After countless hours crafting the universal health care law in Massachusetts as an adviser to Governor Mitt Romney and then on the national level for the Obama administration, MIT economics professor Jonathan Gruber couldn’t believe that any judge would seriously entertain arguments against the central plank of both plans.
“I remember a few meetings where someone raised the question of a constitutional challenge,” he said of his time in Washington helping to create the Affordable Care Act, with its requirement that people have health insurance or pay a penalty. “Everyone would say that expert lawyers had been consulted, and that there was no issue.”
Comments
Gruber: So, OK, he's as lousy at his understanding of the Constitution as he is at predicting economic outcomes (as are all economists). That's news!
"Everyone would say that expert lawyers had been consulted, and that there was no issue." >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The thing about "experts" is that they wouldn't get to have that reputation unless they were impressive about their knowledge of things conventionally believed. Think for yourself, work out something that is new and not believed and you will no longer be an "expert". The Supreme Court is supposed to be experienced enough and independent to be influenced more by law, precedent, and the overall good of the people than by convention. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "The [government] can require you to do all kinds of things. It wasn't a question of can we use a mandate; it was whether we should." >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's exactly why people need to be vigilent. The government (or any controlling authority) has an inherent tendency to control as much as it can, and to do so by coercion. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I support the Supreme Court's decision. It was my belief that the Individual Manadate should have been struck down and the rest of the act upheld. Then the logical next step would have been for congress to convert the Individual Mandage into Single Payer. My guess is that when it became clear that the court was going to throw out the whole law Chief Justice Roberts decided that that was an unacceptable result. So, thinking that a much better result was an unconstitutional Individual Mandate along with the rest of the act rather than nothing of the act, he switched sides. I agree.
Why do I care what these guys think of the constitutional reach of the commerce clause? The federal government can't force a person to buy something from a private company - the state government can, it's as simple as that. I was surprised that so many purported "experts" were so dismissive of the constitutional challenges - I always thought it was a problem. Chief Justice John Roberts found a way to stop the federal overreaching and maintain the integrity of his Court. Good for him, I guess.
What this article proves is that even smart economists don't have an understanding of constitutional law. That's why we shouldn't turn over policy decisions to liberal technocrats like Prof. Gruber.
Kind of buried the lede again, didn't you? Two thirds of the way down the page you slipped in that this guy was an aide to Ted Kennedy. Hardly the disinterested, unconflicted technocrat that you sought to portray.
I also preferred a single payer system, but anyone who thinks that throwing out the Individual Mandate will result in adoption of a single payer system is delusional. If the individual mandate is thrown out health care reform will be considered political poison and nothing will happen for decades.
Um, the federal government can force a person to buy something from a private company and Chief Justice Roberts found a way for the Federal government to do so. The individual mandate passed. The medicaid portion can't be forced.