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.

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

FREE counter and Web statistics from sitetracker.com