Unconstitutional Healthcare Coverage

So, the gauntlet has been thrown. In front of congress, the nation and the world. Universal healthcare, government options, and most importantly mandatory health insurance coverage. Unfortunately, the 'gentleman' from the South, Joe Wilson, had to display his boorish interpretation of the southern code of gentlemanly conduct - and hence helped galvanize the previously divided Democratic side of the aisle, maybe even driving some Republicans to the sinister side of the aisle as well.

But Wilson's aberrant behavior aside, as well as the hero's welcome that Obama received upon entering the hallowed halls - let's run that soundbite again, mandatory health insurance coverage? Okay, there are certain qualifiers to this, after all we are in a democracy...err...Republic here and not some autocracy on a sunny isle in the northern Caribbean. These qualifiers sound really good on paper.

"There will be a hardship waiver for those individuals who still cannot afford coverage, and 95 percent of all small businesses, because of their size and narrow profit margin, would be exempt from these requirements. But we cannot have large businesses and individuals who can afford coverage game the system by avoiding responsibility to themselves or their employees."  Barrack Obama, September 9th, 2009

So, let's get this straight, there are qualifying conditions that may cause an exemption under the mandate of health insurance coverage. Qualifying conditions that are entirely economic in nature. In discussing this with my friends last night, I used the examples of the belief sets of Christian Science and the Amish vis-a-vis freedom of choice of healthcare modalities and/or carrying health insurance in the first place. While reading their doctrine of faith and beliefs does not clearly forbid use of medical care and health insurance, the reality of the practice of their faith is signifcantly more stringent and prohibitive.

In most cases, especially looking at Christian Scientists, we are looking at individuals with income levels that would exclude them from Obama's hardship clause, hence submitting them to the mandate of health insurance coverage. And in essence, depriving them of their constitutional rights under the First Amendment of the US Constitution in expression, observance and practice of freedom of religion.

And while a violation of constitutional rights in our country is not rendered more or less egrigious by the number of individuals affected, we are not talking about simple peanuts here either. In 2008, there were 1.9 million members in the Church of Christ (Christian Science) and 0.2 million in the Amish Mennonite Church (Amish). That is 3/4 of one percent of the US population that will be impacted in their right of religious freedom by this proposed mandate.

Democracy - Republic, it does not matter what the difference, it is still unacceptable if our own president violates the constituional rights of the very same people he is sworn to protect.