w
4A - Wednesday, April 4, 2012
The Michigan Daily - michigandaily.com
f Midtigan 4:al
Edited and managed by students at
the University of Michigan since 1890.
420 Maynard St.
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
tothedaily@michigandaily.com
ASHLEY GRIESSHAMMER
JOSEPH LICHTERMAN and ANDREW WEINER JOSH HEALY
EDITOR IN CHIEF EDITORIAL PAGE EDITORS MANAGING EDITOR
Unsigned editorials reflect the official position of the Daily's editorial board.
All other signed articles and illustrations represent solely the views of their authors.
Imran Syed is the public editor. He can be reached at publiceditor@michigandaily.com.
Uphold health reform
The Affordable Care Act is constitutional
Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court spent three days hearing
arguments regarding the constitutionality of the Patient Pro-
tection and Affordable Care Act. It's unclear how the court
will rule, but any decision will have massive national impacts. Of the
three days of hearings, one was spent debating the legality of an indi-
vidual mandate and another on whether or not the federal govern-
ment can force states to raise Medicaid benefits. The Supreme Court
should uphold President Barack Obama's health care reform law due
to the constitutionality of the individual mandate and the federal gov-
ernment's ability to regulate Medicaid.
'The Best and the Brightest'
ne of the best books I've
read provides a powerful
lesson in the pitfalls that
come from great
intelligence and
ability. David
Halberstam's
"The Best and
the Brightest"
tells the story of
certifiably bril-
liant people who SETH
took the United SODERBORG
States to war,
dug in deeper as
things got worse and never internal-
ized messages coming fromthe front
- messages that might have weak-
ened their resolve to send Ameri-
cans to die in a far-off country.
Halberstam's book is about the
Vietnam War. Though a work of
history, it - like other great histo-
ries of conflict - serves as a par-
able. The men involved - they
were all men back then - included
McGeorge Bundy, former dean of
the Faculty of Arts and Sciences at
Harvard University; Robert McNa-
mara, a Harvard Business School
graduate and former Ford Motor
Co. president; a young Harvard law
professor named John McNaughton
and Daniel Ellsberg, the Harvard-
educated aide to McNamara whose
eventual publication of thousands
of secret documents proved that
deception of the American public
had been central to the war's prog-
ress. President John F. Kennedy,
who appointed these men, was him-
self a Harvard graduate.
The lesson of "The Best and the
Brightest" is that mental agility
can be a trap. Smart people can fit
new information into the narra-
tives they have already constructed
- because they are so good at fitting
ideas together, it can be exceed-
ingly difficult for them to recog-
nize when facts call assumptions
into question. A person with great
talent for abstraction can fit round
pegs into square holes, something
he or she accomplishes by proving
to himself or herself that the peg is
square or the hole is round, or that
both are somewhere in between.
When commonly held assump-
tions shape quick thinkers' percep-
tions, they, more than others, have
the ability to protect those assump-
tions from facts. The hardest person
to convince that, say, the domino
theory of international communism
might not make sense, is the person
with the mental dexterity to show
that evidence against the theory
is in fact no evidence at all. Yet at
the same time, such a mind is fully
capable of switching from one set of
assumptions to another and, being
comfortable with abstractions, may
find it hard to recognize which nar-
rative is actually worth pursuing.
It is easy to switch from knowing
that the peg is self-evidently round
to knowing that the peg is self-evi-
dently square - someone who can
do that has a hard time knowing
when it's important to choose -
and stick up for - a firm conclusion.
Thus one reads of McNaughton,
"No one in the high levels of gov-
ernment in 1964 had greater and
more profound doubts about the
wisdom of the policy the nation
was following in vietnam, and no
one argued more forcefully with
his immediate superior against the
particular course. And having lost
that argument, when someone else
... made the same points ... no one
tore those arguments apart more
ferociously."
Qualities that help a person
reach high office sometimes make
them unable to bring a critical eye
to their position. People whose
approaches to problem solving have
brought them success often lack the
ability to question whether their
approach is appropriate for the task
at hand. Itis, after all, their mastery
of procedures that brings them to
positions of public trust.
