Along with Mike Rizzo at the Unbroken Window, I am ambivalent about the Florida district court ruling thats strikes down Obamacare (by first striking down the mandate for individuals to be insured). Yes, Obamacare is bad policy; yes, it’s arguably unconstitutional. But as bad and unconstitutional policies go, it’s relatively benign. I (like Rizzo) am uncomfortable with a judiciary that can reject Obamacare while accepting agricultural subsidies, affirmative action, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and laws that dictate the size of your showerhead.
In fact, unlike, say, agricultural subsidies, the mandate for individuals to buy health insurance is at least a defensible response to a genuine problem — in fact, it’s a defensible response to two genuine problems.
First, as long as people are uninsured, they are going to show up at emergency rooms demanding care, and they are going to get it. Arguably, the best policy is to turn those people away unless they’re able and willing to cover the costs of their own care, but we all know that’s never going to happen. Given that we’re going to make medical care available to everyone, there’s at least an argument for making everyone pay for it.
Second, there really are good arguments for insuring people regardless of (at least some) pre-existing conditions; most of us would have insured against those conditions before we were born if we’d had the opportunity, and the inability of pre-born souls to sign insurance contracts can be seen as a form of market failure that bears correcting. But if you don’t allow discrimination on the basis of pre-existing conditions, then you’ve pretty much got to have an individual mandate; otherwise everyone waits till they get sick to buy insurance and the whole system breaks down.
Now the Obamacare system is very far from my preferred approach to these problems, but at least it’s a plausible response to a real set of problems, and hence arguably amounts to a system of taxes designed to provide for the general welfare of the United States, as allowed under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. That’s a lot more than you can say about, say, mandatory wheelchair ramps, the cost of which often far exceeds what you’d have to pay the wheelchair-bound to compensate for their absence. It’s a lot more than you can say about the Post Office, or the Commerce Department, or the Occupational Safety and Health Administration.
In Mike Rizzo’s words:
the insurance mandate is not nearly as horrific as opponents like to suggest (even as it cuts against the very core foundational principles I hold). It is applied equally to all. It does not seem arbitrary. People seem to be able to plan with some certainty regarding it. Yes, the insurers get a good deal here, but it is a rule that is pretty consistent with the Rule of Law … On the scale of repulsive things he government does, it is nowhere near the top.
Had the health care plan been packaged with a public insurance option, I’d be the first to call for judicial intervention to strike it down. The government has no more business running an insurance company than it would, say, an auto manufacturer — speaking of which, where were the courts when we really needed them? And there are a lot of other areas where I’d like to see the courts take a more expansionary view of individual rights. But I’m not prepared to call for unelected judges to overturn every piece of legislation that I happen to consider misguided. There is such a thing as judicial overreach, and I think we’re seeing it.
“Now the Obamacare system is very far from my preferred approach to these problems, but at least it’s a plausible response to a real set of problems, and hence arguably amounts to a system of taxes designed to provide for the general welfare of the United States, as allowed under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution.”
Steve,
What is the cost of Obamacare? Right now, it looks as if the states bear the brunt based on projected spending increases in Medicaid.
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=12693
Let me get this straight. Are you saying that medical care (that’s what it is; it’s not health care) is lumped in under “General Welfare”?
Ahh yes, Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs suddenly comes to mind.
“Arguably, the best policy is to turn those people away unless they’re able and willing to cover the costs of their own care, but we all know that’s never going to happen.”
I’m wondering if preventing this from happening in the first place is the best policy. If we’re going to pay for people who are sick, or pay for them to be insured for the moments that they are sick, why don’t we consider paying people to not get sick? By paying people to not get sick, I mean providing and mandating preventative care. I’d bet that is likely a less-expensive alternative.
Doing this would likely make everyone better off, but would be incredibly difficult to coordinate. Not only would it be difficult to coordinate, but I doubt many people could be convinced that it’s cost would be small in comparison to the insurance and hospital bills they are indirectly paying instead.
“The government has no more business running an insurance company than it would, say, an auto manufacturer — speaking of which, where were the courts when we really needed them?”
Where indeed? One of the weirdest things about the auto-company bailouts is that they were done without legislation (unless auto companies are “financial institutions”); we seem at some point in our history to have adopted a system in which the President gets to make the laws as well as executing them. Similarly, the executive branch has granted hundreds of “waivers” of the Obamacare rules to unions and other favored entities; the part of the Constitution that lets the President exempt his friends from expensive legislation seems to have been left out of my copy.
