To no one’s surprise, five justices of the U.S. Supreme Court held that “the right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person, and under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment couples of the same sex may not be deprived of that right and that liberty.”  The full opinion is here.

For example, Robby Soave over at Reason blasts the dissent from Justice Scalia and observes that he is no friend to libertarians.  Also, Ilya Shapiro  at the Cato Institute gives a thumbs up to the Court’s decision. Undoubtedly many readers of this blog share these sentiments and cheer today that homosexual couples can marry just like opposite-sex couples.  However, before you get caught up in celebrating this “victory” for liberty, think about several things.

Where is your money going? Increasingly, the answer is health care. This morning’s third estimate of first quarter Gross Domestic Product (GDP) was not as awful as previously estimated – a real decline of 0.2 percent, not 0.7 percent.

The overall drop of $7 billion was driven by a decline in exports and nonresidential structures. Personal consumption expenditures increased by $58.3 billion. However, $48.1 billion of that was services, of which $24.2 billion was health care. Almost half the quarterly increase in personal consumption was health care.

Writing popular press pieces, you open yourself up to a lot of criticism. If you write about economic topics, you might as well be waving a red flag in front of a bunch of Spanish bulls. Without a doubt, I’ve received my fair share of critical commentary, been accused of pushing all kinds of agendas and being the worst of both political parties. Some comments, though, are pretty creative. Some of my personal favorites include,

“The author probably isn’t smart enough to tie her shoes.”

“The author is clearly a socialist.” (I was writing a piece which, in fact, was highly critical of socialism.)

“Someone forgot her meds this morning.”

I am not alone in my experience. Though these types of comments are often worthy of a smirk or occasional chuckle, some aren’t as amusing. I was once discussing reactions to popular pieces with another colleague who writes a regular column for a popular outlet. He stated that most comments don’t bother him. The exception was one commenter who, in responding to a policy piece, stated he hoped my colleague’s wife and children would die in a car wreck.

I have asked, and the Congressional Budget Office has answered. Well, not really.

Although, I have been urging the CBO to do a comprehensive estimate of all the effects of the Affordable Care Act, effectively for the first time since 2012. It did so last week. The main takeaway is that “repealing the ACA would increase GDP by about 0.7 percent in the 2021–2025 period, mostly because provisions of the law that are expected to reduce the supply of labor would be repealed.”

Readers who want to get a flavor for the ideas of Friedrich Hayek will find an excellent introduction in Donald Boudreaux’s The Essential Hayek.  The book can be downloaded free by clicking here.

Each chapter begins with a quotation from Hayek, but the book’s chapters explain Hayek’s ideas in Boudreaux’s words.  Those ideas come from various works by Hayek, so the book is not a summary or discussion of specific works by Hayek, but rather an overview of Hayek’s ideas on the economy, on law, and on social organization more generally.

The book provides an excellent discussion of the advantages of free markets and limited government, and on the way that institutions can arise spontaneously without anyone planning them out, as a result of human action but not of human design.

The book is not a study guide to Hayek’s work, or a summary of his work, because, outside of the quotations that open each chapter, there are no references to the specific works of Hayek from which Boudreaux develops the chapter’s ideas.  The book does end with suggestions for further reading, which can help guide those who want to know more.

Boudreaux’s discussion is insightful, clearly written, and provides an excellent introduction to the ideas of limited government.  Rather than read what I have to say about it, read it yourself.  It’s a free download.

The House of Representatives voted today to repeal Obamacare’s medical device excise tax, the 2.3 percent tax levied on medical devices sold in the United States. The tax is certainly harmful. Whether it deserves the highest priority in repealing Obamacare, we’ll leave to discuss another day.

Although, repealing the medical device excise tax does nothing to repeal Obamacare. It just gives us a deficit-financed Obamacare. This is the second time the Republican-majority Congress has voted to increase deficit spending on health care this year, without winning any meaningful reform to any program.

With 46 Democrats joining the Republican majority, the votes in favor added up to 280, just 8 short of the number needed to override the promised presidential veto. We’ll see how it does in the Senate.

A survey conducted by the Pew Research Center gauges the opinion among citizens of various countries of the free market. They were asked if they agreed that under such a system the majority is better off even though some are rich and some are poor. The results invite interesting conclusions.

People in emerging countries have more faith in the market than those in developed societies. Among the latter, between 60 and 70 percent of respondents agree with the survey’s statement, but the proportion is greater among the former — between 70 and 80 percent. There are significant differences, however, between Asians and Latin Americans. With some exceptions, support among Latin Americans ranges from 50 to 60 percent depending on the country. The region’s brand of populism, which emerged in the 1930s, comes across as a more or less permanent ideological (some would say cultural) trait.

There are interesting exceptions. In three countries governed by various types of left-wing populism — Venezuela, Nicaragua, El Salvador — support for the market is between 10 and 15 points higher than in Latin American societies governed by non-populist rulers. The lesson here is that the best cure against populism is actually experiencing its consequences.

By Christopher J. Coyne and Abigail R. Hall

Eritrea, a small African country east of Sudan and north of Ethiopia, is probably not a place you would like to visit, let alone reside. A small country with a population of about six million, Eritrea is incredibly poor, with a 2013 GDP per capita of approximately $700. In addition to widespread poverty, the government of Eritrea has one of the worst human rights records on the planet. In fact, during the first ten months of 2014, the number of refugee-seeking Eritreans nearly tripled compared to the previous year, with about 40,000 people seeking asylum in Europe alone.

There seems to be a trend in the United States of people formerly identifiable with one set of easily recognized characteristics deciding that they “identify” as having another set of characteristics.

This is also happening with Obamacare exchanges.

The Supreme Court will soon announce its decision in King v. Burwell, resolving the question of whether Obamacare tax credits can be paid in states using the federal exchange (healthcare.gov) or only in states with their own exchanges. Some states with federal exchanges are trying to “identify” them as state exchanges.

Last Tuesday, President Obama gave a speech on healthcare to the Catholic Health Association (CHA), which was celebrating its 100^th anniversary. The president recycled his campaign speech, making many claims about the cost of care, medical bankruptcy, and uninsurance, all of which we have debunked countless times in this blog.

He also asserted that Obamacare created jobs, claiming the health law was responsible for job growth since 2010. In fact, quality job growth coming out of the Great Recession has been remarkably slow in comparison with previous recessions, as I discussed in a previous blog post.

The most depressing part of the speech was his cheering the CHA for its role in passing Obamacare: “We would not have succeeded, if it had not been for you.” He got that right. The hospital lobbyists were critical in dragging Obamacare over the line, and the CHA comprises the largest denominational trade association of hospitals.

The CHA posts an interesting, short article about its history, noting that “between 1884 and 1915, Catholic hospitals in the United States had nearly tripled from some 200 to almost 600.” What a great history of growth, all achieved without federal intervention in health care! Some might even describe it as a blessing.

The late Pat Rooney, a pioneer of Health Savings Accounts and faithful Catholic, was a relentless critic of Catholic hospitals that gouge the uninsured with high prices. I wonder what the Catholic leaders, lay and religious, who founded America’s Catholic hospitals in the 19^th century, would have to say about their descendants’ utter dependence on the federal government to carry out their mission.

* * *

For the pivotal alternative to Obamacare, please see the Independent Institute’s new book, A Better Choice: Healthcare Solutions for America, by John C. Goodman.