Former Defense Secretary Rob-
ert McNamara is notorious for
spending the vietnam War at his
desk, poring over statistical reports,
unable - because of his training and
success - to ask whether the num-
bers measured anything useful, or
were even honest. They weren't.
When he finally understood that, he
became one of the strongest voices
speaking out againstthe war within
the administration. Yet it was his
decisions, made on premises he'd
failed to question, that created the
Sometimes, those
in high office
can't be critical.
quagmire in the first place.
The most important questions
are about assumptions. Without an
understanding of the premises on
which a decision is being made, it is
almost impossible to sense whether
the narratives you've imposed have
in turn limited your ability to see
other possible outcomes. The trage-
dy of "The Best and the Brightest" is
that brilliant men failed to see how
their own abilities could keep them
from asking the right questions.
Those of you who hope someday
to make important decisions owe it
to yourselves - and to the people
whose lives your decisions will
affect - to read this book, think
deeply about it and learn to ques-
tion your own assumptions. In that
endeavor, the best and brightest
among you will have to work the
hardest.
- Seth Soderborg can be reached at
sethns@umich.edu. Follow him on
twitter at @thedailyseth.
Each of the Supreme Court's hearings
debated one of the three elements of the
Affordable Care Act. The first hearing on
Monday, March 26 was focused on whether
or not the court should debate the law now,
or wait for it to take effect in 2014. Tuesday's
hearing contended the legality of the federal
government's ability to force states to raise
the income level for collecting Medicaid ben-
efits - a vital piece of the legislation that if
upheld will provide healthcare coverage for an
estimated 17 million Americans. Wednesday's
hearing was focused on the most controver-
sial element of the Affordable Care Act: the
mandate that would force those unwilling to
purchase health insurance to pay a fine. After
three days of debate, the court will deliberate
and release its decision sometime in June.
The health care reform law would require
states to offer Medicaid healthcare coverage
to all legal residents whose income is less than
33 percent above the federal povertylevel. This
will cause states to incur significant costs, but
the federal government will pay for any new
costs that are associated with the law until
2019. After 2019, the federal government will
still pay for 90 percent of any new Medicaid
costs that states incur due to the Affordable
Care Act. The 1987 Supreme Court case South
Dakota v. Dole reaffirmed the federal govern-
ment's authority to pressure states to accept
legislation as long as the new law "promoted
general welfare" and the federal government
paid for any additional costs. The coverage of
17 million low-income Americans is undoubt-
edly promoting the "general welfare" and is
protected by the Constitution.
Mandating Americans to buy health insur-
ance is not only necessary for driving the cost
of insurance down in the United States, but
it's also entirely constitutional and should
be upheld by the Supreme Court. If everyone
bought health insurance, the overall pooled
cost would go down, making it more affordable
for all Americans to be covered. This cost-con-
trolling mechanism is constitutional according
to the 1942 Supreme Court decision in Wickard
v. Filburn. This case states that the commerce
clause of the Constitution grants the federal
government the ability to regulate an indi-
vidual's choices if those choices, on an aggre-
gate level, affect the national economy. By not
purchasing health insurance, an individual is
affecting the market of an interstate good. The
federal government has the authority to regu-
late interstate commerce and is constitutional-
ly granted the power of mandating individuals
to purchase health insurance.
The Affordable Care Act is fully constitu-
tional and should be upheld by the Supreme
Court. According to the organization for
Economic Cooperation and Development, the
United States currently spends approximately
16 percent of its gross domestic product ion
healthcare, more than any other developed
nation. Yet in overall healthcare quality, the
World Health Organization ranked America
a dismal 37th out of about 191 nations. If the
Supreme Court upholds the law, the Afford-
able Care Act has the potential to correct many
of the inherent problems of the American
healthcare system.
EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS:
Kaan Avdan, Eli Cahan, Ashley Griesshammer, Nirbhay Jain, Jesse Klein,
Patrick Maillet, Erika Mayer, Harsha Nahata, Harsha Panduranga, Timothy Rabb, Adrienne Roberts, Vanessa
Rychlinski, Sarah Skaluba, Seth Soderborg, Caroline Syms, Andrew Weiner
Ju dici1al restraint
SAMANTHA VREDEVELD I
Modern- day slavery
There's been quite a bit of criticism lately
regarding what the media is, or is not, cov-
ering. It's safe to say that such criticism will
always exist, especially given Americans'
right to free speech. Today, the news and
media markets have expanded, allowing for
any individual with Internet access to express
their opinions for millions upon millions to
see. Controversy over the Trayvon Martin
case and the Kony 2012 video and their preva-
lence in social media have skyrocketed, yet
discourse on the issues themselves seems to
have ceased to exist almost as soon as it began.
I am not interested in providing yet another
argument as to why social media is being over-
used and abused, or which one topic should
rise to the top of the trending list on Twitter.
Instead, Iam interested in the implications on
human life that exist when we choose not to
tweet about certain topics or post a link to our
Facebook walls.
Today, there are more slaves in the world
than there have ever been in human history,
including during the entire Transatlantic
Slave Trade. There are presently 27 million
slaves in the world, about 80 percent of whom
are victims of sex trafficking and, contrary to
popular belief, they are not solely in the devel-
oping world. By casting off 27 million people
as anissue of the developing world,Americans
are able to turn a blind eye to the $10 billion
sex trafficking industry in this very country.
Perhaps the reason as to why this is not a
"trending" topic is ignorance. Perhaps most
Americans - college students included - are
simply unaware of this issue. In that case, I
think awareness and education are some of
the most important things any student can do
to fight human sex trafficking. Once aware of
the issue, however, it is likely that interest will
slowly fade, as it has with Kony 2012 and as it
likely will with Trayvon Martin. In this likely
event, action is what is truly needed.
Presently, 15-, 16- and 17-year-olds are
treated as criminals if they are involved in
prostitution, yet studies show that the vast
majority of these prostitutes are victims of
trafficking. Average entry into prostitution
occurs around the age of 13, dispelling the
popular belief that prostitutes sell themselves
by choice. Sex trafficking has been defined by
the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Pro-
tection Act of 2000 as "the recruitment, har-
boring, transportation, provision, or obtaining
of a person for the purpose of a commercial
sex act" through the use of force, fraud or
coercion. Now, more than ever, there is a need
for Americans to become involved in the fight
for justice for victims of sex trafficking, espe-
cially in the fight for safe harbor inclusion in
the law. Historically, efforts to stop sex traf-
ficking have consisted of punishing the vic-
tim. Rarely, if ever, have efforts been made to
bring justice for victims and punish the true
perpetrators of these crimes - the pimps and
the consumers - and this must change. On
Thursday, from 7 p.m. to 9 p.m., there will
be a letter-writing event in room B770 of the
School of Social Work in which students and
community members will have the opportu-
nity to come at any time that evening to write
letters directly to their congressional repre-
sentatives. This is a simple and easy way for
individuals to make a difference.
Currently, there is only one student orga-
nization fighting for justice for those who
are victimized by sex trafficking. Interna-
tional Justice Mission is doing wonderful
things here on campus to educate students
and seek justice, but it cannot do this work
alone. Across history, some of the greatest
revolutions for political and social reform
have begun on college campuses, and this is
our chance to spark that change once again.
A voice will fall flat when spoken alone. It is
the role of the populous to make change, and
united, we as a campus can fight for justice for
victims of domestic human sex trafficking.
Samantha Vredeveld is an LSA junior.
ast Friday, the Roberts Court
forever cast its legacy as it
deliberated over the consti-
tutionality of Obama's Affordable
Care Act. So
far, this court's
decisions have
defined it as
partisan and
sometimes judi-
cially active. If
it continued that
trend through
last week, 40 SARAH
million Ameri- ROHAN
cans would
remain without
health coverage, despite the legisla-
tion's constitutionality.
Judicial activism - or lack of judi-
cial restraint - occurs when the judi-
ciary takes a quasi-legislative role
by using its power to either cerate
or upset legislation, often motivated
by partisan political considerations.
In its early years, the U.S. Supreme
Court was intended to be a body
which practiced judicial restraint.
