THE Supreme Court's ruling that the health-insurance mandate is constitutional because it differs from a tax only in a pointless semantic sense is a bitter defeat for those of us who love pointless semantic distinctions. It has been a great disappointment to me to learn that you can't (for example) get out of paying real-estate taxes on your house by claiming it's really a very large, very heavy car, because the law isn't actually a word game. I like word games! But John Roberts emphasises in his opinion that the court doesn't treat the question of whether the mandate is a penalty or a tax as a word game:
In answering that constitutional question, this Court follows a functional approach, “[d]isregarding the designation of the exaction, and viewing its substance and application.” United States v. Constantine, 296 U. S. 287, 294. Pp. 33–35. ...Such an analysis suggests that the shared responsibility payment may for constitutional purposes be considered a tax. The payment is not so high that there is really no choice but to buy health insurance; the payment is not limited to willful violations, as penalties for unlawful acts often are; and the payment is collected solely by the IRS through the normal means of taxation. Cf. Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co., 259 U. S. 20, 36–37.
None of this is to say that payment is not intended to induce the purchase of health insurance. But the mandate need not be read to declare that failing to do so is unlawful. Neither the Affordable Care Act nor any other law attaches negative legal consequences to not buying health insurance, beyond requiring a payment to the IRS. And Congress's choice of language—stating that individuals “shall” obtain insurance or pay a “penalty”—does not require reading §5000A as punishing unlawful conduct. It may also be read as imposing a tax on those who go without insurance. See New York v. United States, 505 U. S. 144, 169–174. Pp. 35–40.
Kidding aside, one of the most profound reasons for relief at yesterday's ruling was the recognition that victory in a deep ideological and political struggle, of tremendous consequence for Americans in need of health care, would not be awarded on a technicality. It was widely recognised that had the ACA explicitly phrased the "shared responsibility payment" as a tax rather than a penalty, it would have been clearly constitutional for the same reasons established in the fight over the constitutionality of Social Security in 1937, grounded in the federal government's authority to tax and to spend for the improvement of the general welfare. The Democratic authors of the ACA chose to phrase it as a penalty rather than a tax for political reasons. If the fact that the word "tax" is unpopular among voters while the word "penalty" is viewed as suspect by the Supreme Court had led to universal-health-insurance legislation being disqualified for purely linguistic reasons, given the partisan nature of the match, the partisan affiliations of the referees, and the extraordinary real-world stakes, there would've been political hell to pay.
But just as the verdict wasn't based on semantics, the underlying political dispute over universal health insurance isn't resolved by the judgment that the mandate is constitutional because it can be construed as a tax. That dispute runs much deeper. The argument over Obamacare wasn't and isn't, at root, about whether or not the federal government can order people to buy something, as opposed to taxing them and buying it for them. The argument is, at root, about whether wealthy citizens should be required to pay for poor citizens to get health insurance, and about whether healthy people should be required to pay for sick people to get health care. There are some exceptions, but broadly speaking, people who wanted Obamacare struck down yesterday do not think that Americans should have a right to health insurance. People who wanted to see it upheld, do.
You can express the fundamental argument here several ways. At one level, it is an argument between people who are most concerned about moral hazard, on the one side, and people who are most concerned about minimising arbitrary individual risk, on the other. The moral hazard of universal health insurance is the same as that of any insurance: when the lucky must pay for the misfortunes of the unlucky, the incentive to avoid misfortunes is diminished. But as with any insurance, leaving people out increases the risk of arbitrary catastrophe for those not included. The argument tends to become one between the strong and the weak: between those who are likely to benefit from an all-inclusive scheme, and those who are likely to have to pay. But it's a relief to have the question of the constitutionality of the individual mandate out of the way, because it has been a distraction. The real argument is more basic, and it would be healthy if we could start to address it head-on.
Read on: Our colleague on Free exchange has more on the choice of words in Obamacare.
Readers' comments
The Economist welcomes your views. Please stay on topic and be respectful of other readers. Review our comments policy.
Sort:
There are two core underlying issues here with regard to the constitionality of this health care mandate. First, does everyone have the right to be covered equally even if they pay less into the system. Second, is there any valid means by which to control the cost of healthcare?
As to the first question - consider Social Security - what you get out is directly proportional to what you pay into the system for most people who work. That is reasonable that a certain minimum floor of security is provided, but those who take more responsibility for their own income are rewarded proportionally. So it should be for healthcare - not a blank check, but a certain minimum of care where there are also rewards for living a healthy and minimum risk lifestyle and penalities for those who don't.
As for controling the cost of healthcare, it simply isn't possible to negotiate with a doctor or hospital when you are in desparate need. Like a power utility, fixed rates should be established for specific procedures like surgeries, medical imaging exams and other categories of care. If you are a doctor who considers yourself superior and deserving of a hight rate, then you can cater to the 1% who can afford your rates. Just as there are doctors in socialized medicine countries who do so.
The basic fees charged in the U.S. for both medical and dental care relative to other first world countries are outrageous and the healthcare received not that much better. Similar to being robbed or finding your house on fire, you are in no position to negotiate the price for the medical service needed. As such, health care should be tightly regulated just like basic utilities, police and fire protection that everyone might need at some point in time.
"...broadly speaking, people who wanted Obamacare struck down yesterday do not think that Americans should have a right to health insurance. People who wanted to see it upheld, do."
"Broadly speaking," the way you framed the argument is misleading.
In fact, most americans support the right of people to obtain health insurance, as evidenced by the broad support of measures to prevent Insurance Carriers from denying coverage based upon a pre-existing condition. At issue is the mechanism for ensuring that they can obtain it, and whether or not it's the government's place to fund it in such a manner.
This debate has been fueled largely by the process that led to it's passage, and the immense loathing of those in Congress who (as many like to say) "rammed it down the American People's throats."
And it's important to remember that it is not only the legislation, but also the manner in which it was enacted that has resulted in this debate.
"The moral hazard of universal health insurance is the same as that of any insurance: when the lucky must pay for the misfortunes of the unlucky, the incentive to avoid misfortunes is diminished." Why not just substitute the word "rich" for "lucky" and "poor" for the word "unlucky" and we'll all know what you are really thinking. It's just another way of saying healthcare is a right, not a service.
It's really about time you Brits found someone to comment on the healthcare issue in America that is an American or didn't attend Harvard Law School. Maybe at least someone that's read our Constitution. In fact the above quotation from M. S.'s article squarely identifies a misunderstanding of the facts. Insurance is not a lottery. There can be no incentive or disincentive to reduce "lucky" or "unlucky" events. People's behavior determines their "risk" factor as does their undertaking. And many Americans make horrible choices when it comes to decisions about their health, and this greatly affects the money necessarily being poured in healthcare.
Our citizens smoke (more than 25%) and drink to excess, eat the wrong foods, don't exercise, consume vast amounts of drugs legally and illegally obtained. We stab, shoot, and beat each other with regularity. Americans have become fat, well actually obese, even morbidly-obese, lazy, sick mentally and physically, and despite this behavior, many think they are entitled to endless help. Oh that's right, they were just unlucky. Sure let me get my billfold out. Take all you need.
