Scrapping Obamacare Should be a Constitutional No Brainer for Conservative Justices

The procedural trickery used by the Democratic Congress makes the law illicit.

Birthdays are joyous events—unless you doubt you’ll make it to the next one. That might be the case with President Obama’s health care reform law. It turned two last week, but the Supreme Court is now hearing a challenge to the individual mandate, a central provision of the health reform law that will require all Americans to buy health coverage. If the court scraps it, Obamacare will be effectively dead.

The mandate is an affront to a free society, and the court’s conservative justices know that. But their qualms about the limits of their own powers might prevent them from killing it. However, if there was ever a law that should override these qualms, it’s this one.

The four liberal justices, all of whom are expected to vote lock-step for the mandate, suffer from no equivalent qualms—a telling fact. By contrast, among the conservatives, only Justice Clarence Thomas is considered a reliable “no” vote: He’s an “originalist” who believes that the court’s fundamental job is to ensure the fidelity of our laws to the Constitution.

The other four conservatives worry more about two additional things: Stare decisis, the idea that judges should refrain from overturning precedents, even wrong-headed ones; and “judicial modesty,” the notion that the court needs to defer to Congress except in extreme cases.

Stare decisis concerns are not irrelevant because the court has given Congress expansive powers to regulate economic activity under the Commerce Clause that it can’t just take away. The original sin here dates back to Wickard vs. Filburn in 1942, when the court upheld Uncle Sam’s authority to prevent an Ohio farmer from producing wheat on his own farm to feed his own livestock because that would supposedly undercut federal efforts to boost national wheat prices.

Randy Barnett of Georgetown University, however, argues that despite Wickard’s sorry jurisprudential lineage, there is no precedent for allowing Congress to regulate economic “inactivity.” To date, Congress has only regulated economic activities that Americans choose to engage in. It has never required them to actually engage in an activity under the threat of fines. If the court lets this logic stand, notes Barnett, “Congress could constitutionally require every American to buy a new Chevy Impala every year.”

That is a compelling rebuttal of stare decisis, but what about judicial modesty? Does nixing the individual mandate pose a big problem for this commitment? No.

Judicial modesty is certainly a virtue. It prevents courts from casually overturning laws enacted by a duly elected Congress and substituting the wishes of unelected judges for the will of the voters. But acts of Congress are not acts of God, never to be questioned. Indeed, to guard against the tyranny of the majority, Federalist 78 explicitly gave courts the authority to overturn laws that violated the constitutionally guaranteed rights of minorities.

But the problem with Obamacare is not that it represents the illicit wishes of a majority — it’s that it doesn’t represent majority wishes at all. According to recent polls, two-thirds of Americans want the individual mandate repealed. Indeed, the law has never enjoyed majority support. Still, the Democrat-controlled Congress shoved it down the public’s throat through wildly unorthodox methods.

To overcome resistance within its own party, it used horse-trading so brazen that horse traders would be embarrassed. Remember the Louisiana Purchase? This deal bought Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu’s support by cleverly writing disaster relief rules so that only the Bayou State qualified for $100 million in aid. Then there was the Cornhusker Kickback. Public outrage forced Democrats to withdraw this deal. Otherwise, federal taxpayers would have been on the hook, forever, for the entire tab for Nebraska’s Medicaid program in exchange for Sen. Ben Nelson’s “yes” vote.

Despite all this, Democrats could not pass the law through normal parliamentary procedures. The election of Republican Scott Brown of Massachusetts to the seat left vacant by Sen. Ted Kennedy’s death ensured that. Brown explicitly ran on a platform of stopping the Obamacare train wreck, and his election gave Senate Republicans the 41 votes they needed to filibuster the law.

The only way for Democrats to avoid the filibuster was for the House to pass the Senate version exactly as written to avoid another Senate vote. However, opposition to the Senate version ran so deep in the House that Democrats had to cut an eleventh-hour deal promising pro-life Democrats that the law’s abortion-related provisions would be eliminated through a procedure called reconciliation. Under it, the House appended the pro-life revisions to an unrelated bill the Senate had already passed — one it could approve by a simple majority vote.

