Can the government of a free society make laws that compel the citizen to buy health insurance? This is the question of the day, one that America is wrestling with at this time. If you were to ask that question to people living under different jurisdictions, they will each give an answer that is compatible with the laws of their jurisdiction, especially the constitutional law. And this is because all laws must be compatible with the constitution. As to the explanation that will accompany and justify the answer, it will consist of showing that the answer does not violate the constitution and that it will not cause too many other laws -- already on the books – from being overthrown.
And there lies the problem. Human laws are imperfect and this is why we amend them every once in a while. By contrast, the laws of nature are perfect but even then -- when we construct something based on these laws -- we allow for the fact that we make errors and that these errors can be cumulative. For this reason, we see the need to step back once in a while and look at the fundamentals lest we pile up the errors and create something that ends up violating a law of nature in a substantial way thus cause a catastrophe. Therefore, it behooves us that in the matter of making human laws, we should also step back from the laws of our jurisdiction and be guided instead by the most fundamental of axioms that should determine our answer to the question.
What is the most fundamental of axioms in this case? The answer to this question begins with the realization that a group of laws is made to respond to necessities, and that another group of laws is made for convenience. The first group is an instrument used by the government to protect people from each other and protect society from itself. The second group makes the system under which we live function efficiently and more equitably. Among the group of necessities is the one that obligates the parents to provide the necessities of life, such as food and other things to a child. The obligation extends to any adult that is in charge of a child or in charge of another adult who is incapacitated.
Thus, we now ask the question: Can a young parent with the means to buy insurance for the family refuse to do so and be thought of as fulfilling his or her obligation to provide the necessities of life for their children? The answer is no because if a child runs a fever, for example, it will take the parents with no insurance a longer time to decide taking the child to a doctor than it would take the parents who have coverage. And the child will suffer needlessly or even die because of the delay.
This alone should convince the jurists that yes, the government can compel people to buy health insurance if they can afford it or accept the free coverage that the government will provide for them if they cannot afford the premium. Beginning with this premise, all sorts of other arguments can be constructed to make the law on health insurance that the jurists envisage compatible with that of their jurisdiction.