In a world filled with men and women of different shapes and sizes, it is a commonly known fact that clothes shopping can be complicated.  Women know this to be especially true.  Any woman who has gone shopping for jeans, for instance, knows the time and effort involved in trying on dozens of pairs to find the perfect fit.  Even pairs of jeans by the same manufacturer can fit differently.

Jeans aside, the notion of “one size fits all” makes little sense.  It simply cannot work with something as large and complex as our nation’s healthcare system.  However, the Obama administration is currently pressing forward with its dream of enacting such a health care plan.

While the White House declares repeatedly that it has only the best intentions for every American to get medical treatment, the idea of an individual mandate sounds similar to clothing companies claiming that their product will comfortably fit everyone on the planet.  (Isn’t there a road that’s paved with good intentions?  But I digress.)

By enacting an individual mandate, the government would require that all Americans have some sort of “qualified” health coverage as determined by the radically pro-abortion Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius.  If individuals are not insured within the standards set forth by the government, they will be faced with penalties.  (Not to mention that the terms for “qualified” coverage would be dictated by the same government that oversees Medicare and Medicaid, both of which are notorious for their frustrating red tape and low-quality care). 

An individual mandate also tries to impose a single solution on a country of complicated and interwoven people groups.  Take, for instance, groups of Christians who ally themselves to cover one another’s health care costs.  The Alliance of Health Care Sharing Ministries, which represents more than 100,000 members in all 50 states, operates on the premise that Christians are able to contribute to an organized fund which is used to pay for the medical expenses of its members.  The organization operates differently than insurance companies and is not, in essence, medical insurance.  With an individual mandate, these individuals would likely be penalized for not having insurance, although they already participate in a cost-sharing program and are able to pay their medical bills.

The question of religious liberty also comes into play with the concept of an individual mandate for health insurance.  In her book When Parents Say No: Religious and Cultural Influences on Pediatric Treatments, Dr. Linnard-Palmer at Dominican University of California outlines 31 religious groups in the U.S. that limit, delay, or refuse medical care.  For instance:

·         Christian Scientists do not believe in utilizing any form of modern medical treatment

·         Jehovah’s Witnesses are not allowed to have blood transfusions

·         Scientologists generally frown upon the use of modern medicine ( a la Tom Cruise’s solution of “exercise and vitamins” to cure Brooke Shields’ post-partum depression)

·         Islamic tradition bars Muslims from taking medications that contain alcohol or narcotics

The list goes on.  Thus, many individuals in the U.S., under an individual mandate, would be penalized for not having the government’s chosen form of health insurance.  In other words, they would be forced to pay for something to which they object and would not use.

Although many in the current administration declare that an individual mandate is desperately needed to fix problems in our health care system, it simply won’t work.  There are too many different situations, such as those related to constitutionally-protected expressions of worship, which would result in individuals being slapped with penalties for not complying with the government’s mandate.  Health care cannot exist effectively in a cookie-cutter form, just as clothing cannot truly be “one size fits all.”