Today the Supreme Court will reveal their ruling on the Patient Affordable Care Act\/\u201dObamacare.\u201d\u00a0 It is one of the most watched judicial decisions of the last few decades.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Four potential outcomes exist:\u00a0 (1) the entire law will be upheld; (2) the entire law will be repealed; (3) the individual mandate will be repealed; or (4) the mandate and more will be repealed.\u00a0 If outcomes (1) or (2) occur, my sense is a microphone will somehow magically appear before the President and leading partisans today, who will then claim either victory or the agony of America\u2019s defeat.\u00a0 Whoever falls on the \u2018agony of defeat side\u2019 will also then be tempted to demonize the court.\u00a0 Note:\u00a0 we have a habit of demonizing those with whom we profoundly disagree \u2014 or at least those who seemingly stand in the way of our desired progress.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
As a blogger, \u2018tis time for me to be done with healthcare analysis.\u00a0 For 3 years, after reading the law and presenting multiple concerns, I am still no expert.\u00a0 Then again, many who possess passionate opinions of this law \u2014 many who even voted<\/em><\/strong> for it \u2014 are also not experts; they didn\u2019t even read the bill.\u00a0 Friends, I don\u2019t understand that.\u00a0 That practice fights against every ethical bone in my body.\u00a0 Legislators supported this law not knowing the specifics that were in it \u2014 not analyzing the totality of the legislation\u2019s impact; they then voted based on party lines.\u00a0 A bill now estimated to cost $1.76 TRILLION<\/em><\/strong> over the next decade (according to the nonpartisan CBO)<\/em><\/a> was supported by those who never studied the specifics of what they were voting on.\u00a0 Wow.\u00a0 Let me pause once more… wow.\u00a0 I care not the issue.\u00a0 I care not if I support the issue.\u00a0 To vote along party lines for a bill that expensive and never read<\/em><\/strong> is in my opinion, irresponsible.\u00a0 We live in a representative democracy.\u00a0 Our legislators cannot claim to represent us well without reading the bill.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n This irresponsibility has been apparent from multiple, additional aspects…\u00a0 as articulated in the Intramuralist\u2019s frustration voiced in February of 2010:<\/p>\n <\/p>\n … I am frustrated that individual coverage is mandated.\u00a0 Hillary Clinton and John Edwards were harshly criticized for such advocacy during their respective campaigns. <\/em>[Granted, Edwards is criticized even more harshly now.]<\/p>\n <\/p>\n … I am frustrated that multiple times throughout this process, individual cost-increasing \u201cdeals\u201d have been included in order to secure 1 legislator\u2019s vote.<\/em><\/p>\n <\/p>\n … I am frustrated that discussions are only broadcast publicly when a supermajority fails to exist.<\/em><\/p>\n <\/p>\n … I am frustrated that these deals, closed door meetings, and solely partisan efforts cease only with a single senatorial seat change <\/em>[after the death of Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) and the election of Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA)]. \u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n <\/p>\n … I am frustrated with increased costs, taxes, and debt.<\/em><\/p>\n <\/p>\n … I am frustrated that some believe the end justifies the means, thereby advocating misapplication of the reconciliation procedure <\/em>[a budgetary tactic utilized to pass the policy when the Democrat\u2019s impenetrable supermajority was lost].<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n Truth is, I believe the President was correct this week when he said, \u201cYou know, it’s fashionable right now for people to be cynical.\u201d\u00a0<\/em> I would add to his perspective that a significant contributor to the cynicism is how healthcare was approached.\u00a0 The approach was partisan, expensive, divisive, non-transparent, full of favors, and at times, manipulated.\u00a0 This may be going out on a shady, little limb here, but those adjectives logically induce increased cynicism.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n My final thoughts… at least for now, abiding by the high court\u2019s decision…<\/p>\n <\/p>\n With the inspirational message Pres. Obama shared in his initial presidential campaign, many of us had hope that his leadership would prompt unity.\u00a0 However, the manner in which he led Congress and the country through healthcare reform concerned me; it was not unifying.\u00a0 Was that because of an obstructionist congress\u00a0\u2014 a congress with clear Democrat majorities?\u00a0 Or was that because of the President\u2019s partisan approach on healthcare?\u00a0 Certainly not the only partisan prone to believe he knows what\u2019s best on a specific policy measure, it concerns me that Obama spent substantial time and political capital on healthcare, when it was\/is our economy that is most in need of attention.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n As long said here amidst these postings, healthcare should be accessible, affordable, and portable, and the end result cannot justify an irresponsible means.\u00a0 For the record, the Supreme Court will not be ruling on the constitutionality of responsibility… \u00a0maybe they should… \u00a0considering those ethical bones.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Respectfully,<\/p>\n AR<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Today the Supreme Court will reveal their ruling on the Patient Affordable Care Act\/\u201dObamacare.\u201d\u00a0 It is one of the most watched judicial decisions of the last few decades. Four potential outcomes exist:\u00a0 (1) the entire law will be upheld; (2) the entire law will be repealed; (3) the individual mandate will be repealed; or … <\/p>\n