In about 90 days, the United States Supreme Court will probably rule one way or another on the health care reform bill, also known as Obamacare. This week they have been hearing arguments as to the legality of the law, mainly the mandate that requires everybody get health insurance or be fined. While I do not want to get into specifics, I do work in health care and my job is affected strongly by this law every day (I will tell you my job if you want to message me, I’m just not about to publicize it) so needless to say I know a decent amount about this very controversial law.
I’ve said from the beginning that we should flat out have a one payer, universal coverage for everybody, but that is another debate. The debate is this law. From a pure work stand point, I hope like hell it is not overturned. From a political stand point, being a strong liberal, I hope like hell it is not overturned because it puts Obama’s reelection in doubt. From a personal stand point, I’m mixed. At the end of the day, try as I must to come up with a justification, I just can’t agree that the government can force somebody to have coverage, in spite of the fact that everybody SHOULD have coverage and it is best for everybody. The government should not be allowed to tell you what is good or bad for you. My core belief is that anything that does not harm others should be legal. And if somebody is dumb enough not to carry health insurance, well, that is their own business.
But, what I don’t know is that I’m not convinced that it is unconstitutional to force people to get coverage. Look, even though a lot of people like to think they are constitutional experts, I am not. However, it makes sense that if it is constitutional to outlaw gay marriage and pot, than it should be legal to outlaw people going without health insurance. And when it comes to the Supreme Court and court rulings, so many decisions are based on previous precedent, so honestly, this can really go either way.
If it is overthrown, which based on the politics of the justices, is a very good chance, it will just reconfirm my belief that Obama went about this all wrong. He settled on a law that was not as strong as he and many others would have liked. It was confusing and tough to understand from the beginning. And a mandate for coverage, even if upheld, was probably not the way to go. I did hear somebody on the radio today make a great suggestion though that if they had done this from the start, might have prevented the law from being put before any courts in the first place: tax breaks for people who choose to get coverage.
We all know how Republicans claim to loathe taxes. Well, this is a way to ensure coverage and lower taxes. After all, who doesn’t want lower taxes. And, in spite of it all, everybody wants health insurance, yes, even Republicans. Now I didn’t catch the entire way such a plan would work, but the general idea is an interesting one to say the least. One that if it was implemented from the start, might have had a total different outcome. But as it stands, the whole thing is in jeopardy because of the mandate.
Still, there is really no way to tell how this will go in spite of what the pundits say. After all, this law has been brought before numerous judges and courts and many of them have different decisions and opinions on it. Which leads me to believe that much of it is about politics: side with the president, than you side with the law, against the president and you are against the law. Which leads me to believe that it will be overturned since there is a 5-4 conservative majority on the bench.