.
Feedback

Obamacare-itis (Failure to See the Forest for the Trees)

When it comes to Obamacare, many people seem unwilling or unable to see the bigger picture, which has nothing at all to do with healthcare.

I cannot be certain, but The Patch article concerning the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision on the Affordable Care Act (or "Obamacare") may just be the single most popular article The Patch has ever posted.



If the number of reader comments is any indication (801 as of this writing) and the number of votes in the non-scientific poll that is part of the article offers any hint (6748 votes so far), this article has drawn more direct reader participation than any previous Patch article, ever.

It is more than safe to say that many Patch readers feel very strongly one way or the other about this topic. I know this to be true because I am among them.

For those who have not yet read the actual Supreme Court Opinion, I strongly encourage you to do so. I've attached a .pdf version to this article.

My interest in this historic Supreme Court decision has less to do with healthcare and more to do with what I consider to be a far bigger and far more significant picture: Our federal constitution and the impacts this decision will have (has already had) upon the constitution's ability to continue to constrain the power and authority of the general (federal) government.

First, allow me to say, right up front, that I am not necessarily opposed to the theory of universal healthcare or to some variation on the theme of universal health care. Much of our own American society is ordered according to methods that are clearly more socialist, or socialized, than not.

My objection has more to do with the idea that this approach to health care should be applied on a national scale in the United States. Many developed nations seem to have adopted universal healthcare with varying degrees of success. Proponents point to nations like Sweden, Canada, and the United Kingdom as models the U.S. should try to emulate.

Though many proponents seem reluctant to admit this truth, nationalized universal healthcare systems are not without considerable challenges of their own. Nor are any of those other nations organized as constitutional republics None of those nations has a constitution that was ratified with the specific idea of insuring the greatest degree of personal liberty and individual freedom to citizens, by imposing strict and specific limits on the general government.

This brings us to the bigger-picture concern I have with Obamacare. It is the same bigger-picture concern I have every time the federal government exceeds its specifically-enumerated counstitutional bounds. Through Obamacare, the federal government can now compel you, me, and every other adult legally residing in the U.S. to either purchase a product, or pay a penalty (which it calls a tax) for declining to do so.

Think on this for a moment. Regardless of whether you happen to like this particular product or not, do you really want the federal government to have that much authority over your personal decisions about whether or not you will buy this (or any other) product?

I can assure you that I most assuredly...most emphatically...do not want the federal government to have that sort of authority over my daily life. The reason is simple: If the federal government can control my personal purchasing decisions and daily life in this area, it can and most assuredly will try to do so in others.

That is not the sort of nation I desire to live in. Nor should it be the sort of nation any of us has to live in.

The entire concept of a constitutional republic has to do with the idea that the general government has a few, very limited, specifically enumerated, powers and, beyond those, power and authority is reserved to the States or to the people, as individuals. 

This is precisely how it is possible (and quite logical) for presumptive Republican Presidential nominee Willard Mitt Romney to have helped enact a form of universal healthcare in his home State of Massachusetts, yet be opposed to the same or a similar sort of system for the entire nation.

Governor Romney seems to understand the concept of federalism.

He appears to understand that what may have proven good and desireable for Massachusetts may not be good and desireable for Delaware, or Texas, or some other State. Gov. Romney seems to understand what President Obama clearly does not seem to:

That the people of each State should be able to decide for themselves what sort of universal healthcare program (if any) that want to institute in their own States.

The logical result of this -more constitutionally compliant- approach is that some States, like Massachusetts, will enact universal healthcare while some other States will not. Because this is so, people who desire to live in a State with universal healthcare can do so and those people who do not desire to live in such a State, are likewise free to not do so.

In other words, through the federalist approach -the approach our nation was founded upon, the approach our constitution defines- we enjoy a far greater degree of personal freedom and individual liberty than otherwise. We have more options from which to choose how we, as sovereign individuals, prefer to live our own lives. More choices about how we desire to raise our families.

That is the "forest" so many seem to be missing, while they are fixating on the monstrous and rotted "tree" that is Obamacare.

It is high time to take some giant steps back, my friends. To acquire a much broader focus, and much deeper understanding.

Obamacare is just one, very large, very sick "tree", but the entire "forest" that is our freedom is at very serious risk.

I very much welcome your questions and comments.

