As I mentioned in Monday’s blog post, the Supreme Court is expected to hand down a ruling this week on the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act (aka, “ObamaCare”). The main controversy about the act generally centers on the mandate that people must buy health insurance. Other aspects of the law are less controversial. However, these parts of the law are just as destructive to our health care system. Let me highlight the problems with one of the more popular parts of the law: the mandate that insurance companies continue to cover “children” up to 26 years old on their parents’ insurance (aka, the “slacker mandate”).

The Baltimore Sun highlights the story of one “child,” 22-year-old Miriam Brand, who is happy she’s able to remain on her parent’s health insurance. Sounds nice, right? A potentially uninsured person gets health insurance and all are happy. But that’s simply what’s seen. As Frederic Bastiat taught us, a good economist looks not only at what’s seen, but also at what’s unseen.

Any government mandate has unintended consequences. What are the consequences of the “slacker mandate?” The Senate Republicans on the Joint Economic Committee released a report about the negative effects, and they aren’t pretty. They include a higher number of uninsured and unemployed.

As the report lays out:

While many press reports have focused on the “children” obtaining coverage thanks to the under-26 mandate, fewer have examined how many individuals have lost coverage due to the federal requirements. However, studies suggest these numbers are not insignificant. For instance, multiple studies have suggested that every 1% increase in premiums increases the number of uninsured by approximately 200,000-300,000 individuals nationwide. With the under-26 mandate raising premiums by at least 1%, and potentially much more for some plans, it is reasonable to conclude that hundreds of thousands of individuals have lost coverage – because they were priced out of the individual market, or because their employers decided to stop offering coverage – as a result of the new requirements.

The under-26 mandate could have a negative impact on jobs and the economy, in two respects. First, to the extent that businesses are forced to absorb the billions of dollars in costs associated with the mandate, they would prove less eager to take on additional workers, or increase hours for existing workers. Second, numerous studies have illustrated that extended unemployment benefits tend to lengthen the average duration of unemployment, and increase the unemployment rate, by discouraging individuals from looking for work. For similar reasons, some would argue that the under-26 mandate likewise provides financial incentives that discourage work, thereby increasing unemployment.

Often popular, harmless-sounding policy proposals have hidden costs that make them unwise. The “slacker mandate” is one of them. Unfortunately, no matter what the Supreme Court does, this mandate is likely to remain in place at either the state or federal level.

I certainly have sympathy for young people who lack health insurance. I was uninsured for three years during my early 20’s, so I know what it’s like. But the answer isn’t this mandate. The answer is to allow insurance companies to offer bare-bones, high-deductible policies that cover catastrophic health care situations (the ones that would pose a huge financial toll on anyone) and are affordable. Young people are generally healthier than others and have less money. An insurance policy that is tailored to these needs is the way to get young people to buy insurance, but state and federal regulations discourage these types of policies. Reforming these laws, not imposing the costly and job-killing “slacker mandate,” is what policymakers should be pursuing.