POV: How Not To Fight Against Socialized Medicine
by Ayn Rand | 1963
50 Years Down the Road of Socialized Medicine
by Rituparna Basu | July 30, 2015
Is Obamacare Here to Stay?
by Don Watkins | August 11, 2014
What’s missing from the Obamacare debates
by Tom Bowden | March 11, 2014
Obamacare creates a new class of free riders
by Rituparna Basu | January 23, 2014
Obamacare Is Suffocating An Already Sick Health Insurance Patient
by Rituparna Basu | January 22, 2014
The Broken State of American Health Insurance Prior to the Affordable Care Act: A Market Rife with Government Distortion
by Rituparna Basu | January 21, 2014
Obamacare is Really, Really Bad for You, Especially If You're Young
by Rituparna Basu | August 21, 2013
How Obamacare Law Fleeces the Young
by Rituparna Basu | April 26, 2013
It’s time to unplug Medicare’s third rail
by Rituparna Basu | November 26, 2012
I’ll Buy My Own Contraception, Thanks
by Rituparna Basu | November 13, 2012
Will FDA choke off promising adult stem cell research?
by Keith Lockitch | August 10, 2012
How Important Is the Obamacare Litigation?
by Tom Bowden | August 12, 2011
The Road to Socialized Medicine Is Paved With Pre-existing Conditions (Part 3)
by Yaron Brook | April 06, 2011
The Road to Socialized Medicine Is Paved with Pre-existing Conditions (Part 2)
by Yaron Brook | March 10, 2011
The Road to Socialized Medicine Is Paved with Pre-existing Conditions
by Yaron Brook | February 10, 2011
The Avastin Travesty
by Tom Bowden | December 12, 2010
You Are Not Your Neighbor's Health Care Provider
by Yaron Brook | May 11, 2010
What About Private Health Emergencies?
by Tom Bowden | April 08, 2010
The Right Vision Of Health Care
by Yaron Brook | January 08, 2008
Be Healthy or Else!
by Yaron Brook | October 22, 2007
No Right to “Free” Health Care
by Onkar Ghate | June 11, 2007
Prescription Drug Benefits Violate the Rights of Drug Companies
by Onkar Ghate | July 24, 2002
Health Care Is Not a Right
by Leonard Peikoff | December 11, 1993
Medicine: The Death of a Profession
by Leonard Peikoff | 1989


Government And Business in Voice for Reason
Government & BusinessHealth Care

How Important Is the Obamacare Litigation?

by Tom Bowden | August 12, 2011 | Daily Caller

What’s at stake in the Obamacare litigation? Much more, we are being told, than the viability of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act itself. What hangs in the balance, conservatives proclaim, is nothing less than the future of constitutionally limited government in America.

Back in January, Judge Roger Vinson held that Congress exceeded its constitutional authority by forcing almost everyone in America to buy health insurance (the so-called individual mandate). Now the U.S. Court of Appeals in Atlanta has upheld that aspect of Judge Vinson’s decision, while rejecting his conclusion that the entire statute is invalid.

According to a Wall Street Journal editorial, Vinson’s decision was a “constitutional moment” that may signal “a return to the government of limited and enumerated powers that the framers envisioned.” And columnist George Will says this case could rescue “Madison’s constitutional architecture for limited government.”

Really? Let’s suppose that when the case finally reaches the Supreme Court, the mandate is struck down, and the statute along with it. What larger meaning would such an outcome have, beyond the obvious importance of deciding Obamacare’s fate? Unfortunately, very little impact can be expected from the kind of desperate, last-gasp strategy that spawned the main issue in this litigation.

The Supreme Court will almost certainly be deciding whether the Commerce Clause — which allows Congress to “regulate commerce . . . among the several states” — authorized enactment of the individual mandate. Obamacare’s defenders can point to a line of Supreme Court decisions stretching back more than a century, construing that clause to grant Congress a blank check on power, authorizing control of literally every aspect of the economy, from agricultural equipment to zirconium jewelry.

This orthodoxy has been instrumental in allowing health insurance to become one of America’s most government-dominated industries, replete with tax-funded schemes to insure the elderly and poor (Medicare and Medicaid), “coverage mandates” requiring exotic benefits like acupuncture and in vitro fertilization, price controls on insurance premiums, tax laws that channel health insurance through one’s employer, and hundreds of similar controls.

What about the “government of limited and enumerated powers that the framers envisioned”? Regrettably, it’s nowhere in sight. Our Founding Fathers held that government has but one purpose: to protect individual rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. In that context, they designed the Commerce Clause as a powerful check on states’ ability to interfere with free trade, using the term “regulate” to mean: make uniform or regular. If, say, New York were tempted to erect a tariff barrier on imports from New Jersey, the federal government’s exclusive power over interstate commerce would soon squelch the scheme.

The Commerce Clause was never intended to grant Congress carte blanche to rule the economy. Under the Founders’ Constitution, a person’s decision whether to buy health insurance would be treated as an entirely private matter in which government has no say (except to redress breach of contract or fraud). Indeed, the entire Rube Goldberg apparatus of laws, regulations, and entitlements by which Uncle Sam and his state-level minions control American health care would be thrown out as unconstitutional violations of property rights and liberty of contract.

About The Author

Tom Bowden

Analyst and Outreach Liaison, Ayn Rand Institute