If such congressional transgressions against voters don’t justify the jettisoning of judicial modesty, then what does? A formal burning of the Constitution by Congress? Still, 6th Circuit Judge Jeffery Sutton, a conservative believer in judicial modesty, couldn’t bring himself last year to throw out Obamacare on grounds that the proper remedy for it lay at the ballot box, not the courthouse.

But even if the next Congress repeals Obamacare, Supremes who follow Sutton’s logic and refuse to kill the individual mandate will still have created a standing precedent allowing Congress to regulate inactivity. This would provide the body a huge new opening to expand its powers.

The Supremes have a constitutional duty to check out-of-control government. Letting Obamacare live on because they have tied themselves in knots over judicial niceties would be an abdication of epic proportions.

Reason Foundation Senior Analyst Shikha Dalmia is a columnist at The Daily where this column originally appeared.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Matrix||

    dammit! I just finished breakfast. Don't show that horrible face on here. Besides, it's too early to see scary faces.

  • Comcast Sucks||

    Once you start striking down laws because Congress plays games w/ the rules, you strike them all down. The SC will never go that route.

  • Joe M||

    Well, this was extremely egregious, not your run of the mill shenanigans at all.

  • Rev. Blue Moon ||

    Longtorso is still right, though.

  • Klondike Kathouse||

    But the problem with Obamacare is not that it represents the illicit wishes of a majority — it’s that it doesn’t represent majority wishes at all.

    A bit reductionist, but I'll take it.

  • Klondike Kathouse||

    Sutton ... couldn’t bring himself last year to throw out Obamacare on grounds that the proper remedy for it lay at the ballot box, not the courthouse.

    Meanwhile, Obamacare is wrecking havoc. Were a law passed requiring every cow in America to be executed as quickly as possible by firing squad, would a remedy have to wait on the next election or possibly several landslide elections?

  • Klondike Kathouse||

    Sometimes the media latches on to a single sound bite with which to define prominent politicians. "Read my lips, no new taxes." "I didn't have sex with that woman, Monica Lewinsky."

    It's annoying when the media latches onto a particular sound bite when a different one reveals so much more about the pol in question.

    Instead of using "We need to pass this legislation in order to find out what's in it.", the media should use "If we can't pass the bill, we will just deem it to have passed." for Pelosi.

    Nancy "By any means necessary" Pelosi - the worst of the worst.

  • Ovaunda||

    Over under on how long it takes sloopy to come in here and complain again about being spoofed like it's the same thing as raping his mom or stealing his kidneys?

  • Bee Tagger||

    I know someone born with 1 kidney. Your 2nd example is utterly meaningless to him.

  • Bee Tagger||

    Is this like one of those "Can God create a round square?" questions? Are you starting a new religion by convincing people you can take kidneys from a one-kidneyed person?

  • Ovaunda||

    Wait, you're serious?

    "Are you starting a new religion by convincing people you can take kidneys from a one-kidneyed person?"

    No, I'm exposing your ignorance of the language and its proper use.

  • MNG||

    He said he knew someone who had one kidney, so your statement about "stealing his kidneys", plural, would be meaningless to that guy.

    Don't compound your error here by belaboring it.

  • Ovaunda||

    He said he knew someone who had one kidney, so your statement about "stealing his kidneys", plural, would be meaningless to that guy.

    And he was wrong.

    on't compound your error here by belaboring it.

    Don't pretend that your classic snark doesn't mean you just made a fool of yourself again.

  • Bee Tagger||

    Don't pretend that your classic snark doesn't mean you just made a fool of yourself again.

    This must be what it was like the first time someone tried out a pun on Noah Webster.

  • Ovaunda||

    You read very poorly don't you?

  • MNG||

    "And he was wrong."

    He was wrong in saying that it would be meaningless to a ONE KIDNEYED MAN to speak of stealing his kidneyS?

  • Ovaunda||

    He was wrong in saying that it would be meaningless to a ONE KIDNEYED MAN to speak of stealing his kidneyS?

    Yes, are you really saying you'rte not smart enough to see why?

    No wonder you failed to find a citation and ran.

  • Bee Tagger||

    Too late, I'm already a member. Do you have those super convenient Saturday evening services?

  • MNG||

    You know what would be awesome? A drive through church.

  • Ovaunda||

    You know what would be awesome? A drive through church.

    I think even more awesome than that would be why you attacked me the other night when you were asked for a citation, Mr. Nice Guy.