“The government has no more business running an insurance company than it would, say, an auto manufacturer — speaking of which, where were the courts when we really needed them?”
Ok, I would agree; but, nobody sued (as far as I know). Courts cannot act unilaterally. Somebody must bring the lawsuit. Nobody did. And since nobody did, courts did not act.
In the case of Obamacare, a lawsuit *was* filed, by 26 states.
No, I think we’ve seen it, in some of the rulings extending federal power, in some of the precedents supporters of this law cite, but not here. The gov’t clearly has the power to enact a tax and pay for health insurance. But that is not — quite explicitly not — what this bill does. Vinson’s ruling is really quite narrow: that the commerce clause does not grant this particular power. It might be that Vinson is wrong about that but it is hard to portray it as ‘overreach’.
Steve may not like limitations on gov’t power but the constitution gives the federal one only enumerated powers. No-one can cite an enumerated power that permits a mandate. The defenders must then argue that the commerce clause grants this power. If you read the commerce clause I think you will find it hard to argue that denying that it allows a mandate is “overreach.”
Note that there would be no such problem for a STATE to have a mandate.
It is common to write into laws severability clauses. Had there been such a clause Vinson could have struck down just the mandate but not the rest of the law. The democrats explicitly removed severability from this bill. Hence once Vinson found the mandate unconstitutional the whole law had to go. There is no overreach in that either.
“Overreach” seems to me a rhetorical flummery as well. The issue is whether the ruling is RIGHT. “Overreach” means “how dare you”; it is an accusation of poaching. It does not pinpoint a logical error.
There are 94 district courts in USA, so 2 of them is not representative of legal opinion, but is a significant portion. It does suggest that there are significant question marks over the constitutionality of this measure.
Your argument seems to be that this is no more unconstitional than other accepted, and more damaging measures. So why go for this one and ignore those others?
I can see two possible reasons.
The political: trying to get the other measures overturned as unconstitutional will make you unpopular.
The legal: there is an important distinction between this law and the others that makes this one less likely to be constitutional.
Ah! Now I think I see the finer points of your argument; there *is* in fact an important legal distinction, but there *ought* not to be as they have the same effect.
It seems to me that as this is the first time federal Govt. would require individuals to buy something just by existing, this is a significant distinction.
If I am right about your arguments (which I may well not be), the different policies should be considered the same, even if they act in different ways. There is a risk here, in that it relies on having knowledge of all the effects of the policy. As an example, in your “prefered option” discussion (linked), you claim that “A public option can only make things worse”. Whilst there may be valid grounds to think that a public option is not the best of all possible systems, the example from many countries seems to fly in the face of the idea that it can “only make it worse”. This suggests that there is some factor that has not been considered. Perhaps it can do other than “Mimic the private insurers, or do something different.” Perhaps it can do it better through subtle interactions not easily summarised.
Or maybe you think that the system in the USA gives good value for money compared to Europe and Canada?
My thoughts are that a totally free and fair market should produce the best option. Next probably comes the public option, and then comes whatever you call the current system in the USA. Given that it is difficult to obtain a totally free and fair market, a public option may be the best practical soultion.
On a slightly different note, I find it a bit worrying that two “democratic” judges found the measure OK, but two “republican” judges found it unconstitutional. These things are finely balanced, and there are good arguments on both sides. I would hope that judges would not allow only their political views to dedcide which argument they found most persuasive.
Harold,
Not the first time government has required individuals to buy something just by existing (unless existing and being Male does not count). Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Acts_of_1792. And later the selective service required people to join the military simply because they existed.
In addition, I’d like to point out that if the government could provide a service and require you to pay for it with your tax dollars (such as say, Medicare), then asking you to select and purchase that service in a private market that will be subsidized by the government to ensure it’s existence is probably a freer set of circumstances. If the government allows the one and not the other that’s potentially making us less free if it pushes the pro universal health insurance portion of our country into promoting a single-payer system.
I’m very glad Prof. Landsburg pointed out the ER thing, I think that particular factor is extremely important. I would suggest that while it may be economically more efficient to deny ER care, I think that’s one efficiency we can live without. Ensuring that people receive help when they really need it is a pretty nice effect.