America, get back to work, use common sense, be responsible and don't listen to some fool that doesn't understand our Constitution. In that case, the cost of healthcare will take care of itself. Let's not be like the rest of the industrialized world and get sucked into the vortex of big government promoting healthcare as a right. It's just a service. I don't get my rights from government, but from God.
When everyone's personal DNA evidences equal opportunity for health or sickness, then I'll be happy to agree with you. Oh, wait - that doesn't seem very likely in this universe, does it? I guess Darwin reigns supreme, eh?
"I don't get my rights from government, but from God." The Nazi soldiers on the back of their belt buckle had the words "Gott mit uns" enscribed and thought that it gave them the "right" to exterminate men, women and children.
Really? When in doubt, call 'em a Nazi (via incoherent "logical" implication)!
It doesn't appear to me that OKTiger is advocating extermination...
America was founded on the understanding that people get their rights from God. Whether or not that understanding has prevailed is a different question entirely.
OKTiger, good observations. Nobody seems to be arguing that good drivers should pay more for auto insurance to subsidize bad drivers. And with the exception of a few degenerative diseases that are genetically linked, most of the variance in health care costs results from individual choices of the kind you mention.
OKTiger is not that far off base. The thing that M.S. loves to faithfully ignore is that health insurance does not function the same way as other forms of insurance.
In all other forms of insurance, you are guarding against the possibility of random risk (flood, fire, auto accident, etc.). In health care, a portion of your insurance is for unforseen, random risk (getting hit by a bus, falling down the stairs, getting a brain tumor, etc.). However, a sizable chunk of your so-called insurance is actually a pre-paid medical plan for preventative or diagnostic services, and is not linked to any risk diversification. In short, some of your health care expenditures are exercised on a completely voluntary basis (i.e. you get a sore throat, and could simply get some cough drops, but you go to the doctor's to run a test for strep throat "just in case").
When health care expenditures are partially driven by your personal choice to use (or over-use) preventative or diagnostic care, then the insurance model is not really predicated on the "lucky" versus the "unlucky". It is predicated on "heavy users" versus "light users", and this use may have nothing to do with luck, risk, or wealth.
From the U.N.'s Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 25: "Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control". I'm not sure what "god" believes, but the U.N. at least considers health care to be a basic human right.
And what in the wide, wide, world of sports does your observation have to do with my observation?
Sorry, I meant to reply to the original comment.
Who cares what the UN says? That rotten, bloated, feckless, evil institution has no bearing on law in the United States. And even if it did, the idea that a person has a "right" to demand that another person provide them a service is so intellectually and morally corrupt that it should be ignored instantly by people of even average IQ.
But what causes a user to be a heavy user or a light user? Part of it is their actual physical health (i.e. someone who develops cancer will use far more medical treatment than they would have if they had not developed cancer), but another part of it is their psychological condition (i.e. are they a hypocondriac, are they someone who never goes to the doctor no matter how ill they get, or are they someone who treats their health in what may be determined a reasoned manner). But what are the root causes of the psychological heavy or ultra-light user's tendency to use heavily or lightly? Given that one's psychological tendencies are largely based both on genetics and upbringing (including their general surroundings in youth), this is hardly the individual's fault and due to their luck in having a "good" genome and upbringing. So, those people are still the victims of luck.
Wealth can also be a factor of one's tendency to use heavily or lightly (i.e. someone who cannot afford medical care is less likely to use it). But one's wealth can be said to be based on luck (the luck of their conditions at birth, their upbringing, what sort of opportunities they've enjoyed throughout life, and luck in finding and getting jobs, within a career, and in their skill set), especially if one wants to look at luck broadly enough.
So if I would rather spend the money I earn on anything other than someone else's health care, I'm a Nazi marching people to the gas chambers? That's insane.
I'd agree that the U.N. is bloated and feckless, but evil? Really? For all it's flaws, the UN is still basically an institution with noble goals that is bogged down by bureaucracies and inefficiencies. Even though it has no bearing on U.S. law, the sentiments expressed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights are still worthy goals. I just think that everyone in the United States, one of the richest countries in the world, should have accesst to some sort of affordable healthcare.
I'll speak for OKTiger and give you your Straw Man back. Nazi soldier comparison, really?
I think the moral hazard of public healthcare is quite low.
Yes with public care you will get health care when you are sick or injured. But you are still sick or injured. You may die, be left disabled or disfigured. You may lose your job or your ability to work.
No matter who pays for the doctor, getting seriously ill or injured is a serious matter. Do people living in nations with public healthcare have more unhealthy habits? Do they engage in more risky behaviours than people in places without public care?
Bad health is much more related to habit, ignorance, lifestyle and chance. These things are not affected to by the availability of public or private health insurance.
I think the moral-hazard concern is real, but it is important to realize that it is a phenomenon inherent in any third-party payer scheme, regardless of whether it is a private third-party payer, or a public-third party payer.
If you had to self insure (i.e. first party payer), then you would be very tuned into your budget and costs, just like it was rent, or cable TV, or groceries.
In contrast, if this was a second-party payer subsidy, there would be an incentive on the part of the doctor to limit services (for example, you find some plumbing companies that charge you a flat fee to fix your problem, and they will come back as many times as they have to at no additional charge).
In a third-party payer paradigm, there is no real incentive to reduce consumption. The patient pays their same premium, regardless of how often they use health care services, so there is an incentive to over-consume (like an all-you-can-eat buffet). The doctor operates on a fee-for-service, so he or she has no incentive to turn a patient away or refrain from ordering unnecessary tests and procedures. Finally, the insurance company has only a minimal incentive to reduce usage, because that is not their primary means of making money.
Insurers make money on the underwriting fee (the commission they charge on your policy) and the "float" (the investment use of your premiums before they have to pay out any claims). As long as their inflows (premiums) match their outflows (claims), they make money. Moreover, if outflows are increasing, they simply raise their premium rates. So they have no incentive to reduce outflows unless the rise is really precipitous and across the board for all their policyholders.
It is the existence of the third-party payer structure that creates moral hazard, regardless of whether that third party payer is a private insurance company or the government. When people talk of "single payer", this is not a solution -- if the single-payer is the government, then this is the same form of third-party payment that exists now.
You miss the point of most people who are opposed to ObamaCare. Whether or not it is constitutional is not the point - while that was the hope of most people opposed to the law. The real reasons were: (1) The rational for the law was just plain stupid: Why should 300 million people have their healthcare and health insurance changed because 30 million people didn't want, didn't chose, or couldn't afford to purchase health insurance?; (2) almost everyone agrees that something needed to be done to curtail the spiraling cost of healthcare, and issues like portability, pre-existing conditions, etc., but the solution imposed by Washington is a gigantic document which was too complex to understand - so competing interpretations were floated in the media with the people left to chose sides based upon their view of government. Those who think government has the right to "rob Peter to pay Paul" and that those who could "afford to" had the obligation to help others loved another big government program. Those who are distrustful of the effectiveness of legislation (NOTE: Every new law is taking some right away from one person and giving an entitlement to another person) became distrustful of those who crafted this law. Where were the ways where the "cost curve" was to be bent downward over time? All we saw was a new gigantic entitlement that was to be paid by new taxes!
