Supreme Court Should Allow 'Obamacare' To Stand
Comments (11)
President Obama signs health insurance legislation into law. (Creative Commons)
Congress enacted the Affordable Care Act in order to solve a dire problem Americans face. Health care in this country is abysmal, and the United States arguably offers its citizens the costliest and least effective health care among the developed countries of the First World. Life expectancy in the United States is a pathetic 50th in the world. In addition, the United States is the only civilized nation that does not guarantee all of its citizens health coverage of some kind.
While Obamacare is a flawed law, it is still an important first step to addressing the health care crisis in this country. The law features an “individual mandate,” which requires the noninsured to purchase basic insurance or face a fine from the government. This provision would eventually ensure that for the first time in its history, the United States would have full health care coverage for every single citizen. Yet it is also the individual mandate that is currently being debated by the Supreme Court.
Many believe that the mandate is an unconstitutioinal overreach by Congress. Such proponents of the law’s overturn claim that Congress does not have the right to force American citizens to do anything. Conservative Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia compared forcing Americans to buy health care to forcing Americans to eat broccoli.
This comparison, however, is completely ludicrous. The constitution grants Congress the right to provide for the common good of the country and to regulate large commercial enterprises. Congress certainly has the right to regulate health care coverage, but the individual mandate does pose some problems. The constitutional legality of a mandate is dicey at best, and one’s interpretation of a mandate depends on one’s overall view of the Constitution itself.
The very ambiguity of the constitutionality of the individual mandate is why the Supreme Court needs to let the law stand. Congress has taken action to finally solve a pressing problem in this country, and the Court needs to respect the actions that Congress has taken. If a future Congress feels that the law should be overturned, then it is up to that Congress to pass a subsequent law to undue the effects of the Affordable Care Act. But the prospect of nine unelected judges systematically dismantling the work of elected officials is frightening.
The American public greatly desired health care reform and subsequently elected officials to Congress who would follow through on that promise. If the Supreme Court strikes down the law, the progress finally made to our health care system will be irrevocably set back.
With the poisonous atmosphere currently in Washington, it is foolish to think that a replacement bill will reach a President’s desk any time soon. Do we really want to go back to the days where people with pre-existing conditions could get dropped on a whim by their health care provider? Do we really want to stop the march toward universal healthcare coverage for every single citizen?
Republicans have turned Obama’s law into a caricature of some evil, socialist plot. But the reality could not be further from that myth. The truth is that the Affordable Care Act is an extremely moderate proposal, much more moderate than most liberals in Congress would have liked. Conservatives originally proposed the individual mandate as an alternative to Hillary Clinton’s health care plan while Bill Clinton was president. The fact that Republicans are now attacking the individual mandate as an affront to liberty is laughable and speaks to their desire to simply oppose anything favored by President Obama.
If the Supreme Court cares a lick about its credibility, it will do the sensible thing and let the Affordable Care Act stand. History will judge the law’s merit, and if it turns out that down the road the law needs to be replaced, a future Congress can take up that task. It is not the job of nine unelected justices to negate the work of members of Congress elected by we the people.
Comments
People that make mim wage cannot pay for health Ins. It takes up most of their paychecks. The very rich that make up the congress(98%), DEMOCRATS & REPUBLICANS both spend thousands of dollars on minor items like dinner and clothes so whats a few extra for health care? By the way, it is the U.S.citizenship that pays for the health care of these fat freeloaders. If the mandate was to keep cost low. Why do Ins companies keep raising their rates and lowering their coverage? Unless your an illegal immigrant or a member of congress do not expect free health care.
Obamacare will eventually turn into Single Payer, the way it should be, like all the other industrialized nations. The 1% would and should pay the most taxes, they wouldn't be rich if it wasn't for the 99%.
It is always a nauseous exercise for me when I read an "opinion" article that makes up statistics out of think air and manipulates the rest. The United States **IS NOT** the 50th country in "Life Expectancy" as stated by the obviously left-leaning author. Yes, if you visit the CIA's "World Factbook" website (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook), the U.S. is listed as #50 on a list with the title of "Life Expectancy at Birth". But, I ask you, when was the last time you read any information published by the CIA that was totally accurate? Never? Me, too. Let me give you a few examples: The #1 "country" on the list is MONACO. This country is approx. 3 miles long and 1 mile wide. It has a population of approx. 30,000 ... roughly the same as Schertz, TX. Never heard of Schertz, TX. you're not alone. I would pit the "life expectancy" of Schertz up against Monaco any time. Monaco's population is less than 1/120th the size of Los Angeles.
#2 on the CIA's list is Macau. This isn't even a country. It is a peninsula-city in the South China Sea in Southern China. It's population is 1/6th that of the City of Los Angeles. And their life expectancy (for the #2 "country" ... cough, cough) is less than 6 years longer than that of the U.S. (#50 on the list). The population of Macau is roughly the same as the population of Lee County (FL). My guess is that the "life expectancy" of Lee County is higher than that of Macau.
