Yes, I’m disappointed by today’s ObamaCare ruling by the Supreme Court. (You can find my further remarks over at The Objective Standard blog.) I am not terribly surprised by the ruling; John Roberts was merely following today’s common conservative legal theory to the effect that the Supreme Court should do whatever backflips are necessary to jam congressional legislation into the framework of the Constitution. (I’ll have more to say about this later.)
Here, I wanted to first point out that this is hardly the end of the fight, and second thank those Coloradans who have played such an important part in the fight to establish liberty in healthy care.
This is not the time for defeatism, for disillusionment, for pessimism, or for sulking. This is the time to stoke one’s motivation and help rally the lovers of liberty to the cause of freedom in medicine.
I think the Supreme Court erred in its judgment today. But the Supreme Court defines the limits of Congressional action, not its ideal state. Just because the Court allows it, doesn’t mean Congress must enact it.
Now the battle must move to the cultural arena—where it has always been fought at the most fundamental level. In a way, today’s ruling brings a certain clarity to the issue, for who can deny that we face a basic choice between liberty in medicine and government-controlled medicine? Either the individual is in control of his own life, his own health, his own choices, his own body, or the government is.
The fight to bring about liberty and free markets in medicine is just beginning.
And the side of liberty already has tremendous momentum, thanks in large part to the work of scholars and activists here in Colorado. I want to take this opportunity to thank some of them and link to some of their work.
Dave Kopel and Rob Natelson
Legal scholars Kopel (shown in the photo) and Natelson did tremendous work explaining the limits of the “necessary and proper clause.” Notably, the Supreme Court ruled that ObamaCare is not permissible under that clause (but rather under Congress’s taxing authority).
Kopel has also written extensively about the implications of ObamaCare, as in an article for the Volokh Conspiracy.
Earlier this year I interviewed Kopel about the mandate.
Radiologist Paul Hsieh cofounded Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine. He coauthored an article chronicling the history of government intervention in medicine, and he continually writes blog posts and articles on health policy.
Hsieh wrote an article for today’s PJ Media in which he argues:
Ultimately, the political fight against ObamaCare must be part of a broader fight for limited government that respects our freedoms. The proper function of government is to protect individual rights, such as our rights to free speech, property, and contract. Only those who initiate physical force or fraud can violate our rights. A properly limited government protects us from criminals who steal, murder, etc., as well as from foreign aggressors. But it should otherwise leave honest people alone to live peacefully, not deprive us of our freedoms in the name of “universal health care.”
Vecchio, another medical doctor, has delivered numerous talks on health policy. She recorded a multi-part video commentary on ObamaCare.
Gorman, an economist with the Independence Institute, has written about health policy for many years. I have benefited enormously from her detailed and technical understanding of health laws and their implications.
Schwartz writes for the Institute’s Patient Power Now blog. He keeps abreast of the latest news related to health care, and he shares this news with the wider community.
Thanks to the amazing work of these scholars, doctors, and activists—and many other Coloradans who have made the case for liberty in medicine—much of the public is aware of the dangers posed by ObamaCare and open to serious discussions about replacing today’s government-controlled health care with a free market.
That is the cause for which we must continue to fight.