@math_geek: Interesting case, thanks for the link. However a law is not a precedent: congress has passed many unconstitutional laws. The Alien & Sedition Acts from the same decade spring to mind.
Unfortunately, “other people have committed worse crimes than I did” has never been a legitimate defense in court.
Ken B,
That is very true, and the Alien & Sedition Acts were far more objectionable than either mandate to my way of thinking. However, that the Alien & Sedition acts lasted 2 years and all arrested were pardoned by Jefferson makes it considerably less approved of as constitutional than the Militia Acts which lasted until the creation of the National Guard in 1903 made them obsolete.
@math_geek: No, it just proves unconstitutional laws (if the militia act was unconstitutional) can last a long time. As has been noted unless the law is challenged it cannot be ruled on by the courts.
Actually I think you could argue that the fact Jefferson felt the need to pardon rather than require and support an appeal suggests a stronger case for these abominable laws to be constitutional in his eyes. It’s not a strong argument either way.
The passage and longevity of an unconstitutional law does not establish the constitutionality of similar laws.
I agree with Steve that there should be an alternative to forcing people to purchase insurance by virtue of existing. However, I don’t think it likely that hospitals will turn people away if critically injured – having bodies piling up outside the door would present a poor image. However, I could argue for giving hospitals the right to force people to pay for the care they receive. If you choose not to purchase insurance, but are injured in a car accident, the hospital could take your house, garnishee your (or your spouse’s) wages, etc. A whole new industry could open up to collect from people who fail to insure themselves.
Is it not possible that the law is unconstitutional, despite being “not as bad” as other constitutional laws?
After all, the constitution does not say anything about “bad” and “good”, just permitted and not permitted.
There are lots of laws that are bad but constitutional. There are lots of potential laws that are “not that bad” but unconstitutional. Why can’t this just be one of the latter?
“A whole new industry could open up to collect from people who fail to insure themselves”. Only a baseball bat needed.
@Ken B
Jefferson couldn’t appeal the Sedition Law because it expired before he became president and the new congress was never going to allow it to be extended. As president, when he pardoned the people, there was no mechanism for challenging the law as it did not exist. This also, of course, predates Marbury vs. Madison, so it was very young in the eyes of the court.
At the very least, The longevity of the law through both Federalist and D-R Presidents without significant opposition indicates that those leaders (AKA the framers of the constitution and the founding fathers) did not find mandates to be inherently unconstitutional or necessarily excluded under enumerated powers. It may not prove the method of their perception of it’s constitutionality (which I would guess is enumerated power by provide for Common Defense extended to mandate purchasing of firearms by Necessary and Proper), but if we’re supposed to look at framers original intent or whatever, then what they actually did while they were passing laws stands to some relevance.
Consider if the Militia Act was unconstitutional, the Framers believed it to be constitutional and they supported it anyway. That would make our reliance on the constitutionality of laws that we past one of the most impressive practical jokes in the history of the world.
Al V.:
I couldn’t agree more. This is what is wrong with this country. People can rack up debt and not have to pay it. People without insurance go to hospitals then don’t pay off their debt. People walk away from their houses leaving their debts to the banks.
If we were to get rid of bankruptcy in this country and let hospitals and banks garnish wages until a person’s debt were paid off.
Also, by symmetry, since children are inherently entitled to all of the wealth of their parents, they should be required to pay off their parents debts. So Hospitals and Banks should be allowed to garnish wages of the children, grandchildren, etc. of these deadbeats.
If we were to do this, you would see more responsible individuals in this country.
@Math_geek:
“Consider if the Militia Act was unconstitutional, [some of] the Framers believed it to be constitutional and they supported it anyway” Which is exactly why I selected the Alien & Sedition Acts as my example, because exactly the same comment applies to A&S. Same decade, same inference of support from (some of) the framers.
@ Ken B
Right I get that, but the Alien and Sedition act was a law that many framers supported and many fervently opposed including on a constitutional basis, and whose opponents included the sitting Vice President. The Militia Acts survived unchallenged as far as I can tell by the framers or the leaders of this country for the next 100 years. It’s a big difference in terms of historical precedent (if not legal precedent). And if the Militia Acts went unchallenged, it suggests that no-one felt the need to challenge them for 100 years.
@ Will A… Interesting to see someone come out supporting slavery reparations to African Americans on this blog.
