In oral argument today in the Supreme Court regarding the individual mandate in the Affordable Care Act, Justice Anthony Kennedy–almost certainly the swing vote here–said the following to the Solicitor General (page 30 of the transcript, which, along with the audio, can be found here):
JUSTICE KENNEDY: But the reason, the reason this is concerning, is because it requires the individual to do an affirmative act. In the law of torts our tradition, our law, has been that you don’t have the duty to rescue someone if that person is in danger. The blind man is walking in front of a car and you do not have a duty to stop him absent some relation between you. And there is some severe moral criticisms of that rule, but that’s generally the rule.
And here the government is saying that the Federal Government has a duty to tell the individual citizen that it must act, and that is different from what we have in previous cases and that changes the relationship of the Federal Government to the individual in the very fundamental way.
If Justice Kennedy thinks this law changes the relationship between the federal government and individual citizens in a “very fundamental way,” how can he vote to uphold making that change by mere statute? The fundamental relationship between government and citizen can only be changed by changing the fundamental law that governs that relationship, i.e., the United States Constitution.
While I think Justice Kennedy's thinking not necessarily mean, rule used is problematic. It makes of one a free but "guilty bystander" to a "grave and gathering" threat. And waving away the problematic nature by noting, "it is the rule" builds little confidence. n nI do hope the law is overturned because it is a completely partisan piece of legislation, despite the IM being a conservative think-tank development. n nIf this is overturned along partisan lines, immediate good will still be accomplished but what remains are the problems that led to the possibility of ObamaCare. n nCapretta, at National Interest, has co-authored a piece (my apology to other author whose name I can't recall) that explains why serious attempts at reform must follow defeat of ObamaCare.
I do business with a shoe repairman who lives in an affluent, Republican-leaning, suburb. He employs two apprentices. He and they work 6 days a week and they are all, good, productive, hard-working citizens. n nThe cost of health care for his family (at discount through his Chamber of Commerce) is nearly equal to his mortgage payment. He was hoping for single payer. n nI don't think his predicament is unusual.
No, it's not unusual, and here's why. It's no coincidence that the sector of the economy that's most heavily regulated by the government is also the least efficient and the most expensive for consumers. Government meddling over the past half-century is mainly responsible for this state of affairs. The Obamacare solution? More regulation! How do you think that's going to work out? n nSo things are bad enough as they stand. But single-payer would maximize the expense and inefficiency of American healthcare by entrusting the entire system to those wonderful folks who gave us the US Postal Service, Amtrack and Solyndra.
The problem with trying to divine where Kennedy is at from his questions is that he ended the day by thinking aloud in his questions to Michael Carvin about whether in fact health care is a unique market by reason of everyone's eventual entry into it, as the government on it. n nI agree with Charles Krauhammer's take that after the first hour it looked as if the plaintiffs could count on Kennedy, but after the second hour not so much. n n I think Kennedy is unsettled about the issue of the mandates.
TG (respectfully, of course) can’t prove that had there been no government interference w/health care market, it would now be affordable. Affordable, by the way, can be no more than 30% of average mortgage, if you expect a person to meet other needs, be able to invest/save for retirement and help support his parents should they need it. n nMy shoe repairman disagrees with Tom (and me). He’s an informed small business man. I try to contribute to his livelihood and that of his apprentices. I think small and local preferable to large and universal. n nThe US postal service delivers the mail quite well it's just beyond reasonably priced. Medicare is beloved by Seniors because it has helped extend their lives. They know that and they know it's costly too. How they're going to be induced to accept higher costs or shorter lives I can't say.