The big debate in this next election is whether we will learn to live within our means as a country (NOTE: Do you know that 40% of what the government spends is borrowed? How long could your family operate that way? How's it working for Greece, Italy, and Spain?) Let's establish how much of the country's income is going to be taxed each year, and then determine what programs are going to be funded from those taxes. Everything else CANNOT be done - no matter how enlighted we may think we are.
By thw way, people who oppposed the law are now upset because the major tool for implemenation was a FRAUD: Congress passed the law only because, rather than a tax, there was to be a penalty assessed to those who chose not to obtain health insurance. And the Supreme Court upheld the law by "blue penciling" it to really mean a tax rather than a penalty. People feel something is wrong when such twisted logic is employed to define a law as constitutional.
Regarding reason (1), I don't expect my insurance to change in any important way as a result of the ACA. What changes are the already insured worried about?
As for reason (2), the ACA is certainly not ideal and won't correct all the problems that need correcting. Thete may be parts that won't work well. But guaranteeing access to health care insurance to everyone is worth doing, in my opinion, and ACA is a start.
Your comparison of national debt to family debt is meaningless because nations are not families. An individual has a limited lifespan during which earning capacity grows into the peak earning years, levels off, then falls. It is normal to accumulate debt in the early years of life, pay off the debt in the middle years, and try to retire debt-free. Countries are not like that. They are continually renewed with new people coming into the economy as the plder ones leave. If you look at the history of the national debt since WWII, you will see that while the debt was always increasing in absolute terms, it was falling relative to GDP until 1982 or so. The US could have continued indefinitely that way, but the sudden doubling (or more) of the debt during the Reagan and Bush presidencies upset the long-term pattern and made it much more difficult for subsequent governments to get the debt under control again.
I’m not able to articulate the actual anticipated changes to my health insurance coverage or my healthcare as a result of ObamaCare, but I can assure you that any legislation that passes Congress largely because:
1) of fraudulent claims of cost savings (while using 10 years of revenue and 7 years of expenses);
2) it was too big that few people actually read it all, and fewer understood all of the ramifications;
3) it was crafted by people who knew the penalty/tax wouldn’t work, because it would be cheaper to pay the penalty/tax than purchase the insurance;
4) it was crafted by people who saw it as a stepping stone to a single-payer system – with all the inefficiencies and unintended consequences of a large bureaucratic government program; and
5) of continually exemptions of large companies and non-profit organizations from that legislation; then
that legislation was crafted by a con-man. And there is no reason to believe any promises (including that there will be no changes to everyone’s existing healthcare and healthcare insurance) made by that con-man.
Comparing a country’s finances to a family’s finances may not be a perfect illustration, but some very important aspects are true. If a banker doesn’t think you have the capacity to pay back your debts, then you will no longer qualify for a loan. If you doubt that truth, then take a look at Greece, Spain, Italy, Ireland, Argentina…
Can’t we all agree that there is a limit on how much our country to afford to spend?
We can agree, I think, that the nation's financing should be sustainable without undue hardship (allowing for temporary emergencies such as WWII), and that the US national debt has gotten out of control in the past 30 years or so. The problem is what to do about it. The devil is in the details.
I have little hope about us resolving this problem. I see us sliding toward ever-increasing expenditures on well-intentioned social programs leaving us with expanding entitlements that ultimately drive us into national bankruptcy. And the terrible "show" in Europe doesn't seem to awaken our leaders. It was nice communicating with you - and reaching a common understanding.
Since SCOTUS has ruled Obamacare unconstitutional unless the mandate is defined as a tax, and since the word "tax" was never mentioned in the original law, congress can't simply define it as a tax retroactively. It is a new tax and new taxes have to be introduced and debated by the congress formally.
Surely this will have to be done before Obamacare can truly pass into law.
It looks as if the chief justice has handed down a time-bomb.
It appears that you have not read the opinion carefully and do not understand the legal issues. The Court did not rule the act unconsitutional in any sense beyond one aspect of the Medicaid provisions. It ruled the penalty constitutional under the taxing powers of Congress, which is not the same as ruling it unconstitutional for other reasons.
Your idea about the penalty requiring further authorization by Congress is pure invention, with no support in the Court's opinion or in any scholarly analysis of the decision so far. The penalty provision is law.
The court did indeed rule the penalty constitutional under the taxing powers of congress. However, the congress did not sell the mandate to the people as a tax. In fact, it went out of its way to avoid calling it a tax. You now have something which was never defined as a tax but may now be called a tax to fit the SC opinion This sounds like taxes by stealth with the congress trying to impose taxes retroactively based on the opinion of the SC.
When you get to the point that Romney calls it a tax and that Mcconnell says the issue isn't insuring the uninsured, the result, whatever the casuistry and legal legerdemain, is a hopeful restatement of the ethical imperative to look out for others as much as we look out for ourselves.
My guess is that the Mahouts have boxed the elephant into an ever-shrinking ring and that they will richly deserve the rejection of their "principles".
"The argument is, at root, about whether wealthy citizens should be required to pay for poor citizens to get health insurance"
It's funny how magazines like this never frame things as "the argument at root is about whether poor citizens should be required to pay for wealthy citizens to become wealthier".
The whole "wealthy citizens paying for poor citizens" construction assumes so much that's simply false, for example that the wealthy in our society got that way just magically by their own hard work, with no interaction with others, without exploiting the labor of others and skimming off most of the financial results for themselves, without using the same roads that everyone else uses and taxes pay for, and on and on.
It's always framed by conservatives as simply "wealth", like it fell from heaven, and those who have most of it have to decide whether to grudgingly hand some of it out to others, out of the sheer goodness of their hearts.
Without the working poor being duped by propaganda, none of this would be possible of course, thus the paid propaganda mills roll on.
Once again The Economist demonstrates it's failure to understand American Constitutional law.
"The argument over Obamacare wasn't and isn't, at root, about whether or not the federal government can order people to buy something, as opposed to taxing them and buying it for them."
If you are talking about the Supreme Court, that is exactly what the argument is about. TE ignorantly dismisses the legal issues because it is entirely unconcerned with the limits of federal authority. It should stop pretending to report on Constitutional matters and instead stick to political and policy arguments.
Democracy in America is subtitled "American Politics." It doesn't seem to me that M. S. Is pretending to write about Constitutional matters divorced from their political context.
On the contrary, it is political argument divorced from Constitutional matters. The headline indicates that the article is about SCOTUS, but in fact any legal analysis is cheerfully dispensed with in favor of policy arguments which are the concern of Congress and the President, but not the Supreme Court. TE perpetuates the misconception that the Supreme Court should uphold or strike down laws based on their advisability. TE is far more comfortable editorializing about policy and need only drop the pretense of reporting on the Court.
So The Economist is a political rag. Most of us here knew that already. For analysis of Constitutional law, I suggest you go to Constitutional Law Prof Blog.
