Up until now, I hadn’t considered to write an article on healthcare reform simply because of the divisiveness and the complexity of the issue. But after listening to the supreme court session and the arguments made on both sides, I can’t help but comment on one popular argument that continuously resurfaces. Yes, it’s the infamous “broccoli argument”.
In short, the argument states that if government were given the power to force individuals to purchase health insurance, a precedent will be created that allows for the government to force individuals to purchase other material goods such as broccoli. This is a slippery slope and, as Justice Anthony Kennedy proclaimed during the hearing, “Here the government is saying that the federal government has a duty to tell the individual citizen that it must act, and that is different from what we have in previous cases, and that changes the relationship of the federal government to the individual in a very fundamental way.”
But does it really change the relationship between the government and the individual? It is already mandatory in many states to vaccinate one’s child. If the individual does not act, the child will not be allowed to attend public school. During certain periods in American history, it has also been mandatory for an individual to enroll in the military or face prison time.
And will the mandate lead to a slippery slope in which we all will be forced to buy broccoli? No, thanks to another precedent set by McCulloch v. Maryland that cites the “Necessary and Proper” clause of the constitution. In short, congress has the power to make laws that are not expressly provided by the constitution as long these laws are a necessary and proper means of achieving a major, legitimate public end. The major, legitimate public end in this case is universal healthcare and the mandate is a necessary and proper solution to guaranteeing and subsidizing the healthcare coverage of the sick while allowing for private insurance companies to still be profitable. Otherwise, universal healthcare is only viable through a vast expansion of Medicaid and Medicare. This “government takeover of healthcare” is the reason why the mandate, as ironic as it may seem now, actually originated as a conservative idea.
On the other hand, it is difficult to think of any public end that would deem mandatory broccoli purchases as “necessary and proper”. Simply purchasing broccoli is, for example, neither a necessary nor proper way of guaranteeing a healthy lifestyle or preventing illnesses. This “slippery slope” is not as slippery as some make it seem.
What is really disturbing about the “broccoli argument” is the fact that it shows how out of touch some are with the current state of healthcare. One cannot treat health insurance as a routine material good because there are very few things in life that are as crucial, expensive, and unpredictable as one’s need for healthcare. At any time, not being insured has the potential of carrying with it a life-altering consequence. The broccoli argument dangerously simplifies the complexities of healthcare and masks the very real need for reform.
We should stop focusing on political issues such as the constitutionality of the mandate and start focusing on improving the real weaknesses of the bill such as its lack of malpractice reform and the absence of an effective solution to the primary care crisis. That would be the necessary and proper way to go about improving healthcare.