay a fine.
The individual health insurance mandate will be the first time the government has required its citizens to buy a financial product or pay a tax. In March, the Supreme Court will start deciding if the mandate is constitutional. If the Supreme Court believes the federal government goes too far with the mandate, then health care reform will be a washout. But on the other hand, if the Supreme Court upholds the mandate then every citizen will be required to have health insurance within a couple years.
Does the individual mandate set a precedent for future legislation if it is constitutional? Then how far will the government be allowed to go?