And the weak shall go forth and multiply until such time as the state falls ....
Dear Sir;
It occurs to me that you might have missed the point. The recent decision by the US Supreme court sidesteps all those "deep ideological" issues of "tremendous consequence to Americans" about which you scribble so earnestly. The court affirmed that Congress passed a law, the funding for which is a tax, and, as such, lies within the taxing authority of Congress. Nothing was said about the rights of poor people or sick people to health care. Nothing was said about the moral responsibility of the rich to pay anything. The court threw the entire ill-crafted mess back onto a deadlocked Congress, a Congress, by the way, that is struggling mightily with the issue of taxes, expiring taxes, proposed taxes, fairness in taxes, reformation of taxes.
In the past 25 years America has passed many wretchedly drafted, unworkable laws. The Economist pointed out a month ago that America suffers from very poor law. This time, the Supreme Court walked adroitly around the pile, refusing to get any on its shoes. It reaffirmed its determination to pinch down on the latitude taken by the federal government under the Commerce Clause, it gave a quick boost to States' Rights and continued on its way, staying above the food fight. Very wise.
the healthcare issue is about inequality and why in one of the richest country in the World there are 30 Million Americans without proper healthcare or healthcare insurance. It is an indicator of why an economic system that at its root is the belief that scarcity naturally leads to competition is the wrong idea to base a modern economy. If instead of this primitive man knee jerk reaction to the problem of scarcity we decide to think through the problem of scarcity, we would realize that the optimum way to deal with scarcity is to conserve and restore. There is a place for competition, but, it has to be limited to search for the truth instead of the basis for our consumption. Healthcare cost would not be an issue if inequality was not so pronounce in our country. The PPACA is a remedy to the chronic problem of inequality in our country... since the rich will not create the jobs that can help pay for healthcare, then they need to be tax to pay for the necesities that the jobs they create can't pay for. It is the responsibility of an elected government to look out for the common good and make sure people are secure and safe...making healthcare available to everyone is part of the job of government. I applaud the tax levy against large companies and the rich because they are not doing enough to create good paying jobs and requiring individuals to buy health insurance is the right balanced approach to the problem.
is it the government's job to put food on your table? to make sure you have clothes to wear? to give you a house?
If health care is a right than aren't shelter, clothing & food rights as well?
Aren't we entitled to all of these things even if we can't pay for them? Shouldn't we tax the rich to pay for us since they only earned their wealth on the backs of the poor and the weak?
oh who is john galt?
"Is it the government's job to put food on your table?"
Perhaps not literally, but in 1928 Republicans were saying that prosperity resulting from election of Herbert Hoover would put "a chicken in every pot." the very next year we entered the Great Depression. Government did, indeed, put food on the table in later years in a variety of ways to keep people from starving. There is a long history of Government subsidizing the feeding of hungry citizens, like it or not.
Real argument is how should an infrastructure be paid for. If you required that a millionaire and a pauper paid same amount of money to pay for say roads or defense department you would not have roads or defense department. Healthcare infrastructure- hospitals, ambulances etc. are paid for in the most regressive way possible. If we continue on that road pauper will be crushed and eventually health care infrastructure.
"one of the most profound reasons for relief at yesterday's ruling was the recognition that victory... would not be awarded on a technicality."
Are you then profoundly disturbed when a felony conviction is overturned on a technicality?
From the article: "The argument is, at root, about whether wealthy citizens should be required to pay for poor citizens to get health insurance, and about whether healthy people should be required to pay for sick people to get health care. "
So, if this is true, then to take it to an extreme, then any plan, no matter how flawed, comes down to if the wealthy should be required to pay for the poor.
We need to reform our broken health care system, but the "solution" pushed though by the Democrats is worse than the problem.
As I’ve written several times before in other comments on this issue, Obamacare does not address the major cost drivers and makes a feeble attempt to do so with the individual mandate, but it does expand coverage of about 50 million new customers into a broken, overly expensive health care system, without a plan to increase the number of providers (although a lot of the "new" customers get health care in the emergency room at higher cost than if they were covered, so that premise in the Obamacare law is a valid cost curb, but it is not nearly enough for all the flaws). Basic economics suggests that when demand is increased while supply is the same, then a price rise will result.
The many flaws in Obamacare are in not addressing cost shifting; lack of competition from medical equipment providers, labor groups (such as doctors and nurses), and drug suppliers; the over utilization of free services; Cadillac plans for groups like public unions (though Obamacare makes a weak attempt at curbing this one); the out of control medical malpractice component (one of Obama’s biggest supporters are the trial lawyers, just after the teacher public unions); provider monopolies (providers grouping together to increase their power to reach their pricing goals); and many taxing cliffs such as if an employer has 50 or more employees then they come under Obamacare and thus will hesitate to hire due to the rise they will get when coming under Obamacare (this is a drag on employment growth at a time when the opposite is needed -- Thank You Mr. President!!), and the 200k+ for single and 250k+ for joint taxpayers; and the fact that if we have to have new taxes those taxes should go to pay down our other unfunded entitlements such as Medicare and Social Security rather than being directed to a massive new entitlement that, with the trajectory the U.S. deficit growth is on, we, as a nation can not afford and that will just bring the U.S. closer to the day of reckoning when the U.S. debt obligations can no longer be sold to the bond market.
Whether or not one is against the wealthy paying for the health care bills of the poor is not the only point of debate (or should I say ROOT) on this issue, though the wealthy and the middle class already pay for the poor, this law just takes that to a much higher level of support.
One can be against Obamacare (while in favor or against the support for the poor) because it is a seriously flawed law that will add just one more unsustainable burden to our private sector businesses and thus make us all the poorer while barely addressing the core issue of ever rising health care costs.
"So, if this is true, then to take it to an extreme, then any plan, no matter how flawed, comes down to if the wealthy should be required to pay for the poor."
This is preferable to "The poor eat the wealthy."
"As I’ve written several times before in other comments on this issue, Obamacare does not address the major cost drivers ... Basic economics suggests that when demand is increased while supply is the same, then a price rise will result."
Yup. That's okay. There will no doubt be more legislation to patch up the holes later. The law doesn't have to be fully polished gleaming perfection on day 1.
Really, I have never understood Republican opposition to this bill. On the one hand, they seethe and rage about illegal immigrants shifting their costs on to the rest of us by appearing without insurance in emergency rooms, but when it comes time to consider the ACA, seethe and rant about a requirement that all people have coverage! Its enough to make one believe that they think that only the right people should have access to health care.
"Basic economics suggests that when demand is increased while supply is the same, then a price rise will result."
I thought that one of the biggest strength of an open competitive society was that if there was more demand than supply, some canny entrepreneur will fill the gap, increase supply and equalise the gap between supply and demand. Please tell me why that will not happen in this case.
The law doesn't even have to be read to be voted on.
