President Barack Obama scored a major victory Wednesday, when a federal appeals court ruled that his Affordable Care Act, was constitutionally legal. Making the victory even sweeter, this was the first time a judge appointed by the opposing party voted to uphold the law.
After the world somehow avoided the end of days; Judge Jeffrey S. Sutton (appointed by President George W. Bush)—became the first judge to uphold the law that was not appointed by a President of his own party. The law was voted on twice before, getting upheld once and ruled unconstitutional each time federal judges sided unanimously with their own party.
The hot button issue remained the same: does Congress have the authority to enforce the individual mandate requiring Americans to buy healthcare or pay a tax if they should refuse?
Judge Sutton sided with Judge Boyce F. Martin, Jr.'s view that Congress can enforce the law under the Commerce Clause because the statute regulates economic activity and would have an impact on reforming the national healthcare and health insurance markets.
Critics still disagree, claiming that not buying healthcare is considered an inactivity–though what that means constitutionally is unclear–which Congress has no power to influence or regulate. Opponents of the law argue that it will allow Congress the power to regulate anything that it considers an economic activity with an impact on the interstate markets.
To my eyes the law is flawed, but it is a step in the right direction. Though it will likely be brought before the Supreme Court someday, each victory likens the chance that the law will last long enough to do any good for the country.
The individual mandate is the stickiest part of the ACA and I agree that the federal government shouldn't force a purchase-or-tax scenario on the citizens, but the expense of being uninsured—for everyone involved when insurance is needed—makes it a solution worth trial. And the provision removing the preexisting condition policy that victimized so many customers, is a long needed change to a horrible flaw in the healthcare system.
Mitt Romney's name is also involved in the healthcare law debate, as the GOP Presidential hopeful tries to juggle demonizing the bill, while knowing the framework for the ACA came from the healthcare bill he signed in 2006 as governor of Massachusetts. Romney deserves a mention for at least not backing down from his healthcare law for political gain because it “wouldn't be honest”, a stunning phrase from any modern politician. Still, Romney isn't exactly endorsing the President's version of his healthcare reform law.
Despite helping to create a similar statute that now has Massachusetts with 98% of its population insured, Romney argues that the plan cannot work for the entire United States. The former governor also mentioned that his plan didn't raise taxes, but with the President's message to Congress,
that threat may be finally losing some of its luster.
The 6th Circuit’s Court of Appeal decision was far more than a victory for the Obama administration of the Democrats or liberals: it was a victory for bipartisan politics.
As much as I respect Mitt Romney for abstaining from at least one dishonesty in his bid for the Oval Office, I respect the court's decision to buck the recent trends of blindly siding with one's own party until death did you part even more.
This court's value of logic and reason over party allegiance is an example for Capitol Hill and middle America alike.
The problems and dangers facing our country are great and worthy of respect, but our only hope to confront them is to stand together as a people. So long as we remain divided among party lines, race, class, and many of the other forms of stratification in American society, our issues will not only remain, but they will grow like weeds until they are out of control.
The poorest member of Congress is worth a shade under $1 million, and many of them never were forced to deal with the struggles that accompany being on the bottom of a capitalist nation's social ladder. They can't help making decisions from a theoretical platform that has no true knowledge of a life ruled by poverty—lives some of their constituents lead daily.
When their partisan bickering destroys any hope of progressing toward solving the nation's problems, their lives are relatively unaffected, and thus there is no sense of urgency to help the less fortunate.
Hopefully, the ruling to uphold the ACA is a step (by judges at least) towards economic and political issues—from Capitol Hill to suburbia—being judged by their content and accordance with the law, not by who authored the policy.
Sources:
Zachary Roth, Bush-appointed judge rules for Obama healthcare overhaul, The Lookout
Richard Wolf, News Analysis: Comparing Obama and Romney Health Laws, USA Today
Ben Feller, Confrontational Obama rebukes GOP on debt talks Associated Press
No comments:
Post a Comment