I'm torn between the idea of surrendering more liberties to the central government, and the idea that freeloaders in the healthcare marketplace are responsible for the price distortions that help make healthcare unaffordable to 20% of our population. In many other countries, they see healthcare as a right. (I'm not saying whether it should be a right.) The idea that all citizens deserve high quality healthcare as a matter of right indicates that those countries value social cohesion more than individual freedom compared with the USA. In Canada, it is one area of government which treats both rich and poor the same way - a tool for putting the rich in the same boat as the less privileged. America may have something to learn from its Northern neighbor - if it is lucky enough to learn some humility.
With that being said, one of the signs of a good law is that people on both sides of the aisle are unhappy with the law. In the case of ACA/Obamacare, the left said we didn't go far enough towards a single payer system. Where the right said we went way too far in telling individuals that they must participate in a specific market place. Using this criteria, ACA/Obamacare has the potential of being considered a great move forward if it survives the test of time. So, what do we make of Thursday's decision? If we ignore the rhetoric from both sides, we can see the ideas behind the law from a historical perspective. Most of the ideas behind ACA/Obamacare were developed by the GOP from the days of Richard Nixon. Romney implemented the model for ACA/Obamacare in Massachusetts when he was governor. Most people in that state are very glad the law exists. The odds are, that as people become familiar with the benefits of ACA/Obamacare, they will grow to like it. But if they don't, they will be free to throw it out - especially with a GOP in ascendency across the nation.
Before the ruling, I was telling people NOT to make any assumptions in regard to how SCOTUS would rule. This ruling neither legitimizes nor delegitimizes the authority of the court. It simply is an exercise of the power of that court as a co-equal branch of government. I had a feeling that a conservative court would be very hard pressed to overturn a president's major legislative effort when both sides of the argument said that government had the power to pass ACA/Obamacare into law based on the government's taxation powers. That ended up being the salient point that Justice Roberts focused on, and his way of saying that he will evaluate cases first based on his interpretation of the merits of a case (with the bias of a conservative justice), and not the politics behind it.
I'm still wondering if the GOP wins, whether they will fulfill their promises to repeal Obamacare / ACA. If they do, they'd better have something better with which to replace this law, or we'll be in trouble. This would be the first time that the political system not just cuts off its nose to spite its face, but it will show the political system as not caring one bit about the American pledge to help people in need.... We're starting to see America's social cohesion decay. And once we lost it, we'll be no better than most other countries on this globe....
