"The most compelling sentences in the Obama administrationÂ’s brief defending the constitutionality of the health-care law come early on.
“As a class,” the brief advises on Page 7,
“the uninsured consumed $116 billion of health-care services in 2008.”
On the next page, the brief drives the point home:
“In 2008, people without insurance did not pay for 63 percent of their health-care costs.”
Those figures amount to a powerful refutation of the argument that the individual mandate — the requirement that individuals obtain insurance or pay a penalty —
exceeds the governmentÂ’s authority to regulate interstate commerce. To me,
$116 billion seems like a whole lot of commerce.
But letÂ’s leave the Supreme Court justices to hack their way through the underbrush of the Commerce Clause.
Because those numbers are not only relevant to Commerce Clause jurisprudence, they illuminate the fundamental irrationality of public opposition to the individual mandate.
The mandate is by far the most unpopular feature of a law on which Americans are otherwise evenly divided.
Yet
this is a provision that the overwhelming majority — those
with insurance — should support, for the simple reason that
these people currently end up footing the bill for much of that $116 billion.
As the governmentÂ’s brief notes,
“Congress found that this cost-shifting increases the average premium for insured families by more than $1,000 per year.”