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.