    Now lie and say you didn't so I can cite it and prove you're a lair.

  • MNG||

    Because you're a troll and I wasn't interested in supplying a citation for a common sense fact to someone who had no honest pretense of discussing the topic?

    That might be it.

    But still, a drive through church would be awesome.

  • Close enough...||

  • Ovaunda||

    Because you're a troll and I wasn't interested in supplying a citation

    That you didn't have.

    And you needed an excuse because you lost the debate, so you called troll, and ran.

    Shall I cite the entire debate?

    Let others see the kind of stuff you stoop to calling troll to avoid citing your lies?

  • Inout||

    Shut up, Mary.

  • Ovaunda||

    Shut up, Mary.

    Swing and a miss.

    Expected it, still wrong.

  • PHAT INDIAN||

    Swing and a miss.

    Your language always gives you away.

    Shut up Mary.

  • MNG||

    Well, I don't think I need a citation that most employers would consider an employee candidate's dropping out of high school a negative.

    Just like I don't think I need one to verify you're a troll.

  • Ovaunda||

    Well, I don't think I need a citation that most employers would consider an employee candidate's dropping out of high school a negative.

    Not the debate I was referencing.

    Apparently, not citing your idiotic claims is so common you forget how often you do it.

  • MNG||

    You're kind of proving my point about you being a crazy troll, y'know?

    Or is the better answer: Shut up, Mary?

  • Ovaunda||

    You're kind of proving my point about you being a crazy troll, y'know?

    What else would you say when you can't even keep track of the arguments you've lost and run from?

  • JohnD||

    MNG is calling someone a troll?
    How funny.

  • invisible furry hand||

  • Ovaunda||

    Do you have those super convenient Saturday evening services?

    Yes, they teach you why you're wrong about your previous post.

  • Inout||

    Shut up, Mary.

  • Ovaunda||

    Shut up, Mary

    Swing and a miss.

    Expected it, still wrong.

  • Inout||

    Shut up, Mary.

  • Ovaunda||

    Shut up, Mary

    Swing and a miss.

    Expected it, still wrong.

  • Prisoner 6||

    You act like Mary, you get called "Mary."

    Mary is a bitch's name. You're going to get fucked like a bitch.

  • Ovaunda||

    You're going to get fucked like a bitch.

    Your social life is of no interest to me.

  • Stella||

  • Grey Ghost||

    So having fewer kidneys makes it meaningless? What kind of idiot thinks that?

    And wasn't the post about sloopy? What kind of idiot references anyone but sloopy there?

  • Earl Grey Tea||

    Shut up, Mary.

  • I Blame Videogames!||

    Poor Ovaunda, your kidney example is utterly meaningless to him.

    Who knows? Maybe it was the videogames.

  • Ovaunda||

    Poor Ovaunda, your kidney example is utterly meaningless to him.

    Yes, apparently in addition to only having one kidney, his linguistic skill sucks.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    What the fuck is your purpose here, Ova?

  • Ovaunda||

    To show my superior intellect, of course.

  • ||

    You're doing a bang up job.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    For the record, I'm that person with one kidney, and I didn't understand a word of your post. It looked like random words strung together. Also, let's go ahead and add that I was offended somehow.

  • Ovaunda||

    For the record, I'm that person with one kidney, and I didn't understand a word of your post.

    We already know you're not bright, you prove that every day.

    Also, let's go ahead and add that I was offended somehow.

    See previous comment.

  • FFS||

    Stop feeding the goddamn troll already.

  • Ovaunda||

    Stop feeding the goddamn troll already.

    MNG doesn't care if you feed it or not, that simply won't work.

  • West Texas||

    Yeah, parliamentary games are political issues and shouldn't have anything to do with the courts. Pelosi and her snakes didn't break the law, they just broke their own rules and acted unethically.

    The only way we fix this kind of shit is either a.) toss out the unethical bastards who do this kind of shit, or b.) insist that both sides play dirty and take whatever the fuck they can get when they're in power, just like a banana republic... until public disgust grows so great that we toss them all out with bombs and guns and hit the big reset button, also just like a banana republic.

    Given that most Americans don't give enough of a shit about the principle of the thing (go team red/blue!), I think that option b.) is eventually going to be the solution.

