Woolleybugger
Mayor
Today the court heard the opening arguments for the constitutionality of the ACA law passed into law by the Congress including a 60 vote majority in the Senate and signed by the POTUS. The arguments before the court today had to do with whether or not the courts could hear a case regarding taxes years before anyone paid the taxes. It is an arcane point that must be settled before moving onwards. Apparently, this court is ready to go and will likely move beyond this challenge and get to the meat of the case soon. The jurists will be asked to weigh in on the constitutionality of the mandate and whether or not the act violates the constitution in any form or in any manner. We have all debated this ad nauseum so I don't want to retread ground already covered. The real issue is whether or not the courts will decide to acknowledge that a problem exists and whether or not they will support the nation's first legislative attempt to fix this problem. What is the problem? Defining it means you must acknowledge it or disavow it, there is no middle ground.
In a nutshell, the problem is that we spend more than any nation on earth and get less for this expense than any other system on earth. Sure, we have some of the best medical facilities on the planet but we do not have universal coverage and we also pay huge penalties in terms of untimely deaths, bankruptcies, wasted medical procedures, frivolous lawsuits and massive inequalities based solely upon income and wealth. We are a nation that considers health care to be a privilege not a right. The ACA will not establish a new right for health care, that is an argument that goes too far. But it does provide a means for everyone to be part of the system including those without care today. It is the first shot at a more robust and efficient system that one day could end up helping the economy and our future generations deal with the soaring costs of health care. Is it perfect? No.
So, do these jurists want to be part of the solution or do they want to stop progress dead in it's tracks? In a way, it is exactly the same question faced by the courts in the 1930s with Social Security. By choosing to obey a rule that says if it was not part of the original intent of men living in 1790, those that do not want a national problem to be solved nationally are really saying they do not want it to be solved at all. Sure, some will argue that it is best done by the states which then leads one to ask a simple question: Do these same people expect a state with a system like Massachusetts to be a magnet for people that live in states such as South Carolina that refuses to adopt a new system and keeps it's citizenry from gaining universal health care? Many here would argue yes. An argument favoring state solutions is then left to the reality that we could end up with 50 different systems that would have to deal with portability issues and fairness. Treating health care as if it is just another service ignores the fact that we will all get sick or die at some point in our lives. It is inevitable. Which is more important to you?
I for one would consider a national policy to be one of the most liberty inducing acts we could possibly imagine. Anyone could move about this nation at will and get the exact same coverage regardless of location. A national policy for a nation. That is the question before the courts, they will have to decide personally just how much they care about each and every one of us.
In a nutshell, the problem is that we spend more than any nation on earth and get less for this expense than any other system on earth. Sure, we have some of the best medical facilities on the planet but we do not have universal coverage and we also pay huge penalties in terms of untimely deaths, bankruptcies, wasted medical procedures, frivolous lawsuits and massive inequalities based solely upon income and wealth. We are a nation that considers health care to be a privilege not a right. The ACA will not establish a new right for health care, that is an argument that goes too far. But it does provide a means for everyone to be part of the system including those without care today. It is the first shot at a more robust and efficient system that one day could end up helping the economy and our future generations deal with the soaring costs of health care. Is it perfect? No.
So, do these jurists want to be part of the solution or do they want to stop progress dead in it's tracks? In a way, it is exactly the same question faced by the courts in the 1930s with Social Security. By choosing to obey a rule that says if it was not part of the original intent of men living in 1790, those that do not want a national problem to be solved nationally are really saying they do not want it to be solved at all. Sure, some will argue that it is best done by the states which then leads one to ask a simple question: Do these same people expect a state with a system like Massachusetts to be a magnet for people that live in states such as South Carolina that refuses to adopt a new system and keeps it's citizenry from gaining universal health care? Many here would argue yes. An argument favoring state solutions is then left to the reality that we could end up with 50 different systems that would have to deal with portability issues and fairness. Treating health care as if it is just another service ignores the fact that we will all get sick or die at some point in our lives. It is inevitable. Which is more important to you?
I for one would consider a national policy to be one of the most liberty inducing acts we could possibly imagine. Anyone could move about this nation at will and get the exact same coverage regardless of location. A national policy for a nation. That is the question before the courts, they will have to decide personally just how much they care about each and every one of us.
