I think Obamacare is bad policy because it exacerbates the main problem with the current healthcare system, which is third-party payer. And as a public finance economist, I’m obviously not happy about the new taxes and additional spending in Obamacare.
But those issues are temporarily on the back burner now that the Supreme Court is deciding whether the underlying law is constitutional.
I’m not a lawyer. I don’t even play one on TV. But I can read, and when I look at Article 1, Section 8, of the Constitution, I don’t see that Congress has the power to coerce me into buying a health insurance policy. Heck, I don’t see any role for the federal government in healthcare.
The statists say that the commerce clause (“To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes”) is a blank check for federal intervention, but that’s a bastardization of the original meaning and purpose of that passage, which was inserted to prevent states from imposing protectionist barriers.
What matters, though, is how the nine Justices on the Supreme Court interpret that passage. Here’s some of Philip Klein’s analysis for the Washington Examiner.
…the outcome of the case, and fate of the president’s most significant legislative achievement, will likely hinge on how the court views the Commerce Clause. One of the most widely debated parts of the Constitution, the Commerce Clause grants Congress the power “to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states.” And as the size and scope of the federal government has grown throughout the nation’s history, the Supreme Court has grappled with how broadly or narrowly to interpret the phrase. …If the court allows the mandate to stand, opponents claim, it would effectively give the federal government unlimited power to regulate individual behavior.
And here’s some of what Damon Root penned for Reason.
Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution grants Congress the power “to regulate commerce…among the several states.” The framers and ratifiers of the Constitution understood those words to mean that while congress may regulate commercial activity that crossed state lines, Congress was not allowed to regulate the economic activity that occurred inside each state. As Alexander Hamilton—normally a champion of broad federal power—explained in Federalist 17, the Commerce Clause did not extend congressional authority to “the supervision of agriculture and of other concerns of a similar nature, all those things, in short, which are proper to be provided for by local legislation.” In other words, the Commerce Clause was not a blank check made out to the federal government. Yet in its decisions in both Wickard v. Filburn andGonzales v. Raich, the Supreme Court held otherwise, allowing Congress to regulate the wholly intrastate cultivation of wheat and marijuana, respectively. Those decisions cannot be squared with the original meaning of the Commerce Clause. As Justice Clarence Thomas remarked about the majority’s reasoning in Raich, “If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything—and the Federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers.”
When I read all this material, my amateur legal analysis is pretty simple: Why would the Founding Fathers have bothered to list enumerated powers if the commerce clause gave the federal government a blank check to control our lives?
Like I said, I’m not a lawyer, much less an expert on constitutional law. Then again, this amusing poster shows that the same thing can be said about the President.
First off, I don’t like Obamacare either, but…
You are missing the point on the CC. It has already been used to create all kinds of Federal powers that don’t exist in the Constitution. Where does the Federal government get the power to create FBI, NASA, EPA, FDA, HHS, SEC, Federal Reserve, Federal highways, etc. etc.
You can take the purist view that these should all be abolished, but you will look like nutcase.
So at least consider the problem that the justices have. They all probably support some limits on Federal power. I doubt even the liberals would support a Federal law that mandates we have to buy flowers on Mother’s Day, but where are these limits and how can we describe them?
Limited government types have two choices:
1. Tell the justices that they should outlaw the bulk of the Federal government.
2. Give the justices a rational why Obamacare goes over the line.
Even if you are 100% supportive of reducing the Federal Government to its1800′s role, the transition from here to there has to be done in a non-chaotic way. Simply firing the SEC on Monday will create a mess.
I doubt the founders would have compelled hospitals to treat all, regardless of ability to pay, by government fiat either.
Unfortunately, responsible neighbors are currently left on the financial hook, covering medical care left unpaid by irresponsible people who decline/can’t afford to pay for major medical coverage or the hospital bills they incur.
Obamacare is not the answer, but the current situation isn’t exactly copacetic.
Because,
A) The Constitution is outdated. Copying the rest of the world is the ticket to Americans maintaining their six times world average standard of living.
B) Once Americans transition to French incentives to produce, the exceptional, who will now be heavily taxed, will work all the more harder. And the mediocre, who will now be insulated (for a while) from the consequences of mediocrity, will also work hard.
C) Americans don’t need a lot of motivation to produce a lot. The average American is a marvel of sophistication knowledge and competence, a productivity juggernaut, and thus even under moderate incentives to produce the Average American will be able to outperform the rest of the world on a six to one ratio.
Finally,
D) Working hard and producing a lot is not a necessary condition for prosperity. A mediocre production can be macro-economically manipulated by experts (like Paul Krugman) and fives loaves and three fish of production can be turned into six times average world prosperity for every American (voila!). I don’t know how its done but government friendly experts say it can be done. I have Hope.
In short: A+B+C+D = HopeNChange : The shortcut to better times ahead: Redistribution and Central Planning. Discovered here first in America in 2008 AD. Finally! Somehow this simple recipe to success had eluded virtually every other culture in the world until Americans discovered HopNChange. Imagine that: The rest of the world was somehow always opting for individualism and independence. Yet it was so easy, the answer: Redistribution and central Planning. The HopNChange, the more efficient, the more expedient key to prosperity. Lucky you Americans were able to outperform the rest of the world all these years with that antiquated Constitution holding you back from the true key to prosperity: Collectivism.
———————
If you don’t have a rational reason why America should maintain its aberrant by world standards individualism, then you will lose it. And with it you will inevitably lose the prosperity that unadulterated effort-reward curves brought America for over two centuries. If you don’t have that current rational reasoning, even the constitution will prove just a moderate obstacle simply adding inertial to America’s Francification – but will be overturned or bypassed into irrelevance.
