Incentives improve health -- not court orders

In a response to O’Connor’s ruling, Paul Kawata, Executive Director of National Minority AIDS Council (NMAC), stated that “This decision has the potential to cut off millions of Americans from the life-protecting medications they need.” Moreover, Kawata suggests that, “Leaders at the state and federal levels must take all necessary steps to protect access to these vital medications.”

Kawata is not alone in his opposition. Joshua Cohen at Forbes suggests the ruling implicitly takes a “pro-death stance,” and Ian Millhiser at Vox says it is a disaster for public health.

While such arguments are valid, they depict a narrow view of employers and their relationship with employees. The relationships between employers and employees are mutually beneficial and might often improve health.

Just because courts overturn mandates requiring employers provide healthcare, it does not necessarily follow that employers won’t provide healthcare for their employees, their families, and even a larger community. Religious-minded employers might still provide healthcare they find controversial.

[More to the point, those are private transactions in competitive markets where incentives should dictate outcomes — and public policy should allow those choices and incentives to develop and innovate. — Ed]