Luis July 1, 2012 at 10:40 am
So when will you be leaving the U.S. now that it is the law of the land?
Concerned Citizen July 1, 2012 at 01:01 pm
Two issues, the first of which is this conservative unyielding view of the federal government as some kind of giant monster taking over the land. These are your elected officials. If you don't like their views then vote them out. Secondly, these same arguments occurred when social security and Medicare were enacted and now not only can we not live without them the entire population is eager to use these federal benefits whatever chance they get. Is obamacare a good thing? Certainly the concept is a great idea but ask me again in ten years.
Joe Blow July 1, 2012 at 01:21 pm
Just for your FYI...we are already are forced to buy a products ( like social security ( insurance ) for when we get old. Paying into Medicare ( insurance ) for when we get sick when we get old.and a whole bunch of other stuffs ( yes they are taxes ) . This law is mearely an extension of something we already paying into it except this is an insurance for us when we get sick and either being irresponsible or couldn't afford it. By the way most of us would not be affected because we already have insurance.the majority of us would simply check to box on our tax return and there will be no penalty ( ok yes .. Tax ) The bottom line is .. This is not something that out of the extraordinary. But if you want to pretend that it is..you should be outrage the first day you were born or take a job because the similar law are already in the book called
Social Security...Medicare..Etc..the different is that ..there are no boxes in your tax form to check .. You have to pay.
John B. Greet July 1, 2012 at 02:24 pm
Luis, I have left the U.S. several times in my life. The world is a fascinating place and its people even more so. The U.S. is my home and I have always returned because despite the many wonderful places elsewhere, the U.S. remains the most wonderful of them all. This does not mean that there are not challenges here that we, as citizens, should seek to correct.
Yes, ACA is the law of the land for now, but laws can be amended and laws can be repealed. Slavery was the law of the land once also. Should that abomination have remained on the books too? Chief Justice Roberts offered a not-so-subtle clueas to what one proper response might be: "Members of this Court are vested with the authority to interpret the law; we possess neither the expertise northe prerogative to make policy judgments. Those decisions are entrusted to our Nation’s elected leaders, who can be thrown out of office if the people disagree with them. It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences oftheir political choices."
John B. Greet July 1, 2012 at 03:07 pm
Thanks, Concerned. As C.J. Roberts alluded, we truly do get the government we deserve. Thus, and as I have ever argued, the degree to which any level of government grows improperly intrusive into our personal lives and unreasonably enchroaching upon our personal freedoms and individual liberties, is the degree to which the people have allowed that to occur.
I respectfully disagree with the premise that we cannot live without either social security or Medicare. I think we can live without both. I think we *did* live without both for many long years before they existed. Have those programs helped many who otherwise may not have been? Sure. Does this mean other programs...originating in the States and controlled and managed by the States...might not have been conceived and prove useful instead? I think not.
John B. Greet July 1, 2012 at 03:36 pm
Thanks, Joe. Nationwide entitlement programs are not extraordinary, we have had many for several decades. All are rife with fraud, abuse, mis-management, and overall ineptitude.
As I tried to convey in the article, what *is* extraordinary, indeed, completely unprecedented in all of our jurisprudence to date, is the judicial notice that has now been taken, that the Fed can compel us to purchase a product or penalize us through taxation if we choose to not do so. When we pay into social security or Medicare, it is with the understanding that we will see some sort of return for our investment. Not much of an investment, I'll grant you, but something nonetheless. When some start paying this "penalty tax" they will not be receiving anything in return. Others will benefit from the moneys the Fed will tax away from them, and all because some of us neither want, nor need, health insurance. This is what is extraordinary, Joe. That the Fed can attempt to compel all of us to purchase something many of us do not want or need to buy. In my view this is a despicable intrusion into our personal lives by a level of government that was never intended to have that sort of power.
Jeanine July 1, 2012 at 03:37 pm
It is quite ironic that "conservatives" are so upset about the individual mandate since it is a direct result of the Republican Party's negotiations at the time the ACA was written. The mandate was a concession that was made by the Democrats. After that the Republicans turned around and dubbed it "Obamacare" and proceeded to malign it.
A quote from an recent New Yorker article, "The Republicans have made the individual mandate the element most likely to undo the President’s health-care law. The irony is that the Democrats adopted it in the first place because they thought that it would help them secure conservative support. It had, after all, been at the heart of Republican health-care reforms for two decades." Read more http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/06/25/120625fa_fact_klein I think the real question we should all ask ourselves is who is funding all the efforts to maintain the status quo? Who really benefits when 30 million plus US citizens can't afford their medical care? My guess is that it is the financial institutions themselves that are quite afraid this new law will take away their "right" to continue fleecing the middle class. The best thing of all that could happen would be to do away with medical insurance entirely and run healthcare the same way we do public schools, police & fire services and roads. All hospitals should be non-profits. No one should be making a profit off the misery of others. It is morally repugnant.
John B. Greet July 1, 2012 at 06:00 pm
Thanks, Jeanine. While it is true that some conservatives (certainly not all and certainly not all *truly* conservative legislators) supported an individual mandate for national healthcare reform, they did so as an alternative to the employer-mandate system attempted through what was, at the time, dubbed "HillaryCare."
