530 billion dollars, 26 states, 9 judges, 1 upcoming
presidential election: With the recent controversy over the Obamacare medical
aid plan, it is looking less and less likely that Obama will truly be able to
afford the Affordable Care Act.
In principle
And maybe in practice as well, it’s feasible that Obama’s
healthcare plan could work. As President
Obama signed the bill on March 23, 2010, he looked to implement a system of
health care in the United States that would end the practice of private
insurers and private providers and enact a nationwide mandate on obtaining
healthcare that would be covered by the government. In some ways, this isn’t so
bad. In this current system, neither side is benefited: the poor don’t buy the expensive
premiums and so when a problem arises they go to the emergency room, their
costs are put on the rich, making their care so expensive that many of them
don’t buy it either. So the government pays. A socialized healthcare program
would mean the government would be paying even more than they do now (an
estimated 530 billion dollars added to the U.S. debt over the following ten
years), but isn’t quality service and the good health of Americans everywhere
worth that? Many have argued that neither of these golden ideals will be
achieved anyway. Socializing health care means that high-paying jobs like
doctors and surgeons will now be on standard government pay. In other words: a
crappy salary. Those who are motivated and intelligent will no longer be attracted
to these positions and those who are in them will have no motivation to provide
outstanding care for their patients. But there is precedent: in “Health Care is
for Everyone”, Fareed Zakaria analyzes other countries’ social health care
changes and the results are surprising. He cites specifically, that both
Switzerland and Taiwan, who have switched to a government policy, have seen
increases in quality and decreases in cost. Switzerland spends only 11% of its
GDP on health care while Taiwan a mere 7%. All of this is in contrast to the
U.S.’ 17% of its total GDP without socialized
medicine. Ultimately, the market system seems too infrequently used and
therefore too expensive for it to benefit anyone. Socialized healthcare seems
to provide a solution to decrease costs and increase availability in a
relatively short period of time.
In practice
Maybe it’s the huge price tag attached, maybe it’s Obama’s
past failures to deliver much on other huge projects (think 700 billion dollar
stimulus plan…anyone? Anyone?), but its probably the Constitution. Obama’s plan
was running by relatively smoothly before that issue came up. True, it was
hastily thrown together and had to be revised substantially after it was
passed, true, Obama is not the greatest president when it comes to the economy,
but despite the few protests, the advantages that it seemed to lay out (see
first paragraph), looked enticing. However, as soon as the controversies
stemmed over its legality under the Constitution, the tides receded and Obama
was left stranded with the nation accusing him of trying to undermine its
principle values. Now, technically,
Obamacare could be considered constitutional. The government can control
interstate markets to an extent, and this medical system would be an interstate
market. However, the unprecedented factor is that no one has ever been forced to participate in an interstate market. Even
socialized education systems allow people to attend private schools or be home
schooled if that is their preference. No such lax boundaries on healthcare, it
is a mandatory participation with heave fines if one does not comply. While
healthcare is not a huge factor in restricting personal freedom, it does lead
to the question: what else can the government force everyone to do?
The Supreme Court
The popular vote may have turned against Obama, but he still
had a chance to rescue it. These seemed to be, possibly, the knockout punch
that he needed: prove that he respected the Constitution, uphold his bill, and
show that he could handle revolutionary change within the United States. It was
his chance to shine. But he didn’t. Entering the court setting, the lawyers
defending Obama’s case were woefully unprepared—ridiculously so. Unable to
quote exact facts and different assets of the law, they seemed overconfident in
the Supreme Court’s favoring the bill, and were dominated within that context.
In poor recovery from this solid blow to his law, Obama protested the way the
Court seemed to be leaning: “We have not seen a court overturn a law that was
passed by Congress on an economic issue like health care…at least since
Lochner”, essentially sternly berating the Supreme Court for doing its job in
vetting the bills that are being passed by the Legislative Branch. More tension
between President Obama and the Supreme Court make it more and more likely that
they will reject the bill or severely impair it by striking out many sections.
On another front, the House of Representatives and Senate are working to
dismantle the bill as well, trying to get rid of it “piece by piece”, provided
they cannot eliminate it completely.
Obama has had several disputes with the Supreme Court, making it unlikely that the Act will pass in full form. |
Just in time for this humiliating series of events, Romney
emerges as proposed victor as Rick Santorom drops out of the primaries. There
is never a time more crucial for President Obama to emerge as a confident
opponent, but as laws crumble to dust in his fingers and the highest judicial
power in the States turns against him, he has never seemed more vulnerable. The
Affordable Care Act still looks profitable for the United States, and it could
still be edited, revised and passed. In many ways it is likely that it will
remain for many years to come, but as for President Obama, I can’t say the
same.
No comments:
Post a Comment