As I said in my original comment that there is a lack of competition in our health care system so your premise of "an open competitive society" does not apply to our current health care system -- that is one of the reasons why it is so inefficient and that is why the supply will not readily increase to meet demand. For example, the AMA works to restrict the number of doctors to keep doctors salaries up by restricting the number of medical schools and working to make it difficult for foreign doctors to practice in the U.S. (these restrictions cause medical labor to be more monopolistic than competitive). This is just one of several areas where there is a lack of competition in health care.
Here is the fragment of my original comment:
"...The many flaws in Obamacare are in not addressing cost shifting; lack of competition from medical equipment providers, labor groups (such as doctors and nurses), and drug suppliers..."
This piece of sausage law is about as close to perfection as JP Morgan Chase's hedging strategy and has more holes than Bonnie and Clyde ended up with.
Cost shifting applies to anyone who receives fully or partially uncompensated care, whether they are citizens or not.
Obamacare barely puts a dent into the upward trend of the costs coming from the health care providers. Obamacare primarily applies to the insurance aspect of health care and that is woefully inadequate in dealing with the cost escalation from the health care industry we have seen over the last several decades. The insurers will have to pass on the health care costs from the providers or they will go out of business.
Your silly comment about the poor eating the wealthy does not deserve a response.
A well written article, and I do think I agree with the decision. The federal government has much more broad rights than many people wish to believe.
One point I'd like to add the discussion: regardless of this legislation, I find myself uncomfortable when people mention health care as a fundamental human right, and it's not because of the moral hazard argument. Rather my thought is that health care is something that is administered, rather than inherent. It requires the labor or another individual. So I wonder whether that sort of benefit is as robust and important as the other things we call rights. Would we invade a country for violating this right? Can health care be "endowed by the creator", or part of nature?
It might not be too much of a stretch to assume that "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" implies a right to reasonably good health and therefore health care.
You have a right to pursue, no capture guaranteed for health or anything else.
Yes, particularly as one of the objectives in writing the Constitution, explicitly stated in the Preamble, is to "promote the general welfare."
Yet we all presumably have a right to life.
Mr Couples,
Perhaps it could indeed be implied by that statement, but even if it were so, that statement only holds for American. That seems an inadequate foundation for a universal, natural right.
Can a natural right be something you couldn't have in isolation?
Thank you for your comment. This is a question I genuinely enjoy exploring.
For the public good in general, we should attempt to return people to productivity if at all possible. You can't just throw people away. There are plenty of other examples of the notion that citizens should be recycled not disposed of in law, such as bankruptcy and parole. Its the practical thing to do. Really of the three, recycling people lost to the workforce due to ill health has the least moral hazard.
Unfortunately, Medicare for the retired is not justifiable on those grounds.
"Rather my thought is that health care is something that is administered, rather than inherent"
As is physical protection or the "right" to security, service administered by the police, or emergency support "administered" by the national guard when a natural disaster takes place.
I'm not sure there is any right that is not protected through the administration of some type of service. All rights protection requires some labour, and while protection rights against child labour promoted by the ILO are signed by most members of the UN, I have never heard of anybody seriously thinking of invading a country because minors work there. Life itself can be considered as part of nature, if we want to stretch it with the same logic. And protecting the right to life in most cases requires significant efforts and the availability of a range of services.
No right exists without a corresponding obligation. The problem with a right to health care is that it means you can force other people to provide you with healthcare if you can't afford it yourself. This would certainly go against someone's right to liberty.
Ron Couples, "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" is a phrase used in the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. The DOI has nothing to do with constitutional law.
The "force" issue relates directly to the whole argument about taxation. Government forces us all to pay taxes and spends our money on things that a lot of people don't believe it should be spent on. It would seem that one of the less egregious things government might spend our money on would be health care.
The DOI is nonetheless foundational in character. I'd submit that nothing in the phrase "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," can be considered unconstitutional.
This is a straw man argument. Most people would acknowledge that taxes are necessary to cover goverment services and that not everyone would willingly pay their appropriate share of taxes. The issue is the difference between paying for things from which you benefit directly and for paying for things from which you do not benefit. It is certainly legitimate to be "forced" to pay for a road that you use or to pay for your personal share of the national defense. More questionable is being compelled to pay for someone else's medical bills. Doing so may be charitable, but charity by definition is done from free will.
Mr Diemm,
Thank you for the very thoughtful comment. I've been thinking about your reply. It raises a question in my mind: who protects the protector? Does the soldier have as much right to personal safety as the civilian?
If we say no, then we declare that security is not a universal right. If we say yes, then we are at a crossroads, because we can not violate the soldier's rights by compelling him to provide for the safety of another. This seems to make this right unviable.
Perhaps I'm being too pedantic. It still seems there is a distinction between rights and entitlements of citizenship. If there is, then it may be important to understand those differences if we are to reason about these things.
The DOI does not grant any powers to Congress. Those are enumerated in Article I Section 8. Question before the court was whether the act (the individual tax/penalty in particular) could be justified under any of those powers.
But as a matter of fact, the phrase of the DOI to which you refer is echoed in the fifth amendment to the constitution, which provides that no one shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. That is what Jefferson was talking about in the DOI -- not spending government funds to ensure everybody a comfortable and happy existence at public expense.
I guess it all depends upon how we define government services.
Thabks for pointing out that the DOI is echoed in the 5th Amedment. I'll reserve my own interpretation of what Jefferson was talking about in the DOI.
I edited my earlier comment that began with "Thabks" with: Thanks for pointing out that the DOI is echoed in the 5th Amendment. I need all the help I can get when it comes to the U.S. Constitution. I'm sure you'll agree, however, that what Jefferson meant in the DOI is up for interpretation. Thanks again for the information and your point of view.
The rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are negative rights, in that no one is justified in taking them away. The right to life means the right to live according to one's creed and judgement. This includes the right to procure food and shelter, however difficult that may be, but not the right to forcibly take it from another, for that would be a violation of that person's right to life. Health care is the same. We have the fundamental right to seek out care and to obtain that care at whatever cost we choose to bear, but not to infringe on other persons' right to life by forcing them to provide for our own. The framers were very wise in enumerating these rights as such, for they are, as Craig said, inherent, and the philosophy of government that follows is self-consistent.
Believing health care, education, shelter, clean water, etc... are fundamental rights is a flawed principle to work from. All of these must be provided by our own or others' labor, expertise, and skill sets. We are not entitled to receive these from birth. We obtain them through our hard work, the benevolence of government (our fellow citizens), or the free-market which tends to align self-interests.
All of our rights are only recognized because we pay brave armed men and women to defend them. Ask someone in Syria or the Sudan about their negative rights. The framers were wise to enshrine these rights in our Constitution, and to set them up as the law of the land, but don't for a second think that you just automatically have them recognized. People died for them, and people are continuing to risk their lives for them to this day.
That's the problem with the typical conservative argument. They talk about how inherent our individual rights are, and talk about how wonderful and brave the military is, but never seem to put it all together and realize that the only reason we have any rights at all in this country is because someone else was called upon to pay the ultimate price.
The volunteer military has only been around for the past 30 years or so. Before that, if there was war on, and you were male and of fighting age, there was a good chance you were being forced (conscripted) to die for other people's rights.
