Thoughts on Obamacare

I remember when the Affordable Care Act was somehow pushed through Congress a couple years ago.  Like most people, I thought the idea of forcing people to buy insurance went too far.  Like most lefties, I felt betrayed that Obama had let a conservative Democrat hijack the whole process and pull the public option off the table without any kind of fight.

Now, in the light of the recent Supreme Court ruling, I have to say I am elated that Obama's signature policy will stand--at least until November--and here's why.  The act provides coverage for the working poor by expanding Medicaid coverage--provided of course that states choose to do so (and they would be foolish not to, a fact that the hospitals and nursing home industries will be sure and communicate vociferously).  It allows children to remain on their parent's insurance until age 26.  It subsidizes employer-based plans for small businesses through the health care exchange system, and provides the self-employed the same option.  It subsidizes on a sliding scale insurance coverage for anyone making 400% of the poverty line or less (this includes yours truly).

But more than anything, and however tortured the compromise with the private health insurance industry may seem, the Affordable Care Act is a statement that we as a people are in fact capable of fulfilling promises made to one another in the opening lines of the Constitution.  It expands the notion of "providing for the general welfare" to include one's health and not just the protection of property.  It is the first step towards a dream first envisioned by Teddy Roosevelt, a Republican I might add, to ensure all Americans have equal access to health care.  It says that fundamentally, we can exercise a vision of the future through our elected officials that does not conform to short-term, market-driven goals, but insteads aims for a higher and more noble cause.  It says that we as human beings do "owe" something to one another if we are tethered together by a social contract.

I know all the arguments those on the other side have tossed out: the overreach of state power and loss of freedom, paying for those who choose not to provide for themselves, the expansion of the federal debt, etc.  But if you hold those opinions, ask yourself, at what moments in the past have those same protests been made? During the debate over Social Security and the other entitlement programs?  How many millions of elderly people and the infirm and children have benefited because of this "loss of freedom" via the payroll tax.  During the debates over Civil Rights legislation?  How many people were brought out of Jim Crow because of Congress's unconstitutional expansion of the commerce clause, and the Supreme Court's judicial activism run amok.

It is important to have principles and work from them, and I say anyone who does so is acting in good faith.  People from all viewpoints who are earnest in their convictions should be taken seriously. But it is better, however, to not tread on your principles as hallowed ground, sacred territory not to be disturbed.  All too often what poses as bedrock principles are in fact a pernicious core of received opinions about how a "proper" social order should be constructed and maintained.  To challenge those principles is to somehow unravel the essence of a person, so the challenge lays dormant and the "principles" go to work unimpeded.  This is a universal problem, and this author does not claim immunity.  Our recourse to this affliction is to simply begin with ignorance; to admit to oneself that perhaps you do not understand all the vagaries of the human condition and it is wiser to reserve judgement and proceed tentatively.

So, I started out feeling betrayed and let down about what Congress and the President enacted.  And then I learned more and decided to be wrong about what I felt intially.  Maybe some of those protesting the decision could put down the signs for a second and do the same.  Being wrong occasionally is good for the soul.