Scalia’s correct: The slippery slope towards compulsory exercise

  • Title:

    American Health Economy Illustrated
  • Hardcover Dimensions:

    7" x 10"
  • 332 Hardcover pages
  • Buy the Book

Article Highlights

  • Justice Scalia hits the nail on the head: if we accept #Obamacare we might as well make it a law to exercise

    Tweet This

  • If #Obamacare is upheld, Americans will suffer a loss of liberty from which there is no turning back

    Tweet This

  • Someone doesn't buy #healthcare: costs us 20 cents/day. Doesn't exercise? 24 cents/day. Should that be law too?

    Tweet This

Justice Scalia made an interesting observation in yesterday’s proceedings: “everybody has to exercise, because there’s no doubt that lack of exercise cause—causes illness, and that causes healthcare costs to go up.” The government’s argument in support of the individual mandate hinges on the claim that there is an interstate market in healthcare. Failure to purchase insurance by some raises costs for other participants in that market. Justice Scalia’s point was that if we accept that premise, what is to stop the government from infringing on freedom in many other ways to avert a similar adverse cost impact on innocent market participants? His intuition is quite correct: In fact, if we accept the government’s argument, then the economic case for government-mandated exercise is actually greater than the case for the individual mandate to purchase insurance! Here’s the proof:

"I cannot imagine that the Founders pledged their lives to create a government that could compel its citizens to exercise." -- Christopher J. Conover

On average, uninsured Americans in 2011 generated $1,078 apiece in uncompensated care losses. With 49.9 million uninsured, this amounted to $53.8 billion last year, a rather hefty sum. Leave aside the fact that the mandate will not apply to everyone (e.g., those qualifying for Medicaid, illegal immigrants) and that careful analysis has shown that the actual amount of uncompensated care that would be averted through a mandate is at best 30% of the total amount of uncompensated care attributable to the uninsured. As the following analysis shows, even if we generously assume that the mandate will eliminate all uncompensated care losses for the uninsured—which it assuredly will not—compulsory exercise will spare innocent market participants an even larger amount.

It turns out that three quarters of the uncompensated care generated by those without coverage is financed by taxpayers, or about $728 per uninsured in 2011. But what about the one quarter of uncompensated care costs not paid by taxpayers? This amounts to $250 per uninsured and purportedly is borne by those with private health insurance. How big is this burden? There’s roughly four privately insured people for every uninsured person in the U.S. (inclusive of those with non-group coverage). Thus, cost-shifting by the uninsured places the following burden on the average person with private insurance: $70 apiece, which is less than $6 a month, or about 20 cents a day. [Note: Justice Ginsburg repeatedly made the erroneous claim that this burden increased private health insurance costs for the average family by more than $1,000; by failing to account for the three quarters of costs borne by taxpayers, her estimate exaggerates the burden on private health insurance premiums by a factor of four. When we account for the actual amount of uncompensated care that would be eliminated through the individual mandate—i.e., 30% of the total—the actual impact is only one-twelfth of the amount she kept misstating].

In short, failure to purchase health insurance affects interstate commerce by raising the cost of private health insurance for everyone else. As the foregoing illustrates, it does do that, by at most a mere 20 cents a day (and only 6 cents a day, accurately calculated). But this is far less than the societal burden posed by those who fail to engage in exercise, which was calculated in 1989 to be 24 cents for every mile that sedentary people do not walk, jog, or run (or about double that amount in today’s dollars). Thus, if we can justify forcing people to purchase insurance to avert their imposing a cost of 20 cents a day on the privately insured, what’s to stop us from forcing people to walk, jog, or run a mile a day to avert their imposing a cost of 50 cents a day on society? If the first is constitutional, then how can the second not be?

I’m no constitutional scholar, but I cannot imagine that the Founders pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor to create a government that could compel its citizens to exercise. Such a power would appear to lie far beyond the boundaries of the limited government envisioned by the Framers. If the individual mandate is upheld, Americans will have suffered a loss of liberty from which there will be no turning back. Let us cross our fingers that the Supreme Court does the right thing.

Christopher J. Conover is an adjunct scholar at AEI.

Also Visit
AEIdeas Blog The American Magazine
About the Author


Christopher J.

  • Christopher J. Conover is a Research Scholar in the Center for Health Policy & Inequalities Research at Duke University, an adjunct scholar at AEI, and a Mercatus-affiliated senior scholar. He has taught in the Terry Sanford Institute of Public Policy, the Duke School of Medicine and the Fuqua School of Business at Duke. His research interests are in the area of health regulation and state health policy, with a focus on issues related to health care for the medically indigent (including the uninsured), and estimating the magnitude of the social burden of illness. He is the recent author of The American Health Economy Illustrated and is a Forbes contributor at The Health Policy Skeptic.

    Follow Chris Conover on Twitter.

  • Phone: (919)428.4676

What's new on AEI

image The Census Bureau and Obamacare: Dumb decision? Yes. Conspiracy? No.
image A 'three-state solution' for Middle East peace
image Give the CBO long-range tools
image The coming collapse of India's communists
AEI on Facebook
Events Calendar
  • 21
  • 22
  • 23
  • 24
  • 25
Wednesday, April 23, 2014 | 12:00 p.m. – 1:30 p.m.
Graduation day: How dads’ involvement impacts higher education success

Join a diverse group of panelists — including sociologists, education experts, and students — for a discussion of how public policy and culture can help families lay a firmer foundation for their children’s educational success, and of how the effects of paternal involvement vary by socioeconomic background.

Thursday, April 24, 2014 | 12:00 p.m. – 1:30 p.m.
Getting it right: A better strategy to defeat al Qaeda

This event will coincide with the release of a new report by AEI’s Mary Habeck, which analyzes why current national security policy is failing to stop the advancement of al Qaeda and its affiliates and what the US can do to develop a successful strategy to defeat this enemy.

Friday, April 25, 2014 | 9:15 a.m. – 1:15 p.m.
Obamacare’s rocky start and uncertain future

During this event, experts with many different views on the ACA will offer their predictions for the future.   

No events scheduled today.
No events scheduled this day.
No events scheduled this day.
No events scheduled this day.
No events scheduled this day.