    Thomas Jefferson would probably not disagree, too much.

  • MNG||

    "parliamentary games are political issues and shouldn't have anything to do with the courts"

    Good point, though I could maybe imagine some parlimentary sheenanigans which might warrant a court getting involved, for the most part these things stink and the perps pay some price for it. Just look at this case: Pelosi is minority leader now, not Speaker, for a reason..

  • db||

    Curious...can we think of circumstances under which parliamentary shenanigans could be classified as high crimes and/or misdemeanors?

  • anon||

    bi-curious?

  • MNG||

    I dunno about that, what I was thinking of was the other day we had a discussion here about Obama's recess appointment and many argued that since the Constitution says essentially "The Congress can make its own internal rules" they can make pretty much any internal rule they want. I argued that there had to be some limits imposed by the ordinary limits of language to that which a court could justly interevene on, for example if Congress declared itself to be "in session" even though they all went on a six month vacation to the Mustang ranch in Reno...

  • anon||

    "The Congress can make its own internal rules" they can make pretty much any internal rule they want. I argued that there had to be some limits...

    By your logic, if they can regulate, they can regulate anything they want with no limits.

  • Team Blue||

    It's a basic human right to regulate anything we want, and "limits" is dog-whistle code for "I hate black people".

  • West Texas||

    Pelosi is minority leader now for a reason.

    Exactly. And if the American people have any kind of a memory at all, this time they'll clear out the rest of the senate that was safe last time and the presidency, too. We get the government we vote for.

    Lots of reasons why I think Obamacare should be challenged in the courts, but the despicable legislative process that birthed it isn't one. Judging that is a duty that belongs to the voters.

  • CrackertyAssCracker||

    The fact that it actually originated in the Senate could be yet another argument that it isn't a tax though, couldn't it?

  • MNG||

    Article about the lesser hyped Obamacare case regarding Medicaid changes:

    "It is one thing to suggest—as litigants in many past Spending Clause cases have—that Congress may not use the lure of its valuable funding to “coerce” the States to spend their own funds outside the federal program, or regulate their own citizens, in a way that Congress could not insist upon directly...

    Here, by contrast, the thing the States are allegedly being “coerced” to do is to spend federal dollars to benefit the States’ own citizens in the manner that Congress has chosen. It’s all carrots, and no stick. What the States’ argument thus amounts to is, in effect, a claim that each State should be able to pick and choose among the terms on which federal dollars are to be expended."

    http://balkin.blogspot.com/201.....lenge.html

  • Ovaunda||

    Stick to failing to cite your stupid indefensible opinion then calling others trolls and running away.

  • ||

    Ok. Will be sure to.

  • ||

    It's a little too obvious that you're lying.

  • Ovaunda||

    It's a little too obvious that you're lying.

    Than you're not as smart as you like to pretend.

  • anon||

    Maybe not, but that doesn't change the fact that you're Mary Stack.

    Think about it Mary; normal people don't get indignant about being called someone when they aren't that person.

  • Ovaunda||

    Maybe not, but that doesn't change the fact that you're Mary Stack.

    Except I'm not.

  • Ovaunda||

    Think about it Mary; normal people don't get indignant about being called someone when they aren't that person

    By the way, that could be the dumbest thing ever committed to text.

    People don't get indignant when they're accused of being other people?

    And you're so fucking stupid that actually makes sense to you?

  • Ovaunda||

    I am not Mary Stack. But I know who Mary Stack is and know enough to deny it.

    And it is just a coincidence that this troll name appeared on the day after Mary Stack was outed as rather and white Indian.

    It is not so much that I am stupid, I clearly am, it is that I think everyone else is as stupid as I am.

  • Ovaunda||

    And it is just a coincidence that this troll name appeared on the day after Mary Stack was outed as rather and white Indian.

    Except it didn't.

    Or did you miss that?

  • Ovaunda||

    You've posted about 15 times adamantly denying that you're Mary Stack

    Lie.

    Normal people don't care enough to do that kind of obsessive compulsive shit,

    People don't get indignant when they're accused of being other people?

    And you're so fucking stupid that actually makes sense to you?

  • Ovaunda||

    Normal people don't care enough to do that kind of obsessive compulsive shit,

    Strangely, YOU have been the one OCD'ing about it...

