This article explains the opinion of U.S. District Judge Gladys Kessler in upholding the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act:
The gist of the argument she relies on is when a person chooses not to purchase health insurance this is an "affirmative action" which has real consequences for interstate commerce which the Federal Government has the constitutional power to regulate. The main real consequence is that it drives up the cost of private health insurance because it forces those individuals and families who do buy it to pay higher costs in order to cover the cost of the "free riders" who use health care services but do not pay for them.
Where else does this "free rider" issue crop up? Well it arises in relation to union collective bargaining agreements as well. In a collective bargaining agreement a union negotiates for favorable terms and conditions of employment on behalf of all of the employees in a bargaining unit. The benefits gained through these negotiations are enjoyed by all employees. But in some states, legislatures have passed so-called "right to work" laws that stipulate that workers who benefit from union agreements cannot be required to pay an agency fee to the union to compensate it for acting on their behalves.
This AFL-CIO page provides a short primer on the reasons why it opposes "right to work" laws. The key point is that allowing bargaining unit members to not pay for benefits they derive from union representation is in fact unfair to the workers who join the union and pay dues. The real consequence of "right to work" is to allow some people the "right to be free riders."
This is one of the ideas that motivates Libertarians and Tea Party Populists: they argue that individuals should enjoy the right to be free riders, that they should not have to pay for benefits that they enjoy that result from public policies and other collective agreements. The more thoughtful proponents of this view say they would rather not enjoy the benefits in the first place, or pay for them themselves, which is one way of avoiding free riding. But the muddled mass of conservatives what to have it both ways -- they want to enjoy to benefits of collective agreements while avoiding the costs of paying for them.
Welfare liberals, on the other hand, want to have publicly negotiated shared social benefits, such as public education and public health care, and insist that in order for these programs to be fair and cost effective, the burden of paying for them must be shared equitably among all of those who benefit.
So why are Republicans, Libertarians, and Tea Party Populists against the unions in Wisconsin and elsewhere? Why are they opposing the affordable health care law? Why are the trying to defund public education? Public broadcasting? And virtually every other public program except those associated with the military industrial complex?
It is because they claim the right to be free riders. This is really the great irony: libertarians often say paying taxes is tantamount to slavery. But, in reality, it is the liberty to free ride that forces other people to pay to support the ones who want to ride for free. Free riding is really a form of economic exploitation that disguises itself as personal liberty.
