Libertarians versus Liberals

Ezra Klein is a knowledgeable and convincing liberal. Most of the time I have a hard time refuting his arguments as they are consistent opinions that are based in fact.

Sometimes, though, I find a gap in his reasoning. In this piece, I found a couple, and they illustrate the same gaps that many liberals have when talking about issues, gaps that portray their inability to understand the libertarian point of view.

He's talking about how the premiums are very likely to go up once Obamacare hits (for many reasons but adverse selection and mandated benefits are the primary drivers). He argues that this misses the point because people will be purchasing superior insurance. Plus, they'll receive subsidies, so their actual expenses will decline.

There are two gaps in his argument. Let's start with the smaller one. He acts as if these subsidies come from nowhere, when, in fact, the subsidies are of course provided by tax-payers. So, yes, the newly insured might be paying less out of pocket than they were before, but society's payments have increased. But this misses the point, the point is that premiums would have been lower without those mandated benefits. It would be far less costly to insure everyone if the benefits weren't so extensive (no copay birth control, no copay for several benefits, for example).

The larger gap is how he ignores people's choices. He takes for granted that everyone wants the more expensive insurance plan (which I grant is probably the case when someone else is paying for it). He proposes a hypothetical choice between high deductible, low premium, very stingy insurance versus high premium, cover everything insurance. He argues that everyone would choose the latter, and that's what Obamacare is striving for.

If the latter option is so great, why does Obamacare have to mandate these benefits? If everyone who ccould afford it would choose it, why doesn't it already exist? It has to be mandated because no one is choosing it, and Ezra Klein and Barack Obama and all the other liberals think everyone should have that type of insurance no matter the cost.

This is just more evidence that Progressives don't believe that people are capable enough to make decisions for themselves. They've decided that high premium, cover everything insurance is the preferred type of insurance, so you should be forced to have it no matter the cost to you or to taxpayers.

He sums up with this. "The intent of Obamacare is to ensure that almost all Americans are covered by high-quality insurance that they can afford." That's exactly right, the intent of Obamacare was not to ensure that all Americans could afford high-quality insurance, it was that they "are covered." This is the difference between libertarians and liberals, the former wants to make sure you have a choice and do what you deem best, the latter wants to make sure you adhere to what they believe is best for you.

Simultaneously a Tax and Not a Tax

There are several aspects of the Supreme Court's decision on the ACA that still perplex me.

What exactly is the difference between a tax and a fine?
Don't taxes have to be paid before they can be challenged?
Don't taxes have to begin in the House of Representatives?
What is the explanation for the Medicaid decision?

I find reading the direct opinions can be very illuminating.  For example, I read the Conservative bloc's opinion, and came away with the realization that really they made a very strong case that Congress believed the mandate was not a tax, but not such a strong case, that it Constitutionally wasn't a tax.

Today, I think I can answer the second question.

This issue is discussed by Chief Justice Roberts on page 11 of his opinion (17 of the pdf)

It seems the answer to why this is not a tax for the purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act but is a tax for Constitutional Purposes is that the Anti-Injunction Act was written by Congress.  So it applies only to things that Congress thinks is a tax.

It would be like if you and I had different definitions for the same thing, say a computer.  Then I said I will buy you a computer.  Do you expect what you consider a computer, or do you expect that I give you my version of a computer.

Since Congress passed the Anti-Injunction Act, and said taxes must be paid before they can be challenged.  Then they wrote the ACA which calls it a "penalty," so the Anti-Injunction Act doesn't apply to it.  I'll try to think of an analogy to make this clear.

From the Party that Brought you the Individual Mandate

Why do Liberals perpetually want to make you do things that may not be in your interest to do?

Today, former OMB director Peter Orszag made the case for mandatory voting laws - everyone must vote.  His motivations are unclear; he doesn't really say why we would be better off if that were the case.  I think it's just part of the psychological make-up of Liberals.  When they have a preference, they believe all people must share that preference and be forced to enjoy it.

His argument is extremely weak.  First he notes than mandatory voting increases voting.  Frankly, this is so obvious, I wonder why he even frames it as though it's unexpected.  Then he gets to the real arguments.

He suggests that compulsory voting will change the role of money in elections.  Money spent on turn-out-the-vote efforts would likely fall.  No argument with that.  But would the amount of money spent on elections in general fall?  That's not clear, and he doesn't argue either way.  I think it's likely that this money would just be moved to other categories.

He implies that there will be less negative advertising because the point of it is to discourage voting.  Maybe, but this is just speculation.  Maybe they'd need more negative advertising to push people from voting for their preferred candidate or encourage them to vote for a third-party.  Who knows?  If Orszag does, he gives very little information about how the money situation would change.

His next argument is that it would decrease polarization, which Liberals especially detest.  Why? Because the people in the middle are less polarized.  What exactly is the argument here? The political parties will have to moderate to attract voters?  But which causes which? Do they not vote because they're moderate or are they moderate because they don't care about politics.  It's not impossible that by forcing them to vote, they'll inform themselves and decide one party suits them better than another.  Uh-oh, now they're polarized.  Maybe the parties will double-down on polarization because they think it's more effective than moderation.  Again, Orszag offers no evidence (other than for the fact that only the most polarized vote).

He then says that most evidence shows that compulsory voting has no effect on electoral outcome, but one study finds it did make a difference.  Is this an outlier?  How was their method different?  Was it better than the historical studies?  Orszag doesn't say.

In the last paragraph, Orszag summarizes the arguments for compulsory voting.  1) "It would make our democracy work better, in the sense of being more reflective of the population at large." and 2) "It could allow the first president in history to be elected by a majority of American adults."

1) Is there any evidence that the voting percentages would be different if everyone voted?  Even the study he cited said only a handful of seats switched because of the law.  So instead of Obama winning 52.9% of the vote, maybe he'd win 53.4%.  That's not a big difference.  He doesn't argue that it would change outcomes, only that we'd get a better view of what adults want in general instead of voting adults.  Is this argument really the strongest one he could make?

2) Why should this be a goal?  Who cares about this?

In summary, after reading this opinion, I'm bewildered.  He has presented an extremely weak case for this issue, so weak, that it seems there must be something else motivating him that he doesn't discuss.  Peter Orszag, I've been told, is a pretty bright guy, and generally his opinions are much better thought out than this. Maybe this piece is an outcome of a lost bet.