As Dan puts it: "So a healthcare plan developed by the Heritage Foundation, enacted by Romney and expanded by Obama - which funnels money into for-profit corporations - is upheld because of the vote of a Bush appointee, yet liberals cheer and conservatives weep. Only in America."
Yes, there's definitely that. If Obama's health care reform had been declared unconstitutional, eventually we would have had to go to single payer. The reason is because it's the law that hospitals must treat the sick. Somebody is going to have to pay for that. At some point, it will dawn on people that single payer is the least expensive way to do it.
In my view, that's one of the two reasons John Roberts voted as he did. He knew that, if this didn't go, single payer was down the road.
Secondly, he may have been sensitive to the reputation of the Court. Bush v. Gore alienated half the country, and Citizens United alienated half of the rest. How would another 5-4 party-line vote look to the public?
So color my reaction "mixed." On the one hand, this ruling actually delays getting us to what I think is the best and least-expensive option, and yes, it's a Republican plan that shovels money to the insurance industry. (If we were going to go with a Republican plan, we should have gone with Nixon's.)
On the other hand, it does establish the principle of universal health care. The poor catch a break for once--not much of one, and it needs to be improved, but a break nonetheless, and that's worth something.
Comments