  • anon||

    Yet I'm not the one replying twice to every post.

    Good one, Mary.

  • X||

    I'm setting the ovaunda on Mary Stack at 312lbs.

    I'll take $50 on the over.

  • anon||

    I'll do 50 under, just cause I know she weighs about 150 lbs.

  • Dept O||

    Man, I've never seen someone get so agitated about being called someone they're not... except when they're actually outed as that person.

    Now I think I understand how Rumpelstiltskin must have felt.

  • Rich||

    The procedural trickery used by the Democratic Congress makes the law illicit.

    The "debates" leading up to the passage were truly outrageous.

  • MNG||

    Meh, I think all debates in the Congress are meaningless now days, and perhaps always were. Do you think anyone has actually been swayed to change a vote based on any debate lately?

    The only thing the floor debates are good for is producing an occasional gaffe.

  • Holiday packages||

    From your blog, I see that, and analyze some thing I'd like. Thanks.

  • ||

    Anon-Bot, is that you?

  • db||

    I AM BENDER. PLEASE INSERT GIRDER.

  • ||

    Scrapping Obamacare Should be a Constitutional No Brainer for ALL Justices

    There I fixed it for you....

  • MNG||

    Does anyone else have the snorgtee girl modeling the "if zombies attack" tee shirt to the right? If so, what is that face she is making supposed to represent?

  • Could you please stop spamming||

    thanks.

  • ||

    I am not sure anyone, including the photographer, ever noticed her face before.

  • MNG||

    OK, that's a good one

  • db||

    Now I'm sad...I turned off flash so all I get is the static picture ads for Elizabeth Warren. Decidedly less interesting than snorg tees.

  • ||

    I'm also getting a very nice ad for Jennifer Love Hewitt's new show.

    She's still got it. Oh my, yes she does.

  • Jennifer Love Hugetits||

    Thank you,RC!

  • Browser||

    "But the problem with Obamacare is not that it represents the illicit wishes of a majority — it’s that it doesn’t represent majority wishes at all. According to recent polls, two-thirds of Americans want the individual mandate repealed."

    By this logic, why not repeal the income tax? Surely it is not supported by a majority. Oh, wait a majority don't pay any income tax.

    Never mind

  • Concerned Citizen||

    Whenever I suggest ending the income tax, even to conservatives, the first thing they spout is "how will the gov't be funded?" Never once do they consider that it's their money to begin with, and how long this country got along without an income tax. Fucking sheep, taught to obey by the public schools.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    Whenever I suggest ending the income tax, even to conservatives, the first thing they spout is "how will the gov't be funded?" Never once do they consider that it's their money to begin with, and how long this country got along without an income tax.

    Through tariffs, primarily, along with a massive rampback of the bureaucracy.

  • Concerned Citizen||

    Believe it or not, they respond to that with "Somalia!"

  • ||

    Any time you want to consider eliminating functions from the central government, the default answer is Somalia. The cons and libs have both found something to agree on in this regard. Somalia is libertarian Utopia, because libertarians are in favor of unfettered lawlessness and utter chaos. Don't like the income tax? Move to Somalia! Don't like the Department of Education? Move to Somalia! Don't like farm subsidies? Move to Somalia! Don't like corporate welfare? Move to Somalia!

  • Cruiser||

    Or rather, in 2009 the majority of households did not have net federal income tax liability.

    Estimates by the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center project that for tax year 2011, 46.4 percent of households won’t have any income tax liability. However, of this number, 28.3 percent will pay payroll taxes, the center projects. Of the remaining 18.1 percent with neither income nor payroll tax liability, 10.3 percent are elderly and 6.9 percent are not elderly but have incomes lower than $20,000. In other words, all but a tiny sliver of Americans without either income tax or payroll tax liability are either elderly or poor.

    Some families who pay no federal income tax may be liable for state income taxes (and local property taxes, sales taxes and the like).

    http://www.politifact.com/trut.....eholds-pa/

  • ||

    Riggs put up yesterday's morning links, complete with 500+ comments. The dope he smoked last night must have been hydroponic.

  • ||

    Or it was an immediate DDoS attack.

  • ||

    Maybe so. So is at it again on the morning threads. Reason needs to call their lawyers.

