Some brilliant argument against mandate

Ramesh Ponnuru:
A lot of people have lauded Paul Clement’s performance before the Court yesterday, and deservedly so. But it’s also worth noting that Michael Carvin did a fine job for the NFIB. Some of what I considered the highlights: 
Carvin distinguishes Wickard v. Filburn. “Oh, but let’s be careful about what they were regulating in Wickard, Justice Ginsburg. What they were regulating was the supply of wheat. It didn’t in any way imply that they could require every American to go out and buy wheat.” 
Carvin destroys the “necessary and proper” argument for the mandate. Justice Ginsburg suggests that Obamacare’s insurance regulation “can’t possibly work” without the mandate, and Carvin replies, “It depends what you mean by ‘work.’ It’ll work just fine in ensuring that no sick people are discriminated against.” The mandate isn’t necessary to enforce that regulation or to keep it from being circumvented. It’s necessary only to ameliorate a side-effect of the regulation. “We, Congress, have driven up the health insurance premiums, and since we’ve created that problem, this somehow gives us authority that we wouldn’t otherwise have. That can’t possibly be right.”
... Carvin exposes the cost-shifting argument for the mandate. Much of the legal argument for the mandate turns on the ability of people with the freedom not to buy insurance to drive premiums up for everyone else by getting uncompensated care. Carvin points out to Justice Kennedy that the true rationale for Obamacare’s mandate is different. It’s not about keeping young, healthy people from shifting costs to others. In that case, you might require them to buy catastrophic coverage. It’s about shifting costs to those people. That’s why the mandate actually prohibits the purchase of catastrophic coverage....
The Wickard case is from the 1940s .  It held that a wheat farmer could not grow wheat for his own consumption.  I think it was wrong to begin with, but what Carvin points out is that the case does not support a requirement to buy health insurance.  I think his argument on cost shifting actually goes to the heart of what is wrong with the mandate.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Should Republicans go ahead and add Supreme Court Justices to head off Democrats

Washington Post: Some Democrats eye adding more justices to the Supreme Court to change its ideological bent The once-remote idea has gained the attention of liberals angered by the GOP push to remake the federal courts. Probably the easy way to defeat this court-packing scheme is for Trump to propose doing the same thing now.  It would lead to Democrat denunciations and claims that it would be wrong, thereby blowing up any attempt by them in the unfortunate event of Democrats winning a presidential election.
Read more

29 % of companies say they are unlikely to keep insurance after Obamacare

Conn Carroll: A new survey of 368 midsize to large companies found that 29% of them are considering terminating their active employee health care plans when Obamacare is full implemented in 2014. Only 71% of employers surveyed said they did not expect to drop their health coverage, while 20% said they did not know and 9% said they were planning to exit. The latest survey, conducted by Towers Watson, echoes an ealier survey by McKinsey & Co. finding that 30% of private-sector employers were planning to drop their employee health insurance coverage by 2014. When the Congressional Budget Office crunched Obamacare's spending numbers, they estimated that only 7% of employees currently covered by employer-sponsored plans would lose their plans. ... This means the cost of the health care fiasco will be hundreds of billions more than estimated by the CBO and Congressional Democrat. It is also clear that Obama's pledge that you could keep your health care plan if you wanted t
Read more