A new article at The Apothecary details how many well-intended (but misguided) government policies have increased health insurance costs. As costs increase, more people drop health insurance or opt-out either because they cannot afford the higher prices or the do a simple cost-benefit analysis and decide that the benefit is no longer worth the cost. In either case, it is government mandates and policies that drive up costs with the end results being fewer people with insurance. ObamaCare repeats many of the failed policies of the past which will make the problems associated with higher cost health insurance even worse. Read the full commentary here.

Be sure to follow AHEC on Twitter @TheAHEC and at Facebook.com/TheAHEC. 

1. In America, we recognize our Constitutional rights as God-given and that government has only the authority expressly granted to government by the people through the Constitution. Our liberties are natural rights inherent in each person and are in no way dependent on the need for any of us to first assert our rights (call this negative liberty if you will) to limit government's power over our persons or our family. The Constitution does not give government unlimited power and authority to act only until such time as any of us say "no" (or "opt-out"), but rather government is restrained from acting until we, as a nation, say "yes" (through a proper grant of authority by way of an amendment to the Constitution).  AHEC believes that the mandate is unconstitutional, in part, because it is an exercise of government power that exceeds those powers expressly granted to the federal government by the people under our Constitution. And we see an opt-out as a distinction without a difference as far as the exercise of government power over the individual is involved.
2. To cede government the right to permit opt-out is to give government unfettered power to set the rules on opt-out. What would those rules look like? Would Congress only allow an "opt-out" once per year during a "disenrollment period" (kind of the reverse of an open enrollment period)? Would you have to pay a service fee, penalty, bounty, tax to opt-out (under the guise of "covering" or "paying for the administrative costs")? Would government require notice to an employer or even worse the IRS before an individual can opt out? Would it take government "authorization" or acknowledgment before the opt out becomes effective? How long would that take? Who knows? Don't want to find out.
3. Congress has had "opt-out" debates in many instances in the past; think Do-Not-Call or Gramm-Leach-Bliley financial opt-out. The opt-out was probably more appropriate in the case of GLB because it was a consequence of someone already deciding to engage in commerce or a financial relationship with the financial institution. The initial act on the part of the consumer was effectively a commercial "opt-in" by banking with a financial institution before deciding to opt-out relative to information sharing. Why can't government at least hold itself to the standard it has crafted for commercial entities which first requires an opt-in? 
4. If we want to de-link health care form employment an opt-out is about the worst direction we could go.

The Supreme Court next month will hear legal challenges to the healthcare law, which are focused on the law's requirement that all Americans purchase health insurance or pay a fine. Americans overwhelmingly believe the "individual mandate," as it is often called, is unconstitutional, by a margin of 72% to 20%.

First, its assault on the free exercise of religion. Only churches themselves are left alone. Beyond the churchyard gate, religious autonomy disappears. Every other religious institution must bow to the state because, by this administration's regulatory definition, church schools, hospitals and charities are not "religious," and thus have no right to the free exercise of religion -- no protection from being forced into doctrinal violations commanded by the state.

Second, its assault on free enterprise. To solve his own political problem, the president presumes to order a private company to enter into a contract for the provision of certain services -- all of which are free. And yet, this breathtaking arrogation of power is simply the logical extension of Washington's takeover of the private system of medical care -- a system Obama farcically pretends to be maintaining.

Under ObamaCare, the state treats private insurers the way it does government-regulated monopolies and utilities. It determines everything of importance. Insurers, by definition, set premiums according to risk. Not anymore. The risk ratios (for age, gender, smoking, etc.) are decreed by Washington. This is nationalization in all but name. The insurer is turned into a middleman, subject to state control -- and presidential whim.

Third, the assault on individual autonomy. Every citizen without insurance is ordered to buy it, again under penalty of law. This so-called individual mandate is now before the Supreme Court -- because never before has the already inflated Commerce Clause been used to compel a citizen to enter into a private contract with a private company by mere fact of his existence.

This constitutional trifecta -- the state invading the autonomy of religious institutions, private companies and the individual citizen -- should not surprise. It is what happens when the state takes over one-sixth of the economy.

"The government’s intentions were clear: the law is entirely reliant on the requirement that Americans spend their discretionary dollars on an insurance product, whether they want one or not. Without the mandate, the law would be gutted. One problem: Never in its history has the government made it a requirement of your citizenship to purchase something or else be financially penalized — and there’s a reason for that. Making such a demand violates the Constitution."