Saturday, June 30, 2012
ACA and the Supremes
I have never been a strong fan of the Accountable Care Act
(a.k.a. Obamacare), but given all the circumstances I think it just as well
that it was upheld.
I thought that the cost issue was more important than the
coverage issue and should have been addressed first but others, including wife
Marilyn, failed to find my arguments persuasive. So if we have to get the coverage issue out
of the way before we can address cost, the sooner the better.
As to mandatory health insurance, I was for it when Romney
was for it and Obama was against it. I
continued to be for it after they switched sides. Believing that we would never get single
payer and that everyone would expect care when sick or injured, I have thought
it only fair that everyone be required to contribute.
As to the constitutionality, it was going to be a stretch
however it was decided. The authors of
our constitution could scarcely have anticipated the day when health care would
be considered a social entitlement like food, clothing, and shelter, when it
would represent nearly a fifth of the economy, and when it would be financed
largely by public and private insurance.
There is no way to know how they would have dealt with the question of
whether those electing to remain uninsured should pay a penalty or a tax. So eight of the Supremes voted their politics
and the motives of the ninth remain obscure.
Anyway, the judicial phase of the challenge is now over and
we can go on to the next one.