In their recent article "Health Care Economics 101 And The Supreme Court," University of Michigan professors Jill Horwitz and Helen Levy argue that by intervening in the health insurance market, government has the power to make healthcare uniquely efficient and affordable.
Assuming that that's correct-and it's not-so what? Horwitz and Levy contest that upholding Obamacare's individual mandate could lead to forcing people to buy broccoli or cars, as several Supreme Court Justices suggested during oral arguments in April.
They write, "[T]here are significant economic differences between health care and the list of goods the amicus brief and some of the Justices cited...
[T]he market for health care is characterized by multiple and substantial departures from the assumptions of perfect competition...
[A]ppropriately structured government intervention-which in this case means guaranteed issue, community rating, and an individual mandate-can actually promote efficiency, solving the problem of market failure and making the pie bigger for everyone.
" Actually, who cares?Where in the Constitution can Congress force people to do something they don't want, just because universal healthcare supporters think it will make life easier?Where does the Constitution give the federal government the power of central planning for the quixotic purpose of "making the pie bigger for everyone"? Where in the Constitution may I find the "Correcting Imperfect Markets for Competition via Abridgment of Individual Liberty" clause? Horwitz and Levy toss out the following unconnected arguments in the hope that one of them will stick: the health insurance market operates poorly on its own; the health insurance market involves many interrelated parts, the failure of any one of which can compound failure in the others; an individual's need for healthcare is unpredictable; the healthcare industry is high-stakes; the country is experiencing a health insurance crisis.
Not one of these reasons compensates for the egregious constitutional violation of forcing people to purchase a product on the private market against their will.
Obviously the health care market differs from the market for broccoli or cars-no one disagrees with that-though it's not uniquely different from other markets we don't allow the federal government to take over.
But all laws vary widely in their outcomes when applied to different referents.
The Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable search and seizure, could yield different consequences if applied to a pastor's suburban home vs.
a drug-infested housing project.
One could argue that government should be able to randomly invade run-down apartments in gang-infested inner cities, since the likelihood of finding illegal weapons, drug paraphernalia, or evidence of other crimes is much greater there.
You might say that such a law "can actually promote efficiency" in law enforcement.
But does the principle prohibiting government from wantonly entering private homes without a warrant and poking around apply universally, or doesn't it?If it applies universally, then it applies whether we're talking about split-levels or slums.
Similarly, there may be compelling reasons from a pure efficiency standpoint for government to intervene in the healthcare market.
(There aren't, but bear with me.
)That the government could make healthcare so much more superior doesn't justify forcing people to buy insurance policies they don't want, or forcing policies on them that mitigate more risk than they care to pay for.
Perhaps the claim that Obamacare won't lead to mandating broccoli consumption would be more credible if liberals weren't regularly trying to ban trans fats, salt, Happy Meals, soda, popcorn, and "milk drinks.
"For a perfect example of the left-wing tactic of abridging liberty while distracting the public with superfluous "good for you" justifications, see Mayor Michael Bloomberg's 10-year crusade to turn Manhattan into a monastery.
When the Supreme Court overrules the Affordable Care Act's individual mandate 5-4 next week, liberals are going to gripe about "judicial overreach" for decades, the way they're still grumbling about Bush v.
Gore.
They'll roll their eyes at anyone who's happy the Court overturned the law, and try to convince themselves that their legal argument is so much more sophisticated and forward-thinking than ours.
They need to be told why they're wrong.
Assuming that that's correct-and it's not-so what? Horwitz and Levy contest that upholding Obamacare's individual mandate could lead to forcing people to buy broccoli or cars, as several Supreme Court Justices suggested during oral arguments in April.
They write, "[T]here are significant economic differences between health care and the list of goods the amicus brief and some of the Justices cited...
[T]he market for health care is characterized by multiple and substantial departures from the assumptions of perfect competition...
[A]ppropriately structured government intervention-which in this case means guaranteed issue, community rating, and an individual mandate-can actually promote efficiency, solving the problem of market failure and making the pie bigger for everyone.
" Actually, who cares?Where in the Constitution can Congress force people to do something they don't want, just because universal healthcare supporters think it will make life easier?Where does the Constitution give the federal government the power of central planning for the quixotic purpose of "making the pie bigger for everyone"? Where in the Constitution may I find the "Correcting Imperfect Markets for Competition via Abridgment of Individual Liberty" clause? Horwitz and Levy toss out the following unconnected arguments in the hope that one of them will stick: the health insurance market operates poorly on its own; the health insurance market involves many interrelated parts, the failure of any one of which can compound failure in the others; an individual's need for healthcare is unpredictable; the healthcare industry is high-stakes; the country is experiencing a health insurance crisis.
Not one of these reasons compensates for the egregious constitutional violation of forcing people to purchase a product on the private market against their will.
Obviously the health care market differs from the market for broccoli or cars-no one disagrees with that-though it's not uniquely different from other markets we don't allow the federal government to take over.
But all laws vary widely in their outcomes when applied to different referents.
The Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable search and seizure, could yield different consequences if applied to a pastor's suburban home vs.
a drug-infested housing project.
One could argue that government should be able to randomly invade run-down apartments in gang-infested inner cities, since the likelihood of finding illegal weapons, drug paraphernalia, or evidence of other crimes is much greater there.
You might say that such a law "can actually promote efficiency" in law enforcement.
But does the principle prohibiting government from wantonly entering private homes without a warrant and poking around apply universally, or doesn't it?If it applies universally, then it applies whether we're talking about split-levels or slums.
Similarly, there may be compelling reasons from a pure efficiency standpoint for government to intervene in the healthcare market.
(There aren't, but bear with me.
)That the government could make healthcare so much more superior doesn't justify forcing people to buy insurance policies they don't want, or forcing policies on them that mitigate more risk than they care to pay for.
Perhaps the claim that Obamacare won't lead to mandating broccoli consumption would be more credible if liberals weren't regularly trying to ban trans fats, salt, Happy Meals, soda, popcorn, and "milk drinks.
"For a perfect example of the left-wing tactic of abridging liberty while distracting the public with superfluous "good for you" justifications, see Mayor Michael Bloomberg's 10-year crusade to turn Manhattan into a monastery.
When the Supreme Court overrules the Affordable Care Act's individual mandate 5-4 next week, liberals are going to gripe about "judicial overreach" for decades, the way they're still grumbling about Bush v.
Gore.
They'll roll their eyes at anyone who's happy the Court overturned the law, and try to convince themselves that their legal argument is so much more sophisticated and forward-thinking than ours.
They need to be told why they're wrong.
SHARE
