You Get What You Pay For

In her never-ending concern trolling against Obama's industry-friendly health insurance reform, our Megan McArdle focuses her razor-sharp analytical abilities on the constitutionality of the bill.

This weekend, I had a conversation with someone non-crazy who thinks there is a not-insignificant chance that the Supreme Court will overturn health care reform, or at least the individual mandate (it's not clear what happens to the rest of the law if the mandate goes down; there's some possibility that this would invalidate the entire law). Mind you, this person was not suggesting that the chances were, say, 85%; more like 25%.

But in a case like this, 25% is a big chance.

So what was P. Suderman's argument? Let's look at McArdle's analysis to find out.

So we spent a bit of time speculating about what would happen next.

I'm sorry, what?

So we spent a bit of time speculating about what would happen next.

Didn't McArdle forget something here? Like her argument against the constitutionality of health care reform? Or anybody else's argument? We're not picky. We'd consider a constitutional law professor's ideas. Or the Virginia state government's argument. Or even Rupert Murdoch's Wall Street Journal.

I guess she felt it wasn't necessary to actually discuss the merits of the case, and so she skipped right on to the imagining that all her fluffy dreams had come true. What else is a Libertarian to do when faced with a real world instead of a science fiction world, a world with messy things like "facts" and "logic" and "consequences." So, let's make her argument for her.

1. Declare health care reform unconstitutional.
2. ??????
3. Success!

My goodness, being a pundit is easy. Can I have a check for $25,000 too?