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/conservatives-and-the-individual-mandate/ That, as they say, was then and this is now. ACA is a considerably different piece of legislation from what HillaryCare attempted back in 1994. Different liberal-minded, federal government power grabs require different sorts of arguments in rebuttal. No reasonable person I know of, liberal or conservative, has ever argued that there are not serious challenges in our current healthcare system that need to be addressed. The argument is, and always has been, how best to address those challenges. Again, I am not necessarily opposed to some version of universal healthcare enacted at the State level. What I oppose -and vehemently- is a nationalized model that mandates everyone purchase health insurance or pay a penalty (in the form of a tax) to the federal government for declining to do so. The national model leaves an otherwise free people with no choice in the matter. A State-centric model allows people who do not desire to live with (or help pay for) such a system, to move to States that do not have, and do not want, such a system. (more)
John B. Greet July 1, 2012 at 07:10 pm
Your idea of a non-profit business model for all hospitals is an intriguing one but, once again, it seems to assume that government would have to run them all, making all of the employees, government employees. This, in turn expands the cost and scope of government exponentially. As government expands, personal freedoms and individual liberties must necessarily shrink.
If the government that is running these hospitals is State-level or smaller, I could see that being acceptable to the majority of voters in some States. I do not see bringing all healthcare throughout the nation under government control. This government cannot run an allegedly sacrosanct social security system without raiding it to pay for all of the many other things it should not be doing. Imagine how far the quality of federal government-provided healthcare would fall as that same government started raiding those funds as well?
ari Goldberg July 11, 2012 at 01:46 pm
Well as a supporter of the Affordable Care Act, I think you're attitude is symptomatic of what's wrong with this country when compared to countries like the UK, Canada and Australia. As you mentioned briefly and almost acknowledged these countries all have universal health care, what you neglected to mention and what's critical is this means that every single citizen of these countries has access to health care at far cheaper prices than the select number who do in this country. What you also neglected to mention is that our system as ranked Behind these and other countries in numerous studies on the overall effectiveness and quality of the system. What you also don't understand is that you're paying for these people anyway, when they hit emergency rooms and critical care and have to be treated, those costs get piled onto your costs. Your ideological nonsense about personal liberties is baffling when you consider everything else you happily accept as being provided by government - schools, police, defense, roads, justice system - why single out healthcare as something that is taboo? the mentality that society is better when it's each man for himself can be seen in 3rd world countries, where the rich have to lock themselves in compounds, where lawlessness and suffering are universal and children go uneducated, unfed and untreated simply because of the demographic they were born into, does this sound utopic to you? By the way, I lived in Canada for 4 years and Australia for 2.
John B. Greet July 11, 2012 at 04:05 pm
Thanks, ari.
As I hoped to make plain in the column, I am not necessarily opposed to the theory of universal healthcare or to some variation on the theme of universal health care. I also hoped to make clear in the column that I believe much of our own American society is ordered according to methods that are clearly more socialist, or socialized, than not. Some of this ordering includes some of the very things you have listed. However, I must renew my suggestion that many of the aspects of ordering our society that we have, over many years, ceded to the general government, or that through our ignorance and apathy have allowed it to intrude upon, are not the proper place for that level of government to be involved in. For example, you cite education. Our current nationalized (socialized) model for K-12 public education is quite simply failing us. We are no longer the world leader in this area that once we were. According to figures from the NCES, we have increased federal per-pupil K-12 spending in the U.S. from *one* (constant 2006) dollar in 1940, to $993 in 2006. http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d08/tables/dt08_171.asp Despite this astronomical increase in federal funding over 66 years, our overall K-12 educational achievements have been consistently degrading even while high school drop rates have been increasing. This tells me that the nationalized education is not working. I think we will find the same will prove true for healthcare.
John B. Greet July 12, 2012 at 12:05 am
Many, like reader ari, who support the ACA, like to point to what they feel are similar nationalized healthcare systems in other developed nations such as Canada as successful models that we should seek to emulate here.
I recently found some very interesting factual information about Canada's system that I thought readers might be interested to consider. Here are some of the highlights: - In 2011, a significant number of Canadians—an estimated 46,159—received treatment outside of the country - At the same time, the national median wait time for treatment after consultation with a specialist increased from 9.3 weeks in 2010 to 9.5 weeks in 2011 - Specialist physicians surveyed across 12 specialties and 10 provinces reported an average total wait time of 19 weeks between the time a general practitioner refers a patient and the time a specialist provides elective treatment — the longest they have ever recorded - In some cases, these patients needed to leave Canada due to a lack of available resources or a lack of appropriate procedure/technology. In others, their departure will have been driven by a desire to return more quickly to their lives, to seek out superior quality care, or perhaps to save their own lives or avoid the risk of disability http://www.fraserinstitute.org/uploadedFiles/fraser-ca/Content/research-news/research/articles/leaving-canada-for-medical-care-2011-ff0712.pdf No healthcare system is perfect, least of all Canada's...

