Pulling-the-plug-on-grandma scenarios. The N-word and other ugly epithets. Shouts of "baby killers." Vanquished politicos exhorting mobs, "Don't Retreat, Reload." Bricks crashing through windows of congressional offices. Anonymous phone calls to lawmakers' homes threatening to kill them and their families. That is seemingly what passes for discourse today in America, as the reactions of opponents to the passage of the health-care reform bill ranged from misinformed to horrific. My personal I've-fallen-down-the-rabbit-hole moment was supplied by members of the "Greatest Generation" heatedly demanding that we "keep the government out of Medicare."
We do not have room in this column to debate the pros and cons of the bill (although we do have a decidedly "con" view expressed by Terri Seefeldt in a Guest Commentary). However, let us take a moment to reflect not so much on the bill itself as on our reaction toward it. Like most edicts out of Washington, this too will take some time to digest and dissect. In the meantime, can we take a breath? The political process is fraught with misinformation and slanted sound bites, but the rhetoric, dissembling, and half-truths of recent weeks seemed particularly egregious and mean-spirited.
Yes, this is a major event. Yes, the legislation is far from perfect. Yes, some will benefit, others will not. But for all the complaints — legitimate and otherwise — clearly something had to be done to address the accessibility and affordability of health care in our nation. In the weeks ahead, let us take a reasoned look at what is now before us.
The reform package is now the law of the land, Bill McCollum notwithstanding. Our attorney general and AGs in a dozen other states are suing the federal government, claiming the health-care mandate is unconstitutional. Serendipitously, the law firm handling this massive and costly folly is McCollum's former firm, Baker and Hostetler of Orlando. The firm did not take this as pro bono or contingency work. The firm and its many lawyers will be paid, win or lose. With Florida facing tremendous budget challenges, McCollum's quixotic quest is simply irresponsible.
In other states, it borders on absurd. Michigan's governor and AG are of different political parties. When the Republican AG announced on his web site that "Michigan has joined" the health-care lawsuit, the Democratic governor scolded him for "speaking for the state of Michigan." The governor, who supports the reform bill, then ordered the AG, as the governor's lawyer, to assist in the defense of the case!
Robert J. Martineau, a Distinguished Research Professor of Law (Emeritus), University of Cincinnati, is one of many legal experts opining on the lawsuit. In a guest editorial in the Sarasota Herald-Tribune, he wrote that, "The lawsuit alleged various grounds for the unconstitutionality, but the principal one is that the federal government has no power to compel individuals to purchase health insurance."
Martineau asserts that the federal government indeed does have that right, and issues a caveat to McCollum and others: "Those attempting to prohibit the federal government from requiring individuals to purchase health insurance should be careful what they ask for," he wrote. "If they get it and the individual mandate is set aside, the most likely result would be the adoption of a single-payer system, such as Medicare for all." Whoops!
Of course, that is what the Democrats and Obama wanted all along. They reluctantly gave up on a single-payer system only after they realized it was politically unobtainable.
Wait a minute … do you think they knew McCollum et al would file a lawsuit, and win, enabling them to go back and change the law to exactly what they wanted initially?
Nah. That's really off-the-wall, conspiracy-think — isn't it?
© Arc, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to TMSalesOperations@arc-network.com. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.