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), pass by Congress in 1990, forced businesses and governments to provide equal access to facilities to people with disabilities. For the most part, accommodations made sense. For example, putting wheelchair ramps at libraries so people can get in makes sense. However, NYC had to buy all new city buses with wheelchair lifts. The aggregate cost of buying buses and maintaining the wheel chair lifts was much more than what it would have cost to grant wheelchair bound residents perpetual free taxi rides.
Math_geek:
I don’t understand your point. I think that Al V. and I are talking about the fact that people can walk away from their medical bills which in turn increases costs for everyone. I.e. my insurance premium goes up when a deadbeat doesn’t pay their bills even though I didn’t do anything wrong.
If we got rid of bankruptcy a new industries could be developed to insure that debtors and their descendants pay off their debt. Bill collectors could collect peoples wages.
If the person becomes unemployed, then he/she and his/her family could be given over to a company that bids for their services. The debtor family would get room and board. Their earnings would be split between the company supplying room and board and employer until the debt (with interest) were paid off.
Everyone wins:
– The hospital gets it’s bill paid off.
– The debtors pay off their debt.
– A new industry of supplying labor is created.
– Our unemployment rate goes down.
– Our taxes become lower since we wouldn’t need to educate the children who are working to pay off their parent’s debt.
– My health insurance premiums remain low.
@ Will A
You noted specifically that the debts would be passed on to biological offspring so as to ensure incentives and repayment.
But why stop there? I have a natural suspicion against policies that treat the iniquities of the poor differently from the iniquities of the rich. It’s generally the poor that bail out of medical bills, as their credit rating isn’t as important to them, they are less likely to be insured, and certainly don’t have the money to pay for it.
Plenty of rich white people descended from slaveowners, who committed a crime (if not in this country, certainly against natural law), we could require them to compensate the descendents of slaves if we so wished, perhaps seizing the property of every rich white southerner all at once.
We could also reopen the trial of Kenneth Lay, and if convicted, throw his children into prison since he is no longer able to serve the time owed to society as well as deduct from their salaries and wealth the fines owed to the state and to the people defrauded by Enron. We often hear that real estate taxes are heavily distortionary, so this would be a strong disincentive to commit white collar crimes.
However, in the case of the poor especially, I suspect you will run into some poor people of dubious moral standing that will be more than happy to increase their consumption and leverage their debt against their offspring.
I must point out that I’m inclined to oppose all these things, and that debt slavery (which has existed in the past) is something that I’m more than happy to let remain in the past.
math_geek:
You make some great points. Unfortunately, I can’t see how to boil your points down to bumper sticker sayings like: “My premiums shouldn’t go up because of people who don’t pay their bills.” or “My kids need to be entitled to everything I have.”
And so I’m forced to mindlessly repeat phrases like these and support positions that lead to indentured servitude.
Here from a law prof is a post that 1) demolishes Steve’s claim that this is “overreach” and 2) argues that the mandae is probably constitutional. (I disgree with her on point 2 but I wanted an essay from someone who thinks the mandate is OK to forestall the obvious objections) http://althouse.blogspot.com/2011/02/judge-vinsons-utterly-mundane-opinion.html
@ Will A
Ah, you were playing with me, I get it now. Online sarcasm isn’t one of my strengths.
@ Ken B
Ann Althouse believes the mandate is probably constitutional? This is a quite unforeseen development. While she does make a good point that Vinson’s arguments are valid, I think that pretending the Necessary and Proper clause isn’t there is a strange element of an opinion.
@math_geek: I don’t agree with your characterization of N&P but I don’t cite Althouse’s piece to argue the mandate should go. I cite it because this is an accurate summary of what she shows: “My point here is that Judge Vinson has produced a workmanlike application of the Supreme Court case law devoid of flights of creativity, as befits a district court judge.” In other words, “overreach” is just plain wrong.
Will A,
You say “… children are inherently entitled to all of the wealth of their parents, they should be required to pay off their parents debts. So Hospitals and Banks should be allowed to garnish wages of the children, grandchildren, etc. of these deadbeats.”
But what you are implying is that when someone dies is that all liabilities go away and only the assets are left to that person’s children, which is not true. Also, a person’s wealth is left to whomever that person designated as heirs. By default it’s a spouse, then children, then some family member, I don’t know after children.
What if I designated YOU as my heir? If I left a net liability, like say owning $250K on a $200K house, should YOU be held liable for that $50K?