So stop with the silly semantic games that this very article is calling out. Our rights only exist because people who came before us died to make it this way.
I am eternally grateful for the sacrifices of those who fought/fight to preserve our Constitution and freedom, both militarily and politically. This does not change in any way the notion of "inherent rights". The moment the Framers enshrined these rights, they declared to the nation and the world that these rights are inherent and fundamental. Any effort to infringe them will be met with resistance, and that resistance is fully justified.
My previous comment does not mean necessarily that we as a people have the inherent right that others must fight to preserve our freedom. Rather, those fighting are justified in doing so to preserve our freedom. There are no inconsistencies with a volunteer army. As to involuntary service, we have to side with the Constitution as to its legality, and this can be amended. We know that the Constitution incorporates government powers that can limit individual liberty. The guiding principle is to limit liberty only to the extent that it prevents persons from actively infringing the rights of others. (ex: your freedom to kill someone is limited because that would infringe upon that person's rights)
You again are missing the point. All rights, inherent or otherwise are worthless without armed men protecting them. And some men have been conscripted to protect them, and died for it. I don't hear you or anyone else bellyaching about how that violated your guiding principle.
As for your guiding principle, you do realize that it is an endorsement of the individual mandate. Hospitals are forced to provide emergency care to anyone regardless of whether they will be paid. That is a violation of your guiding principal. The two solutions to this problem are 1) relieve hospitals of their obligation to treat all emergency room patients or 2) force people to pay for the obligation they are imposing on the hospital.
Being treated in the emergency room regardless of whether or not we happen to have our insurance card handy or not is obviously something all people want. Therefore, in order to us to stop infringing upon the rights of then hospital by getting treatment for free, the only alternative is to make people pay for it by buying health insurance.
You misunderstand me. Declaring those rights fundamental means that we are justified in resisting when they are infringed upon. Therefore rights are never worthless. As long as we are justified in defending our rights they cannot be worthless.
The guiding principle is by no means an endorsement of the mandate. Rather, it is an argument for limited government according to the enumerated powers. The federal government should not be involved with health care. Then there is no problem at all with that guiding principle. The states may do as they wish (10th Amendment). Physicians provide a service with their knowledge and expertise, as do farmers, accountants, barbers, musicians, actresses, etc... Individuals should be free to choose among them and decide how much they wish to pay for services. Those who cannot pay must rely on the benevolence of their fellow man through charity, but not through coercion (government). Coercion infringes upon our negative rights. If anyone wishes to give, let them. If anyone does not, then so be it.
Perhaps I am not being clear, I apologize. I am emphasizing the importance of justified resistance with regards to our fundamental rights. Throughout history these rights have seldom been secure, but they were never worthless. Indeed, they held great worth and provided the motivation and reason behind many revolutions. The founders knew this and so declared once and for all the fundamental nature of these rights. With or without an army these rights exist, and people will always defend them and are completely justified in doing so.
Ron Couples, if you want to understand in more detail what Jefferson was talking about in the DOI, just read John Locke's Concerning Civil Government. The DOI is basically a Reader's Digest version of it.
You seem to have a disconnect between theory in reality.
In theory, Joe Sixpack in his cell in a Russian gulag has the same natural rights as I do in my nice air-conditioned office. In practice he doesn't. Natural rights are useless without protection.
As for your guiding principle, you didn't even address my point about how hospitals are still forced (coerced) to provide care to people without proof that they will be paid.
Your philosophy is without a doubt internally consistent. I just don't see how it applies to the real world in any meaningful way.
I disagree that rights are useless without protection. I reiterate the importance of the distinction the founders made between life, liberty, pursuit of happiness and other things that people now wish to elevate to the status of "fundamental right" such as health care, education, food, etc...(the distinction made by leaving these out). The whole argument here depends on justification of resisting and protecting. We are justified with regard to the rights the founders enumerated and not with regard to other would-be rights. By definition a fundamental right cannot be taken away. It may be suppressed, but it will always exist.
As I understand it, your disagreement is based on the practice of conscription. As I mentioned before, this has been determined to be Constitutional, and we have the power to change this. With regard to health care, the SCOTUS ruled the ACA is constitutional. I am therefore arguing for policy changes from our representatives. Eventually I would like to see a constitutional amendment to the effect of: "The right of the people to buy and sell legitimate goods and services at mutually acceptable terms shall not be infringed by Congress or the States". Such an amendment would greatly increase individual liberty.
I did address the point about hospitals. I said that the federal government should not be involved in health care at all. This means it may not pass laws respecting the practice and administration of health care. Thus, at the federal level hospitals would be free to turn people away. I emphasize that States may make their own laws on this issue because that right is reserved to them via the 10th Amendment. I argue that we need to rethink using government to provide for those who cannot provide for themselves. I wholeheartedly support helping through voluntary charity those who cannot help themselves. I oppose doing so through coercion. In a free society, coercion must be eliminated wherever possible.
It seems like your philosophy boils down "I got mine so screw the everyobdy else". You talk about natural rights like they never come into conflict with one another. Is one person's right to property more important than other person's right to life? You seem to think one person's property rights are worth more than another person's life.
You're certainly entitled to your opinion. Just don't wrap it in the flag and romanticize it as some kind of American Dream.
The ideal you're describing does not, has not, and will never exist. You talk about the 10th Amendment like the past 150+ years of Case Law never happened, and doesn't apply. Yes, some Powers are reserved for the States, but the Federal government has incredibly expansive power. You can disagree with how it works, but the current interpretation is what turned this country into the most powerful country on the planet.
As for coercion, it is always going to exist because people are greedy bastards. You just want coercion coming from private citizens instead of the government, because you think coercion from private citizens is somehow better.
Power doesn't disappear when its taken away from the government, it just moves to someone else, who is even less accountable to the people than the government. There is no society free from coercion, and the one you're describing will be far more coercive than the one we're living in now.
You are wrong. The right to property does not conflict with right to life. As I have said, these rights are negative rights. Right to life means you have the right to work to provide for yourself and shape your life as you see fit. Some people will have to work much harder than others, everyone has different talents and different situations. Some will never be able to scrape by and must rely on others through charity. The right to life does not mean others MUST provide for me if I cannot provide for myself. Again, you have the right to action, to regulate your own pursuits in industry and improvement, not to force others to provide for you.
You fundamentally misunderstand private vs. government coercion and regard government as the panacea to solving life's problems. Government coercion cannot be escaped. Privately, no one is forced to do things, we have laws protecting citizens from one another. If you regard private persuasion and influence as coercion then you have a problem with the evolution of thought and free markets. Please elaborate on how a society with a more limited government than we have now will be more coercive. Government bureaucrats in agencies such as the EPA, FDA, Department of Education, HHS, Energy, etc.. are only tangentially accountable to the public. Congress is directly responsible to the public, but these agencies and departments are much less so and have sweeping authority.