I could go on ... but I think the point is clear. The facts in this article are distorted. Something liberals do a lot. Besides, the issue for clear-thinking people in the U.S. regarding "Obamacare" has nothing to do with "life expectancy". It has to do with our eroding liberties.
Repulicans/Democrats- they're both pigs at the troth. That being said-I don't like broccolli. The health care law said that I have to eat this because it makes me healthy and if'n I don't they can charge me more. The health care law also allows the Insurance provider to charge up to three times the rate charged to the young. Really. I guess that's fair. I'm old, used up from laboring for 49.6 years.(from 18 to 67.6), so I should be charged more? The saying goes about this Act that if the pieces are presented on their own they are all accceptable. Not all of us wants to have to buy the whole car when all we want is the radio. Look at the NEW projected cost. $2.6T in ten years. Not quite the forecast at it's inception.If the complaint on your part is Social Security or Medicare. Are we not at a precipice on even these much,much smaller programs? As an after thought. The Supreme Court of the United States of America is the third leg of the Government. It is there for exactly what it is doing. To interpret the legality of laws of the land under the Constitution. In other words as you complain about a activist court, when exactly would Kagan vote for a Republican? They will come to a judgement and someone will not be happy.
The Supreme Court should, and hopefully will, judge this act based on whether or not it is legal based on our Constitution. The last thing the justices should be worrying about is their credibility; that is not their job. The reason justices are appointed, not elected, is for exactly this reason, so they can do their job effectively without worrying about their popularity. Also, this government was built on a system of checks and balances, which means the judicial branch has the authority to overrule the legislative branch if it oversteps its bounds. So it very well could be the job, perhaps the duty, of the justices to "negate the work of members of Congress."
Just some thinking here. 1. Insurance is all about getting someone else to pay my medical costs. There isn't any reason why I should expect that to happen. That's why insurance is expensive and doesn't nearly cover everything, and why yearly deductibles are often more than the healthcare I'll need in a year. How do you get folks to pay for their own healthcare? Allow unused portions of flexible spending plans to roll over from one year to the next. 2. Why do we think that nationalized insurance will improve health care or access to health care? What I've seen happen with state basic plans and Medicare for the aged, I hope and pray I will never have to use them! 3. I find that, without major medical and by paying for the bill at the time of service, I actually have more choices and faster access to health care. "You can't get an appointment until we get approval from your insurance company. You don't have any? We have an opening next Tuesday." How to get faster access to healthcare for everyone? Disconnect the doctor from the insurance company. Let them treat the patient rather than make them argue with an insurance company. Patients should pay at the time of service and then the patient argues with the insurance company for reimbursement. 4. Why do we think that by forcing everyone to pay for health care that folks who have no money to pay for healthcare will pay for healthcare? 5. People need to be responsible for their own healthcare. This is the likeliest way to mitigate reckless behavior. If you want a million dollars in coverage over your lifetime, you had better start saving early. 6. There is already a credit card just for health care. They figure if a treatment or surgery gets you back on the road that you're a good credit risk. That's a piece of the puzzle. 7. There are low-cost healthcare delivery systems all over the country serving the poor. These will pretty much be obliterated with Obamacare. They teach us how to care for our neighbors in an efficient manner. Under Obamacare, we'll be able to ignore the poor, because government is supposed to take care of them. 8. Patients and doctors need to decide a course of treatment, not coverage lookup books by insurance companies. If patients decide what course to take they will be much less likely to sue their practitioners, because they will have taken responsibility for the decision. 9. You keep saying that eating broccoli is ludicrous. But they took the turkey sandwich away from a kid awhile back.
Look no further than the libertarian party if you want a pro-liberty fiscally responsible solution to health care.
http://www.lp.org/news/press-releases/if-we-want-better-health-insurance...
Your comments have nothing to do with the constitutionality of the law. If you are claimingtheir is only one outcome, why need the Supreme Court. Please go back and check out what checks and balance of the government means.
The brocolli question was based on a slippery slope. If it proven that eating bad food is costing the system and eating good food improves cost to the system, why wouldnt it be rational to mandate people eat brocolli. It aint that much a stretch as you think.
The "slippery slope" argument is a logical fallacy. It can be incorrectly used for almost every issue. "If we legalize gay marriage then what is next? Two spoons getting married?"
Constitutional ambiguity isn't the issue here, young one. I appreciate the youth wanting to improve our country -- and lord knows we need it -- but our Constitution needs restoration from the decades of exploitation by political agents. We've treated the Constitution as a law we need to "get around," rather than one we should base our laws on. I sense we're close to a revolution anyway, but since the 1910s a socialized, or nationalized, healthcare system has been proposed. It's never been Constitutional, and unfortunately still isn't. (If only the Republicans would clean up the corporatization that ruined so much of healthcare today.)