Newsletter & Alerts

Get the best stories each day and important breaking news

Subscribe

Not from Belmont Shore-Naples Patch? Find your Local Patch »

Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors. Write a new post... What's up? Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell something
Nancy Wride (Editor) June 17, 2013 at 01:40 pm
Hi Mark. I'll see if I can find out. Roughly what time and nearest landmark if any?
Nancy Wride (Editor) June 3, 2013 at 12:49 pm
Love it! Thanks to our new bloggers. :D
Should he be teaching your children?
Mike Ruehle June 3, 2013 at 01:36 pm
Prior to his election as a write-in candidate, Councilman Patrick O'Donnell told the Long BeachRead More Business Journal on February 28, 2012 the following:***** LBBJ: If you win the reelection, will you commit to a full four-year term?***** Councilman O'Donnell: If you run for four, you serve four. ***** LBBJ: So, you're not going to run for Assembly in two years? ***** O'Donnell: Correct. ***** LBBJ: No matter what? ***** O'Donnell: Correct. If you run for four, you serve four. ***** If you can't trust O'Donnell's word, why would anyone vote for him to be their representative for political office? ***** http://www.lbreport.com/news/jan13/odonlbbj.htm
Nancy Wride (Editor) June 3, 2013 at 02:22 pm
And do his supporters care about this, do you think? No doubt others will.
Mike Ruehle June 3, 2013 at 11:43 pm
Regarding, "do O'Donnell's supporters care?", many of O'Donnell's supporters are inRead More elected and appointed public positions, and their support of O'Donnell includes placing the financial burden of a $150,000 special election on the taxpayers. I would think that a responsible journalist would ask each of them about that issue.
This is what the new path will look like.
Richard May 31, 2013 at 10:54 am
This opinion piece is so full of self-serving hot air it could float. Two paths will make the beachRead More look like a freeway? The author clearly hasn't seen too many freeways lately. Speaking of seeing, if the author would care to spend a little time looking at the beach (which I do on a daily basis, as I live overlooking the Bluff) they would realize that the current bike/pedestrian path is the most heavily used and enjoyed segment of the beach from the Belmont Pier to Shoreline Village. On any given day, there will be hundreds of people on the paths, compared with a handful on the sand itself. The author inadvertently makes that point when he or she writes that the beach "...should be valued for its own recreational value." Clearly, many more people enjoy walking, running or bicycling on the path than on the beach itself. Give the people what they want, and not what a mysterious, nameless, faceless group is trying to block.
Shore Resident June 3, 2013 at 08:37 am
Uh, Richard? Opinion pieces are by nature self-serving and one sided. I'm not saying that is agreeRead More with the opinion, just saying that gordana can have her say.