"Will we love the health-care law if it dies?
By E.J. Dionne Jr.,
Sunday, June 24, 5:49 PM
Any day now, the U.S. Supreme Court may make possible something that has yet to happen: an honest and complete discussion of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA).
And if it throws out all or part of the law now popularly known as “ Obamacare,” we will need a fearless conversation about how a conservative majority of the court has become a cog in a larger right-wing project to make progressive political and legislative victories impossible.
I still harbor the perhaps naïve hope that some conservative justices — Anthony Kennedy? John Roberts? — will pull back from judicial activism and allow the voters to decide the fate of the health-care law in this fall’s elections. And here is where the court’s reintroduction of the health-care issue into the political debate could be turned into a blessing by allies of reform, provided they take advantage of the opportunity to do what they have never done adequately up to now. They need, finally, to describe and defend the law and what it does.
The ACA is the victim of a vicious cycle: Obamacare polls badly. Therefore, Democrats avoid Obamacare, preferring to talk about almost anything else, while Republicans and conservatives attack it regularly. This makes Obamacare’s poll ratings even worse, which only reinforces the avoidance on the liberal side.
The media have abetted the problem, but this is partly a response to the impact of the vicious cycle on how the issue has been framed. As a study by the Project for Excellence in Journalism has shown, terms used by opponents of the law, such as “government-run,” were much more common in the coverage than terms such as “pre-existing conditions.”
It's time we start having a frank and serious discussion about what would be out of bounds for required purchasing if the law passes. Is there actually anything that we could not be required to buy...there are things that more people use and that more poor people need, but we ignore for the most part (research human need for food).
The concept that the small chance that more will get health care is a trade off for you getting to decide what you buy for the rest of your life is crazy. If you like that one can I have your car, I will give you a mushed up ant in exchange?
popcorn eater wrote: It's time we start having a frank and serious discussion about what would be out of bound for required purchasing if the law passes. Is there actually anything that we could not be required to buy.
I think it would have been better to have had this discussion in the legistlative branch of our government instead of the judicial branch. Sadly we had to send this law to the Supreme Court just to get someone to read it.
The way I see it...this thing should have never gotten into the courts and should have been solved through discussion and compromise between the executive and legislative branches. Seems that may be where it's kicked back to anyway.
What never should have happened- is the willingness of our elected officials to enact a law that had serious constitutional issues - in the first damn place.
These idiots who voted for this law- knew the serious constitutional problems associated with it- and completely ignored those facts and stabbed every American in the back by willingly voting for such a load of crap.
They had to know that it would be challenged- and it should be challanged. I fear that the supreme court will only strike down parts of the law- instead of throwing the whole damn thing in the garbage, which is what I would do.
And yes- it really needed to be challenged at the supreme court level- because our left wing politicians have demonstrated that they do not give a DAMN about the constitution.
A silly health care law can be re-written- once we lose our constitutional rights- they are gone forever and we never get them back.
And yes- we can settle the rest of it on November 6- we still have that option too, so I don't know where the author (E.J. Dionne Jr.) is coming from.
It's a damn sad state of affairs when the people we elect - swear an oath to protect the constitution, and then turn around and the very next thing they do is stab it in the back.
I don't enjoy Dionne as much as I used to. I think he has become more partisan than logical. Letting the Supremes review probably the most important law ever is a no-brainer. And the Supremes aren't as rigid as E.J. would believe. Obama has replaced (2) of them in 3 years. And I bet 3 more will be replaced in the next 4 years. If Obama wins, like the electoral voting polling says he will, the Court will have 2-3 new liberals or moderate liberals replacing the current bench.
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
BM