So what you are saying is not true, heirs are NOT entitled to their parents wealth, they are only entitled to net wealth. I’m assuming you mean what happens when that wealth is negative? This risk was known by the creditors when lending the money. They carry the risk that their money will not be paid back. This one of the primary reasons interest is charged for a loan and is relatively low for a house (it has collateral, so creditors can probably recoup their losses) and is relatively high for a credit card (no collateral, just money spent with very little chance of recouping losses).
Your answer is as wrong as imprisoning a person’s kid/heir because that person committed a crime, but during the commission of that crime that person dies, so escapes any prison term. It is a great injustice to just punish anyone because a crime has been committed. It is important to punish the perpetrator of that crime.
Regards,
Ken
I’m surprised you didn’t write “(sigh)” after “Given that we’re going to make medical care available to everyone.”
Healthcare for everyone; what a drag!
@ Ken:
In the statement you are referring to, I didn’t mean to imply that all liabilities go away, just that a person’s children would responsible for the debt if there were any. If a person dies his creditors should be paid first from his assets. And his children should only be forced to pay any remaining debt.
Like a lot of Americans I’m upset that my insurance rates go up because of something that isn’t even my fault. So I need to propose a solution where a deadbeat doesn’t make my bill go up.
Of course a lot of Americans like myself might be a little myopic on the issues surrounding 1993RepubliCare aka ObamaCare.
Will A,
Do you agree with my statement that a person’s child/children do not automatically inherit anything from a parent? Do you agree that it is possible to set up a will so that no one with any sort of blood relation receives a nickel from any sort of inheritance? If you agree that those things are possible, and there really is no way to not agree with them since it happens all the time, then do you think a named heir is responsible for those liabilities or just the person’s children, despite not inheriting anything? To go further, what then prevents a person who knowingly runs up his liabilities, exceeding his debt, then naming someone he hates as an heir? Do you still not see why forcing the problems of person B onto person A only because person A is related to person B?
Your insurance premiums aren’t going up because some deadbeat isn’t paying a bill, your premiums are going up because regulations are in place that incentive rich, healthy people to consume medical care that they otherwise wouldn’t use. Since they can afford the rising medical costs and because they are mostly shielded from direct costs they consume a lot of these resources crowding out others who need that care, but really can’t afford it.
I am unfamiliar with Republicare from 1993, but I am familiar with Hillarycare from 1993. It cost Clinton the congress and gave rise the a republican house.
Regards,
Ken
Not the first time government has required individuals to buy something just by existing (unless existing and being Male does not count). Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Acts_of_1792.
Math-geek, that is not a good example. It it not a good example because the constitution, which gives limited powers to the federal government (see tenth amendment), explicitly enables congress to provide for a militia (article one section eight): To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress
@Robert Ayers
That section of article one section 8 would appear insufficient in giving government the power to require every able-bodied male to buy a gun. For one, it says provide for the militia, not tell the militia to provide for itself.
Two, A1S8 also allows for regulating interstate commerce, which Obamacare certainly does (it in fact, enables a whole new market for interstate commerce, as health insurance had problems offering the same policy in separate states).
@Robert Ayers: It IS a bad example because the passage of one unconstituional law does not imply another one is constitutional. See some of the earlier comments for more on this.
I was only being semi-serious in my proposal, and I think Will A was also being facetious. Realistically, there are only four obvious answers to the problem of how to provide health care for those who fail to insure themselves:
1. Have the government pick up the expense, which is where we are today and is not working well.
2. Require that everyone insure themselves, which is what is required under “ObamaCare”, and which many people object to.
3. Refuse treatment to the uninsured, which I don’t think would go over well. Imagine the uproar the first time a child dies because the parents refused to insure their family.
4. Will’s and my idea to force people to pay off their debts themselves. Will has taken this to the logical extreme, which is a return to the debtor’s prisons of the 18th and 19th centurys. Read Dickens’s “Little Dorrit” for a depiction of that society. I doubt that society as a whole would benefit much from that, as the result would be to effectively remove people from the workforce, which would be a drain on our productivity.
Looking at these options, I think the insurance mandate is really the only practical alternative. Forget for a moment the constitutionality, and think about how we solve the underlying problem, referred to as adverse selection, or anti-selection, in insurance.
