Roberts' interpretation of the ACA mandate and my concerns about Barrett

From an economics standpoint, John Roberts' interpretation of the ACA's mandate in the SCOTUS's decision is much more insightful than Barrett's interpretation in a 2017 article.  The effect of a fine imposed on an activity is equivalent to taxing that activity. Vice versa, any tax imposed on an activity is equivalent to fining that activity. Taxing pollution is similar to making pollution illegal and subject to a fine. Fining those who pollute is similar to keeping it legal and taxing it.  In both cases, those who value polluting more than the cost associated with doing so will continue to pollute. Those who value it less, will refrain. Whether the law describes the cost as a fine or a tax is semantics. Roberts seems to get that, Barrett doesn't.

Many of my disagreements with lawyers and law-makers stem from their lack of understanding of basic economics. Legally, the payroll tax is supposed to be split evenly between employer and employee. But this only determines who writes the check. Several studies show that the majority of the tax is effectively paid by employees because, to pay their portion of the tax, employers offer lower salaries. Hence, employers are able to roll over some of their tax burden to employees. On paper, of course, employers are writing a check for half the tax, in accordance with the law. In practice, however, they are paying far less than half. How the tax is split between two trading parties is determined by the forces of supply and demand, not by the desires of lawmakers. And judging the constitutionality of a law should depend on how the law works in practice, not on its claims. If Barrett gets confirmed she should better be much less literal and much more analytical.

As a side note, while many Republicans dislike the ACA mandate, ruling that it is unconstitutional would likely push us closer to government insurance. Every country that has achieved near-universal coverage, has done so by coercing people into buying health insurance. The ACA hoped to achieve universal coverage while keeping insurance mostly private, by coercing people into buying private insurance. If fining people who refuse to purchase insurance in the private market is deemed unconstitutional, then the only other way to achieve universal coverage is by having the government provide it to everyone and forcing people to pay for it through taxes. The effect will be the same and, as per Barrett's judgement, in accordance with the letter of Constitutional law. If those of us who want universal coverage through a private market are forced to choose between the two, at least some of us will be inclined to lean towards universality at the expense of keeping the insurance market private. Many Republicans wish that the mandate is deemed unconstitutional. I say to them, be careful what you wish for.