Government taxation for health care is no different than if officials came to your door and demanded that you contribute to Bob's health care (someone you don't know). If you do not, you will be fined and if you refuse to pay the fine you will be put in jail. To be clear: I am not advocating for no taxes. I am arguing against direct redistributive taxation (taking from one to give to another). The beauty in a limited government is that each may do as he chooses so long as he is not infringing others' rights. If you want to give to charity or volunteer your time, you are free to do so (I advocate for this and do so myself). If you don't give a damn about anyone else, then fine - that is your choice. Those who believe in charitable giving and wish others to do the same should persuade others the best they can of their own views - but not force others to believe as they do. This is very similar to religion. We are protected from forced religion through government. Individuals are free to persuade fellow citizens of their religious beliefs. The "moral" of providing aid to others is no different on technical grounds.
I suspect you also misunderstand the "American Dream". The dream is not and never was, if you work hard you will have everything you want. It takes luck, great skill, and help from others to be successful. The dream is that you are completely free to shape your own life through your efforts, again necessarily this will be different for everyone. This is what led millions to immigrate to this country - the opportunity to live as they wish, worship how they like, and reap what they can from their work. You may very well fail or end up with nothing, you may have no skills to offer, or you may resent others for their successes and blame the system. Either way the dream remains - you are free to suffer the successes and failures of your action.
Lastly, the policies of the last 150 years are not what made this nation the most powerful. It was largely the first 150 years, in which free markets were on the whole allowed to operate and individuals had the unprecedented freedom to pursue their separate interests (slavery being the obvious and sad exception). What progress and growth followed in the next century stood on the firm foundation of those 150 or so years.
I'm not sure if you're just ignorant, or actively choose to ignore half of the founders, but either way you completely fail to acknowledge the importance of the common good.
You understand natural rights, but natural rights philosophy is not all that makes up the foundation of this country. For whatever reason, you refuse to acknowledge the idea of classical republicanism, which played just as important a role in the founding of this country as natural rights philosophy.
A society that does not recognize natural rights is not free. But a society that does not act in its own common good will not stay free.
The founding fathers understood this. If you ever actually bothered to read any of James Madison's or Alexander Hamilton's works you would understand this.
You ask me how a society with more limited government will be more coercive than what we have today. All you need to do is crack open a history book and read about the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Read about John Rockefeller. He would buy up land to block the route of a competing oil pipeline. He would buy pipelines, refuse to pump oil through them, and then buy up the freshly bankrupted oil refineries on the other end, and repeat the process ad nauseum. Does that sound like a free society to you?
Read about the mining congolomerates. They would bring people into mining towns, and pay them less money than they would charge for food and shelter. Look up the song "I Owe My Soul to the Company Store". Does that sound like a society free from coercion?
Crack open a copy of "How the Other Half Lives". Do the people in there look like they live lives that are free from coercion?
Now look at healthcare. How free is someone when their only health insurance option is the one provided by their employer? Is that a society free from coercion?
Left unchecked, power accumulates with those who seek it out. And you don't truly have a free society if one person is able to exert undue influence over another. The first 150 years of this country's history are filled with examples of private citizens coercing their neighbors. Is that a free society in which everyone's natural rights are being protected?
The real irony of all of this is that ultimately, we both want the same thing, to have natural rights protected. You think that the government is the biggest threat. I say the biggest threat is other people, and historically there is plenty of evidence suggesting people are the biggest threat.
Madison believed the enumerated powers of the federal government would be enough to limit its power. As we know from history this has turned out not to be true, as the courts have taken a progressively liberal interpretation.
Tell me what is the common good? Who defines it? A government based firmly on the 'common good' is not well grounded. You automatically assume helping a poor sick person benefits the common good. Have you considered the money and time you had to take from others in order to do so? Effectively such redistribution requires people to spend a portion of their lives working for others without compensation.
I think it is time to seriously question charging a central power with the task of determining what is "best for society" in all facets of life. As a nation, we have become too fixated on growth and improving the common good through the use of government action. Not only is the 'common good' subjective, but so are the measurements used to define growth and value. The emphasis is on how government power may be used to help groups of people, rather than if it should help people. The latter requires considering all the costs, which at a minimum includes the entire tax base, as well as how such power will limit individual rights and freedom.
How are such social responsibilities of government to be decided? In an electoral democracy they will be decided by those who happen to hold power at the moment and by what those members deem to be “best” for all (or at least in accord with their own special interests). Further, those who are in power today will not be those of tomorrow and tomorrow’s tomorrow, which separates intent from practice. Assigning to government power in the social sphere is, like in any other part, at the mercy of the current leaders. However, the difference lies in the intrusive and presumptuous nature of social engineering.
John Stuart Mill explained a similar phenomenon. Throughout history there have always been individuals who were 'ahead of their time' and espoused ideas that were unconventional. These individuals see society one way and argue that it should be another way; that their views are superior and everyone should adopt such a view. By doing so, they only perpetuate the underlying problem. As Mill wrote, "They have occupied themselves rather in inquiring what things society ought to like or dislike than in questioning whether its likings or dislikings should be a law to individuals."
Those who attempt to use government to force others to conform to particular views regarding ‘fair shares’, marriage, helping the poor, providing health care for others, planning for old age, inheritance taxes, income inequality, special interests, etc… are simply reinforcing the practices they condemn whenever they fall on the losing side of an outcome (forced beliefs and actions). Such 'morals' are religion in all but name. Again, we have an amendment preventing forced religion; why should we be forced to act as others believe best? Who decides what is best? This quickly becomes rather arbitrary and presumptuous. A central body cannot possibly fathom the wants and desires of its people. In a free society, all are right and all are wrong. If you are convinced of your views, then try your best to persuade others using reason and dialogue, not force (government).
To be clear, I am not advocating anarchy. I am supporting a framework articulated by Adam Smith, the founders, and many other champions of individual sovereignty; that government in a free society is limited to defending the nation from outside attack, protecting individuals from causing harm to each other, upholding voluntary contracts (providing a system of justice), and mitigating direct externalities arising from voluntary actions (recognizing that government action to ‘correct’ these involves its own externalities and must be weighed against the existing ones.) This is how a free society should operate, under an impartial and amoral government to set the rules of the game.
Jefferson, in his first inaugural address, stated an ideal for which to strive: "[a] wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement.” The key here is improvement.
I would rather attack the "problem" of poverty at the source, rather than redistribute outcomes as I suspect you support. Minimum wage laws, poor schools and lack of school choice, occupational licensure laws, inflationary policies, regulatory burden (look at the ICC for a good example of special interests getting their way), "protectionist" foreign trade policies, etc... all limit freedom and stifle opportunity.
That is utterly asinine. Your only rights are those which are intrisic to you, and which must not be infringed through others actions. To say that my rights are breached through another person's inaction...that is, their unwillingness to invest in (and pass) medical school, wake up, put on the smock, and examine, diagnose, and treat me, is insanity.
They aren't being made to buy health insurance. I am being made to pay tax to subsidize their purchase of health insurance. There is nothing to compel the user of the service to change their behavior. The coercive power of government has been transferred from the hospital to the taxpayer. That's it. Certainly immoral.
We the People decide what the common good is. It's right there in the Preamble of the Constitution. Government is just the word we use to describe actions that we as a society choose to take together.
