The story starts with today’s law class. For the last topic of this semester, we dove into healthcare policies—And wow, the slides are a work of art:
Yes, I’m flexing on my course materials. It is titled ‘A Glimpse into U.S. Society from Supreme Court Rulings’
Healthcare in the United States used to be (and might still be) a mess (but who’s doing good, anyway?) Going to the hospital is expensive, so most people don’t pay directly out of pocket and instead have it covered by private insurance or government programs. In some way, the market’s design in US has created a vicious cycle.
- Hospitals charge sky-high fees.
- Insurance companies raise premiums to keep up.
- Fewer people buy insurance.
- Hospitals hike prices even further to cover losses, and more and more people become uninsured.
The idea of federally supported, universal healthcare isn’t new. It’s been debated since Truman’s presidency. But it wasn’t until 2010—thanks to Obama’s leadership and Nancy Pelosi’s push—that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), aka Obamacare, became law.
Some say it’s Obama’s greatest contribution, others say it’s the worst thing he’d ever done. Nevertheless, I say this is an awesome picture—any tribute to the photographer? It’s insanely hard to capture a shot like this—where everyone looks awesome during applause.
The mandate makes economic sense. But its impact on personal freedom—that’s where things got heated. Enter the lawsuit.
The “Broccoli Question”
When opponents of the ACA ran out of economic arguments, they went philosophical.
“If the federal government can make you buy insurance because it’s good for you,” they asked, “what’s stopping them from making you eat broccoli next?”
This is called the “Broccoli Question” and become center of the debate (even up to the Supreme Court). At first glance it’s a clever analogy. It taps into fears of government overreach and boils down a complex issue into a soundbite. But like many slippery slope arguments, it oversimplifies, skips logics—and completely misses the point.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg famously dismantled the Broccoli Question in her opinion:
Although an individual might buy a car or a crown of broccoli one day, there is no certainty she will ever do so. And if she eventually wants a car or has a craving for broccoli, she will be obliged to pay at the counter before receiving the vehicle or nourishment. She will get no free ride or food, at the expense of another consumer forced to pay an inflated price.
The context matters. Buying insurance isn’t like buying broccoli. Healthcare insurance market involves more strategic players that plays different roles in much more complicated transfer structure. The analogy of healthcare insurance to broccoli is clever but fundamentally flawed because one is an agricultural product where its price is almost defined by supply and demand, the other—god knows?
slippery slope, broadly speaking
Definition A slippery slope fallacy is a logical fallacy: when someone claims that a small initial action (or event) will lead to a chain of events that result in a final huge negative outcome. The term comes from the idea that once you start going down a slippery slope, it’s nearly impossible to stop before reaching the bottom.
source: grammarly.
Details matter. Simplified narratives like the Broccoli Question may be catchy, but they obscure the complexities that actually define the issue. The details that opponents tend to abstract away are often the very ones that make or break a policy.
Alvin Roth’s insight feels especially apt here:
[D]esign involves a responsibility for detail; this creates a need to deal with complications.
Who Gets What, and Why?
Goodnight, and may our dreams be free of slippery slopes.
P.S. Freakonomics has a great podcast episode on this: Enough with the Slippery Slopes!. What’s your take? Email me at ariana_tang at outlook.com—I’d love to hear your thoughts!