Search This Blog

Thursday, June 28, 2012

Supreme Court says Romneycare is constitutional

It appears that almost all of the ACA is being upheld by the Court.  I'm surprised, to say the least, and I'm still not sure I agree with the decision, which I haven't read yet and probably will not understand when I shall have read it.  I find it hard to agree that the individual mandate is accurately described as a tax, even though I find the idea that it is a tax probably the most palatable of the possible arguments that might uphold the mandate.

However, as someone who supports the ACA, I am, of course, happy.  But I must temper my happiness with a few points:

  • The law is still a gamble.  The devil is in the details of how the act is implemented.
  • For all we know, there may be unseen and unforeseen loopholes in the price controls that, I understand, are written into the bill.
  • The act is not safe.  It can be overturned and might be overturned.
  • The act will come with real costs, and those costs won't be born only by the mythical 1%.  I hope that the costs are not so much that they will overburden those least able to pay or that they will result in a huge increase in costs or shortage of doctors.
Supporters, like me, should realize that it might have gone differently.  And in a different world and perhaps under a more consistent (and perhaps more honest) interpretation of the Constitution, it ought to have gone differently.  The act lives because the Supreme Court says it may, but the act is not therefore right.

Let's hope it works out.