NotebookWhy I'm Sad and Relieved That a Federal Judge Ruled the Health Care Bill Unconstitutional
A federal judge is backing the challenge of 26 state attorneys by declaring the much-debated "Obamacare" unconstitutional.
Federal Judge Roger Vinson ruled that the individual mandate requiring all Americans to purchase health insurance is invalid and, "because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire Act must be declared void." [via]
* * *
I'm writing about this because this blog is about living a quality life, and this health care bill will have an enormous impact on the quality of all our lives.
I'm surprised at my mixed emotions. I'm relieved. I'm also sad for Obama. His whole bill, a landmark achievement for him as President, is getting declared void based off this one Act. I don't enjoy seeing people fail, especially people as earnest as Obama seems. He has great intentions. He's not trying to make us a socialist country or become the AntiChrist or whatever other crazy accusations people are throwing at him these days. He's a good man with a passionate soul, and he desperately wants to help America. And he can give a speech like rare few people I've ever heard.
I was, however, taken aback when I first heard that he originally approved the bill, as it included that Act.
I'm not big into discussing politics anymore, but this is one thing I've been keeping an eye and ear on. I like Obama's proactive approach. The cost of health care and health insurance is ludicrous. I don't know if it's as corrupt as people say it is. Maybe ... maybe not. I'm no expert. So it seems to me that public health care, if we want it, is a fine option. (Only, I'm not sure how our country could afford it, but that's another topic entirely, and this blog is getting long enough.)
But it's easy to see that requiring us to buy it—literally forcing us to buy into his program—is unconstitutional. I'm no judge or attorney, and I am far, far from a constitutional expert. But that's the one thing I couldn't get past. Funding abortions? I don't like it, but I've long gotten over our government spending our tax dollars on things I don't like.
This isn't like the government requiring drivers to have auto insurance. If you drive without auto insurance, get in a wreck with someone, and it's your fault, and you can't pay for it, then you've just screwed up someone else's life. That's also why we have laws against speeding and drunk driving and shooting at cars with paintballs. The government is right in protecting us against the recklessness of others.
But the only person it affects if an individual doesn't buy health insurance is that individual. So to force someone to buy health insurance—this is wrong. This is reckless.
I want to believe in Obama as a good leader and a good President. He seems like a good man. But good as a man may be, he can't always make the right decision. That's why our government system is the way it is, with checks and balances in federal judges like Roger Vinson.
I'm thankful for Obama caring as much as he does.
But I'm also thankful for Vinson protecting the American people.
* * *
I have and want no part in the vitriolic nature of arguments for and against Obamacare and Obama in general. I thought hard before publishing this post, because I wish not to wade back into the flames and the sludge of political arguments. It gets nasty, and I'm not a person who wants to create or participate in personal judgement based on political views. The way people have begun treating each other and talking to each other, when it comes to politics, is tragic.
That said, I do welcome a debate, so long as it is respectful, kind, and with the understanding that it is okay to have differences of opinion. What do you think of the proposed healthcare overhaul, and what of Mr. Vinson's recent ruling? You can leave a comment by clicking here.
Reader Comments (5)
Really?? This is your argument?
'But the only person it affects if an individual doesn't buy health insurance is that individual. So to force someone to buy health insurance—this is wrong. This is reckless.'
If someone has a heart attack and is hospitalized for a week his bills could be $400,000. If the individual doesn't have insurance, guess who pays? Everyone.
What is one of the main reasons why health insurance is so expensive? Because the country is subsidizing 50 million Americans who don't have insurance! Some can't afford it, that's ok. But everyone who can needs to shoulder their share of the burden.
Actually, it IS just like auto insurance. People don't like to pay for no-fun things like health and auto insurance. Sad fact is if the government doesn't make you have insurance, there's going to be a segment of the population that skates by on the back of other honorable people.I don't care if someone is pro or anti healthcare, but to say someone not having insurance only impacts the individual is not correct.
Hey Ken, thanks for the comment.
I'd like to ask you to elaborate a little more. Like I said, I'm not an expert—this is my understanding of things right now. I'm open to changing my mind if I have good reason to.
I just didn't follow you. You didn't make it clear how everyone goes about paying for someone without insurance. I would like to know more about that.
Also, how is the country subsidizing 50 million Americans without health insurance? And how does the government's helping those people impact the prices of corporate insurance companies?
Also, how is it like auto insurance? You weren't real clear about that, either. You ram someone with a car, it's obviously your fault, and so you are held responsible, and you are sent a bill. If someone has a heart attack, though, why would you be sent their bill?
Honestly not trying to be a smartass here. Just trying to follow your argument, because it didn't really have anything other than an irrelevant, unhelpful "Really??" and a few opinions with no facts to back them up.
Thanks!
Ken, nothing to add? Was looking forward to it.
Here's the answers to your questions.
1.I just didn't follow you. You didn't make it clear how everyone goes about paying for someone without insurance. I would like to know more about that.
Answer: Say a surgery costs $20,000. However, if there is 25% of the patients that don't have insurance and can't pay for the surgery a hospital has to cover those costs somehow. So what do they do? They charge insured folks $25,000 to cover for those that are freeloading and paying $0. That makes insurance companies pay more on claims and subsequently leads to higher premiums to cover their costs.
2. Also, how is the country subsidizing 50 million Americans without health insurance? And how does the government's helping those people impact the prices of corporate insurance companies?
Answer: I'm baffled that a college graduate is asking this question. If 50 million Americans don't have insurance, who do you think is paying for them? God? Sadly, no. The cost is passed on in a number of ways: higher premiums for the responsible as mentioned above. Meanwhile, the hospitals swallow the debt and if they're public that means their budgets skyrockets increasing the amount of cash they need from the state government which leads to higher taxes.
3.Also, how is it like auto insurance? You weren't real clear about that, either. You ram someone with a car, it's obviously your fault, and so you are held responsible, and you are sent a bill. If someone has a heart attack, though, why would you be sent their bill?
Answer: You crash your car into someone else with no insurance then the cost of repair and hospitalization is passed on to the victim and/or the state government. Someone has a heart attack and has no insurance then his $400,000 debt is passed on to the hospital who makes up the loss by raising every insured citizen's rates and needing more money from state and fed government to cover the shortfall. That money is raised by jacking up taxes.
Doctors can't turn away those without insurance because of ethics. So everyone must be treated. Some folks just can't afford insurance and that's why we have Medicaid. But if someone can afford it but choose not to get insurance, then their part has to be covered by responsible folks who chose insurance over a new SUV.
Thanks for the response, Ken. Very informative.