When it comes to politics, I usually prefer to keep my
opinions quiet, so as to avoid never-ending arguments with radicals on either
side of the table. As Dale Carnegie
famously stated in How to Win Friends and
Influence People, “A man convinced against his will, is of the same opinion
still.” Therefore, rather than
developing an opinion that might offend someone, and getting tangled in a
debate, I prefer to observe the facts behind major legislation. With this past week’s Supreme Court ruling, I
found myself being pulled in two very different directions, and to be perfectly
honest, I came to the conclusion that I do not agree with either. To sum up my opinions in the most succinct
manner possible, I have outlined two burning topics, related to healthcare, with
critical analyses following each.
Is the rationale
behind the Supreme Court ruling correct?
No, I don’t believe it is.
In the majority opinion, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, he
ascertains that the Affordable Care Act “makes going without insurance just
another thing the Government taxes, like buying gasoline or earning
income.” He fails to point out the
obvious fact, however, that when it comes to gas and income, we are being taxed
on things we actually decide to buy or accumulate. The whole idea of being taxed for not buying
something is irrational, and is not outlined as legal in our Constitution. I find it implausible, and highly concerning,
that he dismisses the notion of the Commerce Clause banning the government from
forcing Americans to buy certain products, in order to re-construct the law to
appear as a tax. He goes on to say that
“it is reasonable to construe what Congress has done as increasing taxes on
those who have a certain amount of income, but (who) choose to go without health
insurance.” First, let us be clear that the
word “construe” in this context means, “to assume”. Therefore, Justice Roberts is making a very
stark assumption, and one that is not already defined in the Affordable Care
Act. For this reason, he is acting out
of his legal bounds. After making this
assumption, he continues that “if the mandate is in effect just a tax hike on
certain taxpayers who do not have health insurance, it may be within Congress’s
constitutional power to tax.” By writing
this, Chief Justice Roberts illegally changes his role from a Supreme Court
Justice to a legislator, essentially rewriting the law that Barack Obama signed
previously.
Interesting
Relationship
Ever since the news came out that President Obama’s
Affordable Care Act was being challenged in court, I thought deeply to myself,
how is requiring citizens to buy health insurance any different than requiring
drivers to buy auto insurance? The
rationale behind mandating the possession of auto insurance, is that even the
unpredictable can happen, and thus even the best driver in the world can be
distracted for a fraction of a second, enough time to start a fatal
accident. How is the world of health
insurance any different? Can we predict
cancer any better than we can predict accidents? I know plenty of healthy people, who were
shocked to find out that they were hosts to infectious diseases. As a whole, deadly diseases do not
discriminate based on whether you are Caucasian, African-American,
curly-haired, smart, or hairy. You could
feel the healthiest you’ve felt in your entire life today, and tomorrow be
diagnosed with prostate cancer. Diseases
are the epitome of the unpredictable in this world, and it is important that
American society equates the risk of becoming sick to the risk of getting in a
car accident. Roughly 33,000 Americans
were killed in automobile accidents last year, while Heart Disease and Cancer
killed 600,000 and 570,000, respectively.
Which is more important to insure against? It doesn’t take a math major to figure this
real-world problem out. To put this in
the fairest perspective possible, we must also understand that auto insurance
doesn’t simply cover against death. It also
covers against small fender benders, potential lawsuits accusing drivers of
negligence, and a multitude of other scenarios.
But to this end, so does health insurance. You do not have to die to receive the
benefits of health insurance, nor do you.
Millions are battling cancer, diabetes, and hundreds of other deadly
diseases at this very second. While
society already represents one big contradiction, this contradiction is too big
to allow to stand. All Americans need
the benefits of health insurance, to insure against the unpredictable.
In conclusion, with this ruling we find ourselves at a
crossroads between what is legally within our bounds, and what is morally right. If the Supreme Court Justices who voted in
favor of allowing the Affordable Care Act to stand actually followed the principles
of the Constitution, rather than reconstructing the Act to make it appear as a
tax, it would have been found illegal.
However, our 200+ year-old system of checks and balances is still a
work-in-progress.
Whether, Democrat, Republican, Independent, Communist, or
Anarchist, two simple ideas need to be taken out of this court ruling. First, that in following the rule of law of
the US, no one can be required by the government to purchase something. Additionally, a tax on people who refuse to
buy something is not a tax at all. It’s
a penalty, similar to a fine for a motor vehicle violation. However, as mentioned, it is entirely
ludicrous that every member of American society is not covered by health
insurance considering the unpredictable nature of fatal diseases.
Ultimately, the larger question at hand is whether the US
should be following a 200 year-old document (The Constitution) as our main rule
of Law. Nonetheless, as it stands
currently the Constitution dictates how our society runs, and in utilizing the
“ends justify the means” type of mentality that the Supreme Court did, our
nation took one step back from democracy and transparency.
No comments:
Post a Comment