http://www.kqed.org/a/forum/
I think the health care economics effects of this legislation are still too opaque to comment on (plus I am fairly ignorant), but in terms of effects on the campaign, it should get interesting. Obviously it's a win for the Dems, but it may become a rallying cry for the GOP. Though if you look at things logically, I don't think this legislation should be the prominent conservative issue that it is (and why is it so unpopular and getting more so? misinformation?). I guess the right doesn't really have much else to work with besides the economy, though. The candidate the GOP chose is obviously not in a great strategic position to advocate Obamacare repeal. But really, I don't think true conservatives should so dislike this health care reform. It's far from perfect (and we all had plenty of debates together 2 years ago), but look at the underlying principles:
- Conservatives don't like "free riders" right? Insurance only works by spreading out risk, especially if they are now not legally able to price discriminate (or reject) based on customer traits (which most of us feel is ethical - shouldn't pregnant women be the first to be covered and not blacklisted?). It won't work if the healthy and young skip out on health insurance premiums, leaving only the older and sicker (and gov't) to pay - another manifestation of the generational conflict? And then when the uninsured need care, they often burden the system by using emergency services and may not pay full cost. The sick don't get off Scot free either, since they will still pay more into the system in the form of copays.
- Conservatives feel that the Constitution is their 2nd Bible, right? The conservative-leaning High Court ruled that most of the Affordable Care Act is constitutional, with the Chief Justice siding with liberals and writing the majority opinion (so it's not like the liberal justices hijacked the ruling - they can't anyway). They keep accusing the Dems of trampling on the Constitution, but what about now? And no one questions Roberts' conservative chops. He said that the Court's job is to decide whether Congress acted within its powers, not judge the merits of what the bill would do. So if the GOP don't like it, write a better reform. But now if they want to repeal Obamacare 100%, they're going to piss off people who think it's not right that the current insurance market excludes pregnant women and unemployed adult students.
- This Act doesn't force anyone or "take away" any freedoms (the "mandate" was kind of a misnomer). Americans still have a choice whether to buy coverage or not. They just have to fork over a small (~$300/year) fine/tax to pay for the social cost of their decision. Those funds will be used to make health care more affordable to the needy, which benefits everyone. The young and healthy may take that choice anyway, since the cheapest individual health plans they could get would run $1-2K/year, until the health exchanges maybe become efficient some day. Employer health care will be preserved, and customers may even get rebates. This is no different than other laws: I can have a non-neutered dog if I want, but I just have to pay a higher registration fee due to the risk I am imposing on my community.
But the problem is the anti-Obama crowd doesn't care about these facts. Everything he does is automatically evil and un-American, so he has to be stopped. They want to go back to 2008 (minus the recession I hope). So how to convince them that this really won't be as bad as they fear (and were taught to fear by the right wing media)? But by all means, if they have better ideas on how to reduce our health care expenditures (which is the highest % of GDP in the world, and in terms of raw dollars, and growing much faster than inflation) and make it more available, we're all ears.
PS - I think it's funny that Romney and Obama probably both had 2 versions of speeches (or more) prepared for today
-----------
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-
http://news.yahoo.com/roberts-
There's quite a bit of chatter on the possibly clerk-leaked revelation that Roberts changed his mind mid-course on the health care reform decision. If true, this would be an unprecedented breach of confidentiality and a major betrayal in Court history (especially considering that the leak came just 4 days after the Court revealed its decision). I guess some conservative circles (and maybe even Roberts' right-leaning peers) viewed his act as betrayal as well, but does that justify this significant breach of decorum? Like the Wikileaks fiasco with the State Dept, I think this leak will only serve to erode trust and collaboration on the Court, and ultimately hurt our ability to govern. I think people are allowed to change their mind sometime, especially when confronted with new evidence and arguments. People don't have to vote along party lines all the time, otherwise why not just have the parties rule the nation? And even within each party, there is quite a diversity of opinions (maybe begging the question: why not have more parties like the rest of the developed world?).
The right chastised Obama for supposedly deliberately leaking details of his anti-terrorism decisions to shore up his defense chops, but where is the outrage over this SCOTUS leak? But getting back to the Roberts court, this leak is another public example of the right's disrespect and intolerance (Barton yelling "You lie!", ludicrous birther/Muslim accusations, etc.). I know the right feels that "gov. is the problem", but I thought they also believed in the sanctity of the Constitution, respect for American traditions, US exceptionalism, etc.? Begging your pardon, but they're acting more like trailer trash Republicans than Lincoln or TR Republicans. Though I wonder where Roberts goes from here. Will his future decisions be more conservative in order to get out of Scalia's doghouse? Or will he be so offended by this act that it will push him more centrist or liberal? I am not sure what cases await them in the next Court session, but it should be interesting. Though I think the SCOTUS is one of those institutions that does a good job if it seems "boring" and stays out of the headlines. It would be a real tragedy if this controversy becomes new precedent, and the already over-politicized Court becomes more so in the future.
No comments:
Post a Comment