Mandatory insurance?

First, a big thanks to you right-wingers for proving my point in the last post far better than I could have. (By the way, I deliberately distinguish right-wingers from conservatives — I am a conservative). You took my few words and found closets full of hidden monsters, as I kind of knew you would.
So now on to another topic. Should the federal government require all Americans to acquire health insurance?
This is a common part of many health-care overhaul plans. In order to make sure everyone is covered, the government would fine, or tax, or whatever you want to call it, anyone who didn’t get insurance. Supporters say it’s kind of like how everyone has to have auto insurance — well, except that those requirements are in state laws, not federal ones, and that makes a huge difference.
I direct your attention to an op-ed in Friday’s Wall Street Journal by David B. Rivkin Jr., and Lee A. Casey. (Read it here.) They say such an idea is “profoundly unconstitutional.”
This, the authors say, would be a way to get young people to fund universal care for old guys like me. Young people often make market decisions to not buy health insurance. Contrary to conventional wisdom, they don’t raise everyone else’s insurance rates by doing so. They most often pay out-of-pocket when they do get sick — “at premium rates, thereby actually subsidizing insured Americans.”
But the bigger point is that health-care reform, as the authors say, “would not regulate any ‘activity.’” Hence, the Constitution, and prior Supreme Court rulings, don’t allow the government to force people to be covered.
This is an excellent point. And, lest you think the Constitution doesn’t mean much any more, you can be certain someone would test such a mandate in court. With today’s conservative 5-4 majority, I doubt the Supremes would let it stand.