Every law that has been held unconstitutional had its proponents who thought the law was necessary. If necessity alone could preserve unconstitutional laws, then there would be no need for the Constitution. All that would be required is convincing even a temporary legislative majority that a law – no matter how destructive of liberty and federalism – is necessary.
Yet, even under the constrained argument of necessity, Obamacare fails. It was built on a foundation of lies. We weren’t able to keep our doctors. Health insurance premiums did not go down. Instead, they have skyrocketed. The punishment for not participating was not a tax. It was a fine.
The constitutional challenge to Obamacare could provide America the opportunity to adopt an alternate approach to decades of destructive government intervention in health care. Its success would open a public discussion on how we can encourage free-market alternatives that will promote the best health care system in the world, while at the same time protecting those financially prevented from fully participating in that system. We should not lose that opportunity.
Many worthy proposals for replacing Obamacare have been presented and discussed over the years. The best of them recognize that in markets where government regulations are light, costs tend to go down and access increases. New Hampshire should not oppose a transition to market solutions under a flawed argument that it is necessary to continue with a failed and unconstitutional federal health care law. That is neither necessary nor desirable.
by Bill O’Brien – Republican Candidate for the US Senate
