by Madeleine KandoThe Supreme Court’s decision today to uphold the Constitutionality of the Individual Mandate took me so by surprise that I still cannot believe it. It looks like the Republicans’ appeal to try to overturn the Reform bit them in the ass big time. Whether the Justices came to their decision because they were trying to protect their own image, to follow the middle road or to try to convince the public that the Supreme Court hasn't been 'politicized', the bottom line is that this is a historic moment, both from a personal perspective and for America in general.
Many decades ago, when I first came to this country, I already felt that America's lack of universal health care was a big stain on this country's international standing and that most Europeans' view of America as a 'dog eat dog' society, was justified. Fresh from the Netherlands, I couldn't understand how a nation could allow so many millions of people to fend for themselves when it came to their health care. I considered affordable, universal health care as birth right, the right to be treated without questions asked. It has been a source of shame, especially when I had to confront my former European friends and explain to them why I liked living in America when all they saw was this barbaric aspect of this country. It took this long, and it is indeed almost a life time, for me to finally be able to say: 'America has joined the ranks of civilized countries'. I am happy because I know that this is a turning point in America's history.
It will take another ten years before Americans realize that this is the only way to move forward if they want to keep their country from falling behind and be considered a 'banana republic', where only the people who can afford it will get health care.
Yesterday, I was all caught up in writing about the 6 billion dollars that the Super Pacs are spending on political campaigns. I was trying to figure out how much better that 6 billion dollars could be spent, how it could alleviate the huge amount of poverty that we have in this country. I came up with these figures:
The official poverty level in the US is $11.000 or less. For a family of 4 it is $23.000. That means that if those 6 billion dollars were spent on the poor rather than on wasteful television advertising to badmouth a political opponent, over half a million people could be taken out of poverty for a whole year. Half a million! With that kind of money they could forego hunger, homelessness, misery and death. I have listened to the discussions about the super pacs, how it corrupts the political process, how a handful of rich people can buy the elections and how Senator Bernard Sanders is proposing a Constitutional Amendment to overturn the 'Citizens United' ruling by the Supreme Court. What I missed in all the discussions is how misallocated this obscene amount of money is.
Today, because of the Supreme Court ruling on Health Care, I realize that what Chief Justice Roberts was trying to do is to self-correct. On the one hand the Justices have created a monster, which hopefully will be overturned by Roberts' Amendment, on the other hand, today, they have voted in favor of the people, which is, in my opinion, what a Supreme Court is meant to do: to uphold the moral standard of a nation, through the law of the land. Today's ruling has made a believer out of me again. I believe in America again. This is the best anti-depressant I have taken in a long time. leave comment here
4 comments:
I, too am jubilant about this turn of events.
Of course, we shouldn’t count our chickens: If Romney replaces Obama in the Fall, and Republicans take the Senate, then Obamacare will be reversed after all.
But for now, it’s a happy day.
Regarding Chief Justice Roberts: Madeleine’s idea that he is “self-correcting” is good. One can only speculate about his motives and his mind: Here are some possibilities, ranging from ludicrous to noble: (1) A paranoid theory could be that he changed the wording from “penalty” to “tax” so as to inflame and give more fodder to the opposition. (2) Or maybe he spent nights talking to his wife or to other intimates who have a heart, and who privately convinced him to also have a heart. (3) Or: he grew and made a Lincolnesque decision: The Supreme Court is for all the people, not just for the privileged people, and Americans deserve a future too, nut just a past and a present. Most pundits have mentioned the Supremes’ image problem: they gave the election to Bush over Gore in 2000, they approved Citizens United, etc. Maybe Roberts grew more moral, as did Honest Abe? (Remember, President Lincoln had absolutely NO intention to abolish slavery at first).
An interesting contrast with some of the other Supremes: My fellow-Sacramentan Justice Anthony Kennedy was supposed to be the swing vote, a reasonable and not-too-partisan fellow. But he caved in abjectly. As to Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas? The former should run for elected office instead, since he is so incredibly partisan, and the latter has said so little over the years that his qualifications are unclear...
I would urge you to read the full 194 pages in the decision. Justice Roberts makes a clear and convincing case the neither the commerce clause nor the necessary and proper clause can be used as recklessly as the sponsors of the ACA chose to do - although he seems to have ignored intent in his written decision.
At that same time I found Justice Ginsberg's concurrodissent appalling. Ginsberg has said publicly she would not start with the US Constitution as a model and it is clear that she believes that. She argued for unbridled federal power including the ability of the government to compel individuals into commerce. That is a radical and unsettling doctrine which I hope is never taken seriously by anyone on the court.
I disagree that Kennedy caved anywhere. READ his dissent. It is soundly reasoned. This is a judgement call where I believe the Chief made a poor judgement. He led a group where no one followed.
The most telling statement in his writing was the notion that it was not the job of the court to correct political blunders - that is what elections are for.
I am concerned about two things on this decision. First, when you increase demand without increasing supply the price of something is increased. That is exactly what will happen if all of the ACA is implemented. Second, if the GOP simply tries to eliminate the ACA through legislative action, I think they will be unsuccessful - leaving a lousy set of policies in place. They need to address some of the economic arguments raised by both the dissenting opinion and by Justice Roberts in a clear fashion.
I read most of the brief and agree with you on two points: 1) that it IS the job of the Court to correct political blunders and 2) that the National Government should only have limited powers.
The whole idea of forcing everyone to buy health insurance is to cover the extra cost to the Insurance Companies. I am hopeful that this will happen, just as it happened in Massachusetts. If Romney wins the next election, then yes, we are all in trouble.
thanks for sharing..
Post a Comment
Please limit your comment to 300 words at the most!