You are always one generation from losing your freedom and recipe for unparalleled prosperity. But once lost, that freedom, AND prosperity, will take many-many generations to return, if ever. Virtually every European country has travelled that road. It is the natural path of voter-moths towards the light. It takes real effort and vigilance to be different. That vigilance is all but gone as the sirens of prosperity through flatter effort-reward curves naturally sets in.
Now, on practical and myopic terms, ObamaCare lets me offload my healthcare expenses on to someone else, some distant other, YOU. So, Vive La France! We’ll deal with any potential consequences later. We can always turn back if we make a mistake. Can’t we?
nice
http://www.centplay.com/affiliate/id_878/
Indeed, let’s see what happens to the “responsible neighbors” under Obamacare by separating the current population in three groups:
A) Those who cannot pay: Will now have their health insurance premiums paid by the “responsible neighbors” who will pay the taxes to fund the ObamaCare exchange subsidies. And as with any insurance, the average cumulative lifetime health premium exceeds the average lifeltime total health expense (i.e the current uninsured on-demand payments, otherwise insurance companies would loose money). So the “responsible neighbors” loose.
B) Those who can pay but do not: Currently have the strong disincentive of losing significant portion of their assets by choosing to remain uninsured. Under ObamaCare, the strong disincentive nearly vanishes. This group, as it will quickly figure out, will choose to remain uninsured, pay the small $2000 fine per year and be SHIELDED from losing any assists since they can simply buy insurance when they get sick, and thus pay minimal premiums but spread the sudden high medical costs to the premiums of the ever paying “responsible neighbors”. So the “responsible neighbors” loose.
C) Those who can pay and do: Will be given the incentive to work less and/or retire early and/or make lifetime decisions towards more mediocrity since lowering their annual income below 80-90k per year makes them eligible for a major part of their healthcare premiums being paid by the .. you guessed it, “responsible neighbors” – while if they make more, they will not only pay their own health costs but also the costs of those who choose mediocrity – and given the incentive, mediocrity will be naturally chosen by many more in years to come. The responsible neighbors get a double hit of increased costs AND, most importantly, the generalized cost of perpetually compounding lower economic growth due to significant numbers of people partially or even totally withdrawing from the workforce to take advantage of the subsidies. The “responsible neighbors” who keep working towards excellence loose, the entire population loses from decreased economic activity.
Not to worry though. Someone more intelligent, someone more competent, or someone simply harder working will pay and keep working enough to keep the American middle class enjoying a wealth level that is six times the world average.
The dream is about to become reality…
[...] he unaware that Article 1, Section 8 lists “enumerated powers” of the federal government, and that health insurance isn’t [...]
[...] he unaware that Article 1, Section 8 lists “enumerated powers” of the federal government, and that health insurance isn’t [...]
Maybe the SCOTUS hasn’t gottten around to reading the Federalist 17 yet.
If this is held legal, what can Congress not do? They also ruled police can search your cell phone without a warrant… Government always widening their power should scare the population.
National security is not supported by the commerce clause but by the first paragraph in Article I, Sectipn 8-the Section includes other powers of Congress besides the Commerce Clause.
[...] few days ago, I wrote about Article 1, Section 8, of the Constitution, which lists the “enumerated powers” of the federal government. That post included a [...]
[...] with the Constitution, here’s some good analysis by Walter Williams, Thomas Sowell, Philip Klein and Damon Root, and yours truly. Rate this: Share [...]
[...] offered my two cents on this issue, rhetorically asking why the Founding Fathers would have bothered listing enumerated powers if the interstate commerce clause was designed to be a blank check for politicians in [...]
[...] he unaware that Article 1, Section 8 lists “enumerated powers” of the federal government, and that health insurance isn’t [...]
Opinions are really free-learning for blog writers. Those that feel they have no more to discover will turn them off initially.
[...] And at the risk of sounding old fashioned, my big objection to the Obamacare decision is that health care is not listed as one of the federal government’s enumerated powers in Article I, Section VIII of the [...]
[...] And at the risk of sounding old fashioned, my big objection to the Obamacare decision is that health care is not listed as one of the federal government’s enumerated powers in Article I, Section VIII of the [...]
[...] about how the Founding Fathers wanted to limit the federal government’s powers by providing a list of enumerated powers in Article I, Section VIII, of the [...]
[...] P.S. If they did abide by the 10th Amendment, it means that Obamacare also would be repealed. [...]
[...] P.S. If they did abide by the 10th Amendment, it means that Obamacare also would be repealed. [...]
[...] But I’ve also acknowledged that Article I, Section VIII of the Constitution grants specific powers to the federal government. [...]
[...] inconsistent with the Constitution, here’s some good analysis by Walter Williams, Thomas Sowell, Philip Klein and Damon Root, and yours [...]
[...] P.S. If they did abide by the 10th Amendment, it means that Obamacare also would be repealed. [...]
[...] P.S. For those who care about the Constitution, it’s worth noting that America’s Founding fathers explicitly limited the powers of the central government. [...]
[...] basically said the Constitution didn’t limit the federal government, even though that’s exactly what our Founding Fathers were trying to do when they put together the document! And they gave the green light to a costly expansion of the [...]
[...] Court basically said the Constitution didn’t limit the federal government, even though that’s exactly what our Founding Fathers were trying to do when they put together the document! And they gave the green light to a costly expansion of the [...]