Making Health Care Illegal, Well At Least Un-Constitutional

Apparently the political forces aligned against the Health Care Reform bill are seeking to pursue defeating the bill on yet another front. This does not mean that they have given up on opposing the bill in the legislative process. That effort is still under full throttle and is still trying to defeat and/or limit the bill in any number of ways. But the Constitutionality front is an interesting approach that offers some unusual dimensions, along with both high risks and rewards depending upon how the question plays out in that area.

On the high reward side of the approach is the possibility to get the Supreme Court to render a ruling that affirms their contention that the Health Care Reform bill violates one or more Constitutional requirement or limitation upon the Federal government’s right to impose some or all of the provisions in the legislation. This would undoubtedly put the whole Health Care Reform effort in jeopardy of ever succeeding since it would create sufficient additional barriers to the proponents of the reform bill that they could never get enough members of Congress to agree to terms and conditions that would have to be overcome and compromised upon. If they can just barely get enough Senators to pass the bill when they are only required to protect their own special interest groups and campaign contributors’ needs; what chance do they have when on top of that that they have to find solutions and approaches that comfortably fit within the constraints that the Supreme Court could inject into such a bill’s requirements. The problem here is that Congress would no longer be free to write the reform bill without having appropriate language that covers the objections and requirements imposed by the Court. And this assumes that the U.S. Supreme Court did not rule at such a broad level that they fundamentally stated that the Federal Government had not Constitutional basis for ever requiring citizens to have health care insurance coverage. So under an optimal outcome, the opponents could get a Court sanctioned prohibition against a core component that any Health Care Reform bill would depend upon.

Of course there is the high risk side to this approach, where the same Court would rule that the legislation is completely within the purview of Congress’ Constitutional authority; and that Congress has not exceeded it’s responsibilities in any regard. Such a ruling would not only thwart the bill’s opponents, but would add weight to their efforts as being intended by the founding fathers as their responsibility in support of promoting the general Welfare. This could imply that the opponents were not only wrong in their appreciation and understanding of their responsibilities; but that they were in fact failing to carry out such responsibilities that they had taken their oath of office to perform.

The question of course is: How will the current Supreme Court rule on this question? Assuming that is that the Court will even elect to bring the case up for question. They could decide that this not a question that they should weigh into, and reject the question at this time.

But let’s assume the Court did decide to make a declaration on the question then the table could be set for an historic decision as long as the breath of the issue that is brought before the High Court is sufficiently broad and will allow the Justices to apply their authority to the full extent of the matter. Then we will have a whole new public dialogue brought into the fray. Factions on every side will proclaim their views and point out the errors of any decision made no matter what the decision is, if it’s not exactly the one that they wanted.

So at the end of the day, the Supreme Court will be deciding what the current collective view is for the country regarding this issue. The Court will decide and explain to the country what they see the responsibility that the Constitution both grants to and requires of the government in handling the issue of Health Care for its citizens. The Court will be divining the will of the people in terms that they can explain from the context of the Constitution and all the interpretations that have preceded this one. Whether they are right or wrong will depend upon their reading of America’s zeitgeist. If they support the effort to reform Health Care in their decision then the people will be more convinced that they are entitled to a guaranteed Health Care system and that it is a right that must be supported by the society.

If they rule against it, then the people will have to find another way to provide for the basic human necessity of health care.

Regardless of the Court, Congress or especially the vested interest groups there will always be a fundamental fact. The society will always pay the price for the Health Care system that they provide. This is simply because there is no avoidance of reality, and if you provide universal care then you pay the costs that that requires; and if you don’t then you pay the costs that come from the consequences of not providing universal care. Reality is a world of consequences to your choices, not just a world of choices. You always have consequences to what you do, and you always pay for them.