Ken:
I think that you will find in a lot of states that if there is no will, then a person’s spouse gets everything. This is fine, since spouses share liabilities and assets.
In a lot of states, if there is no will and no spouse the estate is automatically divided among the deceased’s kids/grandkids.
If your point is that if there is no will and no spouse, then the state should get the remaining assets of the estate so that my tax bill can be lower, then I would have no argument with the consistency of your argument.
Steven,
1. As others have pointed out, the existence of other, ‘worse’/unconstitutional laws that courts don’t strike down is not an actual argument for judicial overreach on this one. So the judiciary is wrong on all those others and is right here; so they have a low batting average. The reason to make it a perfect .000 is not obvious.
2. You state that society wouldn’t allow hospitals to turn people away and I think you are right. But that is the traditional role of charity. If you think charity wouldn’t suffice, then I suggest you don’t actually believe what you claimed to believe.
3. A ‘pre-existing condition’ is clearly an unfortunate circumstance but it is not clear why ‘insurance’, as such, is the best or even a sensible solution. Insurance is coverage for downside risk, which connotes unpredictability. But someone with a ‘pre-existing condition’ – if that means anything – is not a risk: they just have more or less predictable, large costs coming to them. Whatever the thing is that covers predictably large costs is, ‘insurance’ it is not. And when you advocate bringing everyone under a compulsory umbrella that covers such things, it is not ‘insurance’ you are advocating, but simply, transfer payments. Perhaps that is ok and perhaps it is not but the argument needs to be conducted honestly and weighed against alternatives (which, again, include the traditional charity).
4. However laudable it may be that you don’t want the courts to overturn every law you consider misguided, that is a strange dodge. This court did not turn down the law because it was misguided, but because it was unconstitutional. The constitutionality, or lack, is the only issue that is therefore relevant. If you have an argument that it is too constitutional (other than hand-wavingly alluding to ‘general welfare’, which would be a truly incoherent/impotent test of constitutionality) it is not in this post.
“I (like Rizzo) am uncomfortable with a judiciary that can reject Obamacare while accepting agricultural subsidies, affirmative action, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and laws that dictate the size of your showerhead.”
Has the judiciary heard case against these things? Even if so, perhaps now would be a better time to bring suits against these things.
Last time I checked, ‘two wrongs make a right’ is an informal logical fallacy.
‘It is applied equally to all.’-Rizzo
Do the exceptions granted so far not falsify this statement?
The mandate itself may not be so bad, though I think a better approach to accomplish a health insurance mandate would be by following Article V of the Constitution. An amendment might give Congress the specific power to establish an insurance mandate and nothing more to prevent a precedence to be used to justify further government expansion without Constitutional amendment.
However, the mandate to purchase a ‘qualified’ plan is much worse, for first order and second order consequences. The political power that gives the folks who define a qualified plan is immense and the auctioning off of that power to the highest bidder would be as well. Innovation would be stifled. Choice would be limited.
I think there are far better private solutions. If the current distortions into the medical and insurance markets were fixed, pre-existing conditions wouldn’t be a problem. Insurance for that would be so cheap that it would probably be included as a freebie on a tube of toothpaste or a bottle of Jack or given away with free samples of formula and the diaper bags that new parents receive at the hospital.
http://townhall.com/columnists/anthonysanders/2011/02/10/deferring_to_the_constitution/page/full/
You all seem to be missing the obvious option of the federal government forcing everyone to use something like Medicaid and just adding it as another payroll tax. This is already constitutional, as you aren’t being forced to buy anything yourself, and it would be far more efficient than keeping the middleman insurance companies taking their (useless) cut.
You made the front page of Reddit briefly today with this post. Curious how big a spike in traffic that yields.
here’s a link to the voting and comments:
http://www.reddit.com/r/Economics/comments/fjoex/economics_prof_i_am_uncomfortable_with_a/
So if I understand you correctly, you’re making an argument for the (in)consistency of striking down this law while permitting others with greater effects, and the argument isn’t about (un)constitutionality.
So even if the health care law was clearly outside the powers of congress, a ruling saying so would be inconsistent with other rulings upholding broader congressional powers.
I think this is the argument Rehnquist made several times, that the power to do the greater necessarily includes power to do the lesser.
@Ellis: That is precisely what we are not missing. I make the same point. It is because the law (explicitly too) does NOT do that that it is unconstitutional.