And if you really feel as though your rights are being trampled upon in this country, feel free to leave. No one is restricting your freedom to vote with your feet. Move to the mythical country that has instituted the political system you described. Though I fear you'll have a hard time finding it, since it doesn't exist. And it doesn't exist because it's a pipedream of policies that sound great in theory, but don't work in real life.
The best you'll find is a country in North America where:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Notice how there are five other items listed in the Preamble besides "Secure the Blessings of Liberty"? The Framers clearly never thought government was just about protecting individual rights. If all the Framers cared about was setting up the system you described, then that's all the Constitution would say. Your system is not what the Constitution describes. The historical facts to the contrary are everywhere.
Taking care of everyone's basic needs frees people up for other, more productive pursuits. Sentencing poor people to live or die based solely on the selfish interests of their fellow man is a terrible waste of our most valuable resource, people.
Semantics is the science of meaning.
And one of the most fascinating disciplines for linguists and relativists, occasionally appreciated by lawyers as well.
Yup, there is something profoundly ironic about judges saying they will not tarry over semantics when interpreting a law.
I promise you the next time Ginsburg and Sotoretardor address a statute they do not like, they will nit-pick its wording to death. Just another example of the hypocrisy and stupidity of liberal judges.
I am not sure The Economist got it right. It was NOT widely recognized the mandate would be a tax. If it were the case they would have explicitly called it so which they did not last it did not pass Congress.
But the SC did NOT rule that the mandate was a tax.
Rather they ruled that the penalty was a tax.
There is a huge difference.
How could the author leave out the biggest point of Justice Robert’s rope-a-dope; his sidestepping of the Anti-Injunction Act. Preceding the quote above Justice Roberts stated outright that because the mandate wasn't "labeled" a tax the AIA did not apply but because it was implemented as a tax it was therefore a tax and within Congress' power to levy. So long as we don't call it a tax. Maybe mathonomics geeks like me are just unable to comprehend the endless grey area (i.e. bullshit) of law philosophy
FOOL-PROOF CLUES ON HOW TO SPOT A RIGHT WING EXTREMIST REPUBLICAN/TEA PARTY TYPE ON TV WITH YOUR EYES CLOSED.
He talks, and acts rudely, in all manner and way. Thus, he uses words that makes you suspect he wants to cause the most harm or cruelty. Therefore, he endlessly puts venom into his verbiage and learned expletives. He obviously wants to make you look small or irrelevant.
He, with finality and in superlative even apocalyptic terms, predicts what would happen to you. He predicts a future he does not know or understand, claiming as well expert knowledge even though he may be an air head. (Would you hire Sarah Palin as your expert on constitutional law?).
He is almost always angry and looking unapproachable. And when he loses or you disagree with him, his anger turns to rage and rave. He feels able to simultaneously dwell on insults while still proclaiming his Christian credentials and ideals.
He is won’t, in political disagreements, to call for the most extreme measures against his perceived “enemy.” Thus, he would glibly shout, call for or threaten treason, un-American, impeachment, contempt, secession, repeal, nullification or other destructive terms.
He interrupts others repeatedly even though no one interrupts him when he speaks.
He is very belligerent and threatening in all matters: on foreign policy and nationalism (remember the word jingoism). This makes a mockery of his avowed belief as a “Christian”—because Christ is the “Prince of Peace.”
He is almost always the aggressor. Win (think 2010) or lose (think 2008 and 2012), he wants to fight you, humiliate you, threaten you. (You can never satisfy these people). He covers up everything with shouts and claims of freedom while denying it to others.
He doesn’t think it matters to be specific and instead dwells on generalities, bite sounds and unsupported assertions. He thinks that most voters are stupid and can easily be manipulated with emotive words of hates and division. (Remember “divide and conquer”). Thus, many of the voters they manipulate end up working against their own interests—so long as they find somebody else to blame for their own failures and inadequacies.
He dearly believes in one man one dollar s the cornerstone of democracy instead of one man one vote. He sincerely believes that most voters are not fit to vote especially minorities, young people and liberals.
He is very self-righteous on religious matters, wants to impose his personal beliefs on the whole society even while decrying government “overreach” in our personal lives. And he spouts in frightening speed all kinds of conspiracy theories. (The brains are different).
He projects his myths, conjectures and conspiracy theories as “facts” and treats objective facts as irrelevant and dangerous. He treats his routine lies, prevarications and misrepresentations as a “business plan.”
He shouts honor and country and wants America to easily go to war against other nations even though he usually finds a way to avoid military service. He feels he is more “patriotic” than any one else while in fact he is a paper tiger.
He doesn’t really believe in democracy, human rights, civil rights and human dignity (except for the unborn). So you will hear him describing women’s rights, gay rights and civil rights as a threat to the economy and the nation. He, like the Taliban, wants particularly to lord it over women in any way he can, including using public policy to interfere in the bedrooms of the nation.
He doesn’t believe in helping the poor, the elderly and the weak in our society, even though Christ said doing these things gives you a right to heaven. So he is wont to accuse any one who dares as a socialist. He even denounces Canadian and European-style capitalism as “socialism.” (Do these people read and use their brain at all)?
He believes in winning by cunning, intimidation and other unfair means, even if it means disenfranchising thousands of legitimate voters. (Remember Florida 2000 and now 2012). (Their big daddies in the Supreme Political Court will surely help out as needed).
He doesn’t think that the court should be activist except for the causes they believe in or in courts they control. When they are in control, they want to take every matter of state to the court expecting for decision in their favor. Note the flood of Republican-pioneered cases to the John Robert’s Supreme Political Court. Roberts and Co. have usually obliged, seriously tarnishing the reputation of the Court. However, Roberts disappointed them in the ACA challenge. So they are threatening, huffing and puffing—as usual! Paper Tigers barking!
Dr. Sam
Simplistic stereotypical drivel.
Someone thinks that Sarah Palin's "tea party" is the real tea party. Watch out everyone! We've got an intellectual over here!
Your absolutely right! Stupid repubs. If only everyone was a liberal then America would be perfect, A one party state!
Class act like you TwoGunClunk, you would know, since you spout such similar simplistic drivel...listen to yourself below
Yup, there is something profoundly ironic about judges saying they will not tarry over semantics when interpreting a law.
I promise you the next time Ginsburg and Sotoretardor address a statute they do not like, they will nit-pick its wording to death. Just another example of the hypocrisy and stupidity of liberal judges.
Bishopofsapele, read opinions by Ginsburg and Sotoretardor and you will see I am right. Or just ask any constitutional law professor.
This kind of hypocrisy is uniquely liberal. Obama's recent decision to suspend enforcement of immigration laws in certain cases is a very apt example. He doesn't like the law, so he will ignore it, at the same time insisting that laws he does like are enforced to the letter. Compare that approach to Eisenhower's enforcement of Brown v. Board of Education. Eisenhower personally disagreed with the decision, but said it was his duty to enforce it, and he did. Passion for one's personal notions of justice (liberal), or a sense of duty (conservative). Take your pick, but we all know which kind of person is the more reliable and trustworthy.