The Constitution, not party affilia-
tion, was to be the basis of deciding
the legality of a particular piece of
legislation. However, the days of judi-
cial restraint seem long forgotten in
today's Supreme Court.
The Roberts Court is comprised
of a five-justice conservative bloc
and a four-justice liberal bloc. So,
when cases have a 5-4 outcome, it's
often indicative of political divi-
siveness. In 2010, 16 of the 80 cases
reviewed by the Roberts Court had a
5-4 outcome, reflecting a politically
discordant court.
Ironically enough, judicial
restraint is an ideal promoted far
more by conservatives than by lib-
erals. Chief Justice John Roberts
has admitted he sees the role of the
court as necessarily narrow, telling
the New York Times on Aug. 3, 2005,
"Judges must constantly be aware
that their role, while important, is
limited ... They do not have a com-
mission to solve society's problems,
as they see them, but simply to decide
cases before them according to the
rule of law." However, if the Supreme
Court chooses to strike down the
Affordable Care Act, solving "soci-
ety's problems" - or rather sustain-
ing them - is exactly what his court
will be doing.
The issue at the heart of the case
is whether Congress has the power
under the Constitution to enact an
"individual mandate," requiring
citizens to purchase health cover-
age or be penalized. "Can you cre-
ate commerce in order to regulate
it?" Justice Anthony Kennedy asked
Solicitor General Donald Verrilli,
who argued to uphold the legisla-
tion during the hearings. Well, yes
actually, if history has anything to
say about it.
The historical precedent for the
creation of commerce by Congress
was not lost on Justice Stephen Brey-
er, who cited the National Bank as an
example of something "which was
created out of nothing to create other
commerce out of nothing." Based on
this, Breyer concluded during the
hearing, "It seems pretty clear that if
there are substantial effects on inter-
state commerce, Congress can act."
Opponents of the bill, such as
Justice Antonin Scalia, wondered
then how far the Commerce Clause
extends posing critically during the
hearing, "everybody has to buy food
sooner or later, so you define the mar-
ket as food, therefore, everybody is in
the market; therefore, you can make
people buy broccoli.".
If we know anything about the
failing healthcare system in this
country we know it's far different
from other free-market enterpris-
es, like buying groceries. Two of
the various distinctions addressed
in last week's court proceedings
are asymmetrical information and '
adverse selection.
Unlike other areas of the mar-
ket in healthcare the buyer doesn't
know what he is shopping for. He is
told what he needs by a specialist in
healthcare. Patients come to doctors
for the precise reason that they do
not know what they need, only that
they need something. This is asym-
metrical information.
Adverse selection is what pri-
marily accounts for the econom-
ic instability of our healthcare
system. It occurs when healthy
insurance buyers discontinue cov-
erage as rates go up to cover insured
unhealthy consumers. In turn, pre-
miums go up even more causing the
few remaining healthy consumers
to stop paying the disproportion-
al insurance costs. By requiring
everyone to purchase insurance,
the Affordable Care Act attempts to
stop this detrimental cycle.
The Constitution
should be the
basis for legality.
01
These two distinctions may pro-
vide the limiting principal that the
conservative justices were looking
for to explain why requiring the pur-
chase of health coverage is a con-
stitutionally valid exercise, but the
purchase of broccoli is not.
Though my suspicions tell me
the Supreme Court will sadly
overturn health care reform in
yet another 5-4 decision, such an
outcome will likely be perceived
by the American public as having
been a political, rather than con-
stitutional analysis. As Scalia asked
facetiously, "Is there any chance
at all that 26 States opposing [the
ACA] have Republican governors
and all of the states supporting it
have Democratic governors? Is that
possible?" The courtroom crowd
laughed in response because this
landmark case has boiled down to
one of Republican v. Democrat. It's
so absurd that it's almost funny - if
you're not one of the 40 million of
us who ends up without healthcare.
-Sarah Rohan can be reached at
shrohan@umich.edu.
CONTRIBUTE TO THE COVERSATION
Readers are encouraged to submit letters to the editor and viewpoints. Letters should be fewer
than 300 words while viewpoints should be 550-850 words. Both must include the writer's full
name and University affiliation. Send submissions to tothedaily@michigandaily.com.