The fatal flaw in healthcare reform (2)

I mentioned one fatal flaw here, which is that by prohibiting insurance companies from denying insurance to people with pre-existing conditions, but failing to impose a sufficient penalty on those who refuse to buy insurance, Congress was all but ensuring the financial failure of healthcare reform. I also referenced an article that said that a healthcare mandate was unconstitutional here. Now Randy Barnett has jumped into the fray with yet more—and very compelling—reasons why a health insurance mandate is unconstitutional:

Can Congress require all Americans to buy a new Buick every year or pay a tax equivalent to the price of a used LeSabre? Some members of Congress claim that power in the health care debate. Indeed, all the leading health care bills being debated in Congress require Americans to either secure or purchase health insurance with a particular threshold of coverage, estimated to cost up to $15,000/year for a typical family. Such a purchase mandate has never been attempted. The purpose of this forced purchase, coupled with the arbitrary price ratios and controls, is to require many people to buy artificially high-priced policies to subsidize the coverage for others. Sponsors of the current bills are attempting, through the personal mandate, to keep the transfers entirely off budget or through the gimmick of unconstitutional tax penalties. The sponsors have struggled to analogize and justify the mandate under existing federal laws and court decisions, but those efforts all fail under serious scrutiny. Senator Orrin Hatch and a growing number of Congressmen argue the mandate is unconstitutional as a matter of first principles and under any reasonable reading of constitutional precedents, and it is very unlikely the Supreme Court would devise or extend current constitutional doctrines to save them.

Read the whole thing, plus this article.