Viewpoints: For starters, Justice Scalia, broccoli isn't health insurance

The Sacramento Bee ^ | March 31, 2012 | by Paul Krugman

[sten]

last I checked, food has a larger daily impact on a persons health then a band-aid

I’m still waiting for the commies to start pushing food as a ‘basic right’ and force all restaurants to stop charging. I guess it’d be too obvious that their commie beliefs are unsustainable

[pieceofthepuzzle]

Yes, he clearly is an idiot, and apparently too much of an ideologue to even see the hypocrisy in his argument about partisanship on the court.

I guess a related question is, why would anyone spend the money for Princeton tuition if Krugman exemplifies the poor quality of faculty there?

[E. Pluribus Unum]

...and health insurance ain’t in the Constitution.

[NRG1973]

For starters, Justice Scalia, broccoli isn't health insurance

Then why did mom tell me I'd be healthier if I ate all my broccoli?

[driftless2]

I don’t necessarily agree with your conclusions, but you did bring up an interesting problem: is health care, or health insurance, too expensive for the average American? I don’t know, but it would be interesting to see how much it cost if current insurance policies were restricted to catastrophic cases and most people paid out of pocket for lesser problems. The fly in the ointment is that nowhere in the constitution does it state that the government must provide any of the necessities. Health care is of great importance, but not any more important than food, clothing, and shelter. If the government can force a person to buy health insurance, they can pretty much force them to buy anything it thinks necessary.

[G Larry]

Hey Paul!
You have NEVER “stood above politics”, because you have no values to defend.

Broccoli is simply a metaphor to make the point that if this Federal mandate stands, then the government can impose ANYTHING.

An insurance card is not the same as “healthcare”.
In fact Obamacare is a mechanism to LIMIT ACCESS TO TESTING AND TREATMENT.

[almcbean]

For starters, Mr. Krugman, light bulbs are not health insurance either, but our government dictated which ones we could buy.

[almcbean]

For starters, Mr. Krugman, light bulbs are not health insurance either, but our government dictated which ones we could buy.

[KarlInOhio]

Why? When people choose not to buy broccoli, they don't make broccoli unavailable to those who want it

Actually, if a lot of people decide not to buy broccoli then fewer farmers will plant it, importers will import it off season and fewer stores will stock it. By not buying it, I might make it more expensive for others to buy and thus price other buyers out of the market depending on how elastic the supply is and what quantity efficiencies are no longer available. For example, compare the price and availability of iceberg lettuce vs. arugula.

Also, Krugman, the real point is that neither broccoli nor health insurance is a power given to Congress in article I, section 8 of the Constitution no matter how important you think one or the other is.

[StAnDeliver]

Kruggie! Your wife still writing your columns?

"When people choose not to buy broccoli, they don't make broccoli unavailable to those who want it."

Actually, they do. If demand is so inconsequential for broccoli, the grocer will stop carrying it.

The 24 million uninsured are not demanding insurance, despite insurance companies efforts to attract their business. The 24 million uninsured are demanding care that the rest of us pay for.

[arthurus]

The left’s mania for “insurance” is the belief that NOTHING can be done equitably or efficiently that isn’t done collectively according to some overall Plan.

[blueunicorn6]

Krugman figured out that broccoli isn’t health insurance? You need to read his whole statement.

“Broccoli isn’t health insurance.....it’s car insurance, and I have a celery deductible. Who wants to see my impression of toast?”

[arthurus]

If health insurance were actually insurance, what we call "catastrophic coverage" only, then medical costs would be a small fraction of what they are now because our medical dollars would go to 100% to medical treatment rather than a very large % to government bureaucrats and private bureaucrats who have to live better than the average and must waste a large % of the % that they suck out of consumers' pockets.

Health Insurance as exists today is not insurance at all. It is a prepayment plan for medical treatment and a welfare plan to maintain government and private organizations and parasites superfluous employees.

[Kenny]

That comparison horrified health care experts all across America because health insurance is nothing like broccoli.

It just occurred to me that Alinsky's rules are being used not be a few but by the majority on the left. First government, hand-picked scholars, and pundits ridicule the target then the msm perpetuates it non-stop.

“Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” - Saul Alinsky, Rules for Radicals

It's past time for us to start fighting back. We need to research everyone who is using ridicule to shut out their enemy. Then we need to humble them publicly as they've done to so many others.

Start with Paul Krugman. Does his expertise on the economy extend to law? Does he even understand the question before the Court, that it's not about the economy but our basic liberty? Yes, he and the others know but they're trying to latch onto the broccoli piece to (1) ridicule Scalia and (2) turn Obamacare into an economic argument. They can't win on the freedom argument and they know it.

I am so sick of this but people will never get it if we just generalize about Alinsky's rules, we need to fight fire with fire.

[Hostage]

Yes and having a gun at home where there are children risks lives and is a public health concern.

Therefore, guns need to be controlled as a health concern. (This actually was proposed by the Leftist AMA)

There is no end to this ................

[Anima Mundi]

I thought Breyer said yes, it meant government could compel citizens to buy anything it deemed necessary for the greater good?

[carmody]

Food is no different than medicine because food changes your body. Broccoli and beef and chicken and wine and twinkies all change your body chemistry. Therefore, you could make the case that food is no different than pharmaceuticals.

Take the pill? Eat your broccoli? What’s the difference? Not much. The government could very well declare Twinkies as dangerous as a cigarette. And demand that we pre-approve our grocery lists. Although for some reason they are trying to legalize marijuana. So it’s all very confusing.

[PrincessB]

And anything applies to things outside of health care. I have an 11 year old Ford Focus. I love my car. It runs really well and still gets decent gas mileage. I want to drive it till it dies and I plan to replace it with a newer...Ford Focus. I’d love to have a Fiesta diesel but they aren’t available in the states (96 mpg on the highway!)

At some point my car could be forced of the road because it doesn’t meet “today’s” standards. After some byzantine formula looking at my income, housing, quotas, and all sorts of other stuff, the usual way to figure benefits, I might get the choice of a Chevy Volt and the bus.

It seems a little tin foil hat, but I never imagined a world where I couldn’t decide whether I could pay out of pocket or had to use insurance to get a service. The car insurance argument is moot, since many small accidents are settled out of pocket to keep the insurance companies out of it.

[Cringing Negativism Network]

Who gets to decide, if it’s not the same?... Obama?

Rick Santorum? (just for any liberals reading) Sarah Palin?
Better idea, is don’t go there.

At all. Ever. For anything.

[Hawthorn]

>> if a lot of people decide not to buy broccoli then fewer farmers will plant it <<

Correct. But IMO the statement really misses a crucially important point:

If somebody doesn't eat broccoli and other green vegetables, then his HEALTH (not necessarily his health insurance) is likely to suffer. And when anybody's health suffers, the marginal effect is to make health costs go up for everybody.

So to keep health costs low, the "progressive" mindset presumably holds that the federal government has a rational basis to require that everybody engage in the specific type of interstate commerce which deals with green vegetables.

In other words, the controversy keeps boiling down to the question,

Does the federal government have the power to force people to engage in a specific kind of interstate commerce (buying green vegetables) in order to "regulate" another kind of interstate commerce (health services and/or health insurance).

To paraphrase an infamous former POTUS:

It all depends on what the meaning of "regulate" is.

In other words, is it really "regulation" of one sort of interstate commerce (health services) when the feds require somebody de novo to engage in another sort of interstate commerce (health insurance and/or vegetables). Of course not!