  • Incredulous||

    Fuck "stare decisis" and"judicial modesty."

    These two principles are themselves unconstitutional. If a prior judicial decision violates the Constitution, it is the Court's fundamental duty to reverse it. If a law violates the Constitution, it is the Court's fundamental duty to strike it down.

    If that results in a wholesale reversal of expanding government tyranny, that would be absolutely wonderful.

    As for what the majority wants, the Court shouldn't give a fuck and just uphold the Constitution.

  • Concerned Citizen||

    But then the Supremes wouldn't get invited to the best parties.

  • Concerned Citizen||

    And another thing about your point - the Constitution was adopted before the Bar Association took over the courts. All lawyers are lodge brothers of the Bar, and have to be nice to each other, lest they be disbarred. Sickening.

  • shrike||

    Are you thinking what we're thinking?

  • Jerryskids||

    Ask a lawyer to come up with 3 strong legal arguments on Obamacare. I am sure he could cite precedents and analogous cases to make good arguments. Doesn't matter if you wanted 3 reasons for or against - a good lawyer can argue either way.

    My point is that this isn't an open and shut case, this case won't - and can't - be decided by strict legal reasoning. There are so many precedents and rationales for both sides that they can do whatever the hell they want and find reasons later.

    This is shown by the fact that many analyses start with the assumption that the Democrat 4 will vote to uphold. No discussion of legal reasoning needed. The other 5 have to show their work, tell us how they arrived at their decision.

    But it doesn't matter - they can justify any decision they make. Might as well spin a wheel to mete out justice.

  • Aunty Entity||

    You think I don't know the law? Wasn't it me who wrote it?

  • anon||

    Wow, and I thought I was banned for a moment.

  • ||

    I think it's just that one thread that went screwy?

    Maybe it means they're upgrading something.

    Think registration. Act local.

  • Tony||

    You mean the same "trickery" that passed the Bush tax cuts? Should those be declared unconstitutional?

  • Brother Grimm||

    Poor spoof. The real Tony likes to use a lot of big words to make it look like he's smarter than he is. Think pseudo-intellectual who's always wrong and you'll do better.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    The Gist of Tony is in the post, though.

  • soonerliberty||

    Yes, and add the Patriot Act to the fold.

  • Liberal Griefer||

    We need the Patriot Act in order to punish right-wing hate groups like Ron Paul supporters!!! Why do you hate children???????????

  • ||

    I'm not impressed with this one. As long as the vote was valid, the law was passed. No way does SCOTUS get into the political maneuvering before the vote.

  • ||

    Point of pedantry: Federalist 78 didn't "explicitly [give] courts the authority to overturn laws". The Federalist Papers are merely commentary, and while they are widely accepted as the definitive explanation of the framers' intentions they have no force of law. Federalist 78 merely stated that it is the duty of the Court "to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void." The source of its power to do so can only be the Constitution itself. And that foundation is a little shaky (Marbury v. Madison notwithstanding).

  • RandomJerk||

    You beat me to it, I saw the same thing. The Federalist Papers don't give any authority to anyone, they are not laws.

    The rest of article doesn't need the Federalist Papers to make the point the author is trying to make anyway.

  • Brian||

    The intrade probability of a unconstitutional ruling for the individual mandate before the end of 2012 just jumped today from the low 40's to 59.9%. That's encouraging.

  • ||

    I think that it's funny to see so many people worried about government tyranny, when they're much more likely to be destroyed by health care costs in their lifetime. I see much griping from both Libertarians and Conservatives regarding Obamacare...most of which occurs in a kind of echo chamber with no challenge from the perspective of common sense. Where is the alternate viable solution which will stop the incredible rise in health care cost? Look in the mirror and ask yourself honestly: if you, or someone you love, landed in the ER with a dire health issue and no insurance, and the 'tyrranical' government reversed the requirement that a person in dire need must be treated upon admission to the ER, would your ideology be a comfort to you when you (or that special someone) were turned away and were 'free' to die in the street instead of receiving medical treatment?

  • ||

    The alternative is to remove the marriage of employment and insurance (this scenario was a direct result of bad gov't policy). Allow consumers to shop for coverage personally and price shop services. Noone knows what medical procedures costs because they don't care if they don't think they are paying for it.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement