University of California President Michael V. Drake, M.D., issued a statement yesterday on the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization.
He starts as follows:
For nearly 50 years, people in the United States have had the right to make private, informed choices about their health care and their futures.
Wow! Where has Michael Drake been?
Are people allowed to buy bare bones catastrophic health insurance?
If employers want to provide health insurance to employees that doesn’t have all the features the federal government wants, are they allowed to?
Are people allowed to get prescription drugs without a prescription from a doctor?
Was I allowed to buy the Moderna or the Pfizer vaccine before the FDA had approved it?
I could easily ask 20 more such questions. I bet many of my readers could too.
Health care and health insurance are among the most regulated industries in the United States.
Dr. Drake’s ignorance is off the charts.
READER COMMENTS
Monte
Jun 25 2022 at 1:07pm
Do people have the right to make private, informed choices about their health care and futures without repercussion when refusing to comply with vaccine mandates?
David Henderson
Jun 25 2022 at 2:17pm
Yes, I think so.
David Henderson
Jun 25 2022 at 2:18pm
I should clarify: it depends on what you mean by “without repercussion.” Most of our choices have repercussions and so I would want to know what you mean.
Monte
Jun 25 2022 at 2:38pm
In other words, do we have the right to refuse vaccine mandates without being fired from our jobs or forced out of the military?
David Henderson
Jun 25 2022 at 4:34pm
You asked:
No. In the first case, that would violate the freedom of association of the employer.
In the second case, which is admittedly more complicated, there’s a case to be made that the military should be able to make decisions that affect not just the person but others around him or her. I’m not exactly sure about where to draw the line.
Monte
Jun 25 2022 at 7:11pm
@ Dr. Henderson:
You’ll recall that the Biden Administration directed OSHA to require all organizations with 100 employees or more to either test their employees weekly for COVID-19 or ensure they were vaccinated, effectively acting as a proxy for forced compliance. Even if opposed, those corporations had no choice. How is that not a violation of the freedom of association of the employer?
OK. Let’s consider just how compelling the military’s interest is in mandating vaccines. There is the vaccine’s effectiveness in preventing the spread of the virus, and the virus’s level of harm. Where a virus does little harm, as with omicron, and a vaccine is not very effective at preventing the virus’s spread, the military’s interest in mandating a vaccine is almost certainly not compelling. I would argue that this is where we should draw the line.
David Henderson
Jun 26 2022 at 12:09pm
You wrote:
That IS a violation of the freedom of association of the employer and the employee. I thought you were referring to vaccine mandates imposed by employers.
Your point about the military is quite reasonable.
Michael
Jun 27 2022 at 11:49am
As regards the military:
Per the Constitution (and SCOTUS), the Commander-in-Chief power is assigned to the President. That is the source of the military’s authority to impose vaccination requirements.
Monte
Jun 27 2022 at 12:17pm
I’m not questioning the president’s authority, just his reasoning. I suppose if our C-i-C directed all military personnel to stand on their heads and spit wooden nickels every Sunday he would have the authority to do so, but we might question his sanity.
Bill Conerly
Jun 25 2022 at 2:40pm
Not directly germane, but the wonderful Concise Encyclopedia of Economics does not have an entry on Abortion (though the topic is mentioned in a couple of articles). Today’s WSJ article, The Controversial Economics of Abortion Law, led me to wonder about CEE’s entry. Might be a good time for one.
Mark Brady
Jun 25 2022 at 9:39pm
I just checked, and I was not surprised to find that the Concise Encyclopedia of Economics doesn’t have an entry on contraception. Do you think it should?
Thomas Lee Hutcheson
Jun 26 2022 at 9:39am
In a place similar to Libertarian opposition to State laws restricting abortion. 🙂
Charley Hooper
Jun 26 2022 at 6:56pm
As a related point, many of my friends who have voted for years for politicians who have curtailed our liberties in so many ways were shocked, shocked!, that the government would reduce our freedom to get an abortion procedure. “That’s a restriction of our freedom.”
Comments are closed.