I've read two articles in the past few days by people who have made a career out of following the Supreme Court. They both think that the Court will reject the challenges to the healthcare act, despite the euphoria of the right based on the questions asked during the oral arguments. One of them was by Linda Greenhouse; the other was by somebody I didn´t recognize and have forgotten.
The other writer whose name I've forgotten makes the point that the whole history of the Court's interpretation of the Commerce Clause argues that the insurance mandate is legal and that, despite the judicial activism of the Court's conservative clique, Roberts won't let them take the Court over a cliff. He pointed out that one of the most conservative judges in the country, Laurence Silberman, on the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, a Reagan appointee and probably more similar in judicial philosophy to Scalia than anyone else, expressly rejected the challenge to the mandate. I have hated Silberman for so long that I can't even remember when it began or why. All I know is that it predated his time on the bench, and had to do with his political activities, because I remember how pissed I was when Reagan appointed him. This guy is truly a conservative!
In any case, we will see soon enough.
The following article I found on Alternet.org makes the case that a decision that goes the other way might not be the worst thing.
"Ironically, the Roberts Court could actually be the instrument that
leads us toward something approaching a rational, affordable healthcare
provision"
"Imagine sending your weekly grocery bill to an insurance clerk for
review and having the grocer reimbursed by the insurer to whom you have
been paying “food insurance” premiums—with some of your purchases
excluded from coverage at the whim of the insurer. Is there any
plausible reason for putting an insurance agent between you and your
grocer? No. Then why should an insurer stand between you and your
healthcare provider? And why should you be forced to contribute to such
an arbitrary scheme?"
Yes, I know that analogy is the weakest form of argument, but I like it.
There is no doubt that insurance company profits are part of the reason for the cost of healthcare in the US. It seems to me that there is a built-in absurdity of applying the insurance model to something that is most certainly going to occur, i.e. the need for health care of some sort.
2 comments:
As you know, Gerry, I am quite a fan of metaphorical language and use of the analogy. Parables are extremely useful means of conveying a message.
That particular analogy, however, is pretty lame--even in my book.
The conservatives (and I am not talking about only the far right) have seen the government, particularly the Federal government, fail at enterprises when they venture into the private sector too far. We all have a pretty good idea of what the Federal government should do, but drawing that line is difficult and many of us are concerned.
We didn't drink the kool-aid and don't want to, just yet.
What did you think of the President's unprecedented comments to the "group of people" who comprise the Supreme Court about how they should decide? I read a recent comparison of those comments to Kennedy's comments after Engle vs Vitale, the 1962 decision about school prayer. He accepted the decision and tried to help people deal with it.
Bob,
What makes it so hard to argue with conservatives is their automatic response that the government can't do anything right. Never mind that the private sector, as represented by the insurance companies, will always be a failure if the problem is defined as providing healthcare to the greatest number of people.
In that respect, I think the point of the article is very apt. Health insurance is antithetical to healthcare. There is, in fact, an illogical aspect of to the very idea of applying the insurance model to the issue of healthcare.
Obama shouldn't have said anything before the decision is handed down, if only because his remarks, if they have any effect at all, are most likely to be counter-productive. The justices probably don't like being lectured. On the other hand, I think the reaction of the media has been more than a little exaggerated. To pray or not to pray in schools was hardly a signature issue of the Kennedy administration, and the court was not dominated by justices with a right-wing agenda. I think a more appropriate comparison is with FDR's response to the conservative court that was threatening his New Deal legislation.
Depending on the court's ruling in the healthcare case, Obama could end up running for reelection against the Supreme Court as much as against Romney, and it probably wouldn't be a bad strategy.
Post a Comment