The Agenda

The Individual Mandate as Sleight-of-Hand

The individual mandate is a rhetorical device. To pay for a new health entitlement, we need to impose a tax. But to mask the cost of the new health entitlement, the president and his allies chose a more complex structure. That’s really all there is to it. The federal government can very easily offer everyone health insurance, and it can offer a choice of private insurance providers through an exchange. This is roughly what happens in a number of advanced market democracies. Yet if the individual mandate is found unconstitutional, the federal government will have to do this through a more transparent and coherent vehicle.

Richard Epstein has more on this subject here at NRO:

So the argument now has to be that the only way to fund this is out of general revenues, not out of selective charges against those who do not wish to join in the system. As a matter of political theory, there is no clear rule that says if X group is entitled to the subsidy, we can somehow identify the Y group who is duty bound to pay it. So as a normative matter, it is hard to explain why the individual mandate has to be the flip side of the subsidy when general taxes are still available.

And who believes that taxpayers, many of them stretched to the limit by the need to pay down debt, will favor the creation of an expensive new health entitlement when there are other options, e.g., channeling the employer tax exclusion towards a tax credit for the purchase of catastrophic coverage?

There are some writers, including Matt Miller of the Washington Post, who insist that the individual mandate is essential to the preservation of a private insurance system. But one wonders if a system centered around an individual mandate is any more private than a system in which public dollars are used to purchase insurance from various private providers. As I understand it, food stamps haven’t destroyed the private marketplace for foodstuffs. And it’s not obvious that a system in which the poor are subject to a “food mandate” that they’d meet with the aid of public subsidies would be any more private.

(It’s fun to think through the structure of this “food mandate.” All households would have to purchase at least $5,000 worth of food every year, with various lobbies and pressure groups insisting that $3,000 be devoted to, say, dairy or high-fructose corn syrup. Affluent “young invincibles” who would normally live on a meager diet of root vegetables would thus cross-subsidize more enthusiastic consumers of processed foods. The federal government would close the gap for low-income households. Supermarkets would come out as the big winners, I assume.)

I can’t for the life of me figure out the difference, except that one is clearer about the actual role of government.

Reihan Salam — Reihan Salam is executive editor of National Review and a National Review Institute policy fellow.

Most Popular


Two Minnesota Republican Candidates Assaulted

Two Republican candidates for state office in Minnesota have been physically assaulted in recent days, leading prominent Republican lawmakers to caution their Democratic colleagues against employing inflammatory rhetoric. Republican state representative Sarah Anderson was punched in the arm last week after ... Read More
PC Culture

Warren Is a Fraud

Senator Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.) has been telling a story for years. It’s a deeply romantic story about her parents and their young love, fraught with the familial bigotry of an earlier time. Here’s how she told it this week in a video she released in preparation for her 2020 run: My daddy always said he ... Read More

The State of the Race for the House

Way back in January, I went through the then-34 seats where a Republican incumbent was retiring and concluded that most were in deeply red districts and not likely to flip to Democrats. Pollsters and media organizations are less inclined to conduct surveys of House races, both because there’s less public ... Read More