The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.”
– James Madison
Inevitably, the liberal narrative surrounding the ObamaCare Supreme Court ruling would shift from the merits of the law to the reaction of a ruling.
For liberals, if the law is upheld, it’s an enormous win for liberal mythology and a celebration of “the process” which was lawfully executed.
If the law is struck down, the justices on the court, appointed by conservative presidents, were simply political actors, beholden to a conservative ideology and not based in the letter of the law.
Of course, the exact opposite is true.
Marxist economist Paul Krugman opened a heinously inaccurate editorial for the New York Times by making the following argument:
“In the course of that hearing it became clear that several of the justices, and possibly a majority, are political creatures pure and simple, willing to embrace any argument, no matter how absurd, that serves the interests of Team Republican.”
The irony here is that the law, as described in James Madison’s quote above, states very clearly that the government has limited authority.
No where in the government’s charter does it state that the federal government has the right to coerce its people into a market where it otherwise would not go.
But this is the way the left works: if we don’t get what we want, the system was corrupt.
The problem they face is that there is a liberal dogma and there is the law. Quite often, the two are incongruous, but the left doesn’t care.
“It’ll help people,” they yell, as if to say that if you oppose what they believe, you’re a cold-hearted, uncaring person. A conservative, they shudder.
It’s a funny thing about conservatives; they like to follow the law, especially when the law is a good one.
This article in The New Republic, attempts to further undermine the arguments made by the Supreme Court that this law has significant short-comings to pass constitutional muster.
“Conservatives like to portray health care as no different from any other good, and emphasize that if you make it too readily available then people will want to consume too much of it. “
The claim is one the author dismissed on its face. Unfortunately for him and for liberals, just because health care saves lives, and in some cases fails to save lives, doesn’t mean it’s some altruistic endeavor.
We all knew kids in college who went to medical school because of the fat paychecks, not to save lives. The saving lives part was an added bonus.
Reality shows us that the health care market does work like any other, where something at a low cost with high availability, tends to be used frequently.
Unfortunately, it doesn’t work like other markets, where frequent use of a product actually leads to higher costs for others.
I covered a school district where they planned to change insurance providers from the union plan, which had been a “Porsche plan,” according to the district’s consultant (his way of saying this was even better than what we might commonly refer to as a “Cadillac plan”).
They sent the plan, with more than 400 employees out to bid. A number of local insurance companies even requested to bid.
After they saw the statistical analysis of how often these benefits were used and how expensive it would be to cover them, only one insurance provider other than the original union insurance chose to bid.
When you can go see a doctor for anything and it costs you nothing, you go.
Some of these union insurance plans cover Viagra and even certain cosmetic surgeries for teachers and public employees.
Having everyone covered doesn’t change the cost structure for hospitals.
But I’m a partisan hack for believing that because it goes against liberal mainstream mythology. But see, I live in this place called reality and I believe in something called our Constitution. It’s this long document with enumerated powers and specific limitations on our government.
I wouldn’t expect a liberal to understand.