The Supreme Court Rules on My Blog Posts

Well, actually the Supreme Court ruled this month on two of my blog post topics. I don’t do political commentary every day – not even every week. On those occasions when I have written about political issues, the two most frequent topics have been healthcare reform and immigration.  I am pleased to report that this month the highest court in the land has backed up much of what I have been saying.  Indeed, June has been a very important month in addressing two big issues for our country. 

On Immigration

My blogging on immigration was mainly in response to Alabama’s harsh immigration law. The last time I commented on the Alabama law was on May 9 with “Our Immigration Dilemma. “

When my state refused to repeal or even budge on its Immigration law, even after the protests and the many requests from our citizens,  it became all too clear to me that Alabama will not do what is just and right in this situation unless and until the Federal government intervenes. I should have known this. The same was true with Jim Crow laws, civil rights and integration (but one can always hope that his state will do better).

The Supreme Court’s ruling on the Arizona Immigration law, issued on June 25^th, is a sure step toward correcting Alabama's law. As reported in The New York Times, immigration is a matter of federal jurisdiction , not individual states:

The justices make it clear that this case is about the power of the federal government to set immigration policy and to pre-empt, to a large degree, state policies that can infringe on that federal power. An expert on immigration law, Micahel A. Olivas, explained: "We can't have 50 different immigration policies, 50 different foreign policies."

The only part of the Arizona Law that the court tentatively upheld was the section that allows law enforcement to determine immigration status of someone detained for other reasons if there is legitimate suspicion. When this part of the law is enacted, it will likely lead to racial profiling which may then be struck down by the court.

So in short, there is some hope yet for justice. Will congress now embark on serious immigration reform?

On Healthcare

As for healthcare, I have had several posts in regard to President Obama’s Affordable Care Act.  As a healthcare worker, I am all too familiar with the failure of our healthcare system to grant access to healthcare for many of our people. I am also acutely aware of how our insurance premiums are driven up by the many people who show up in our emergency rooms without insurance. Hospitals cannot not treat them, and the cost is passed on to those of use with insurance. Many of these uninsured patients cannot afford coverage. Some are unemployed; some have part-time jobs with no insurance benefits. It is all too clear that we need reform that will bring better access to healthcare and reign in the spiraling costs of insurance coverage.  My last blog about healthcare was on April 9th after arguments had been made before the Supreme Court in the case challenging legality of the Affordable Care Act and we knew that a decision would be forthcoming in June. I was obviously concerned at the time when I titled that essay, "Healthcare in the Courts: Checks and Balances or Partisan Gamesmanship?"

Much has already been said in blogs, in print, and on the airwaves about the significance of this landmark Supreme Court ruling in which Chief Justice Roberts sided with (and wrote) the majority opinion to uphold the Affordable Care Act. Ezra Klein has a good commentary about what this ruling will mean for the country by showing how it will affect real people in their day-to-day lives.

Take a deep breath and be not afraid

In both of these important cases that went before the Supreme Court, I am thankful that reason and justice tipped the scales over doctrinaire extremism and partisanship. So much of what we have heard from vocal opponents of "Obamacare" and from loud supporters of Arizona’s immigration law has been a reaction based on fear. The road ahead will not be simple or easy, but we must never let fear be our guide.

*

Healthcare in the Courts: Checks and Balances or Partisan Gamesmanship?

As you no doubt have heard in the news, the legal challenges to Obama’s Affordable Healthcare Act have made it to the Supreme Court, arguments have been made, and now we await a decision. The Los Angeles Times carried a story about Reagan administration lawyers fearing judicial activism in the current Supreme Court. Charles Fried, solicitor general under President Reagan, said that “If the court were to invalidate the healthcare law, It would be more problematic than Bush v. Gore." President Obama has even shown some concern stating that "Ultimately, I am confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress."

So now we wait for the Supreme Court to make its decision on what has come to be known as Obamacare. The question is, will we be witnessing the checks and balances that we heard about in junior high school civics classes, or will it be partisan gamesmanship?

A Case for Single payer Universal Healthcare

During the waning years of the Bush (the younger) administration, I made a prediction that the U.S. would move toward a nationalized healthcare plan and that it would be industry that would push the government to get involved. My reasoning was that in the global economy, it is harder for U.S. companies to compete because they have to include employee healthcare in their production costs, unlike all other industrialized competitors on the global market.  At the time, I think it was estimated that $1,500 of the cost of every new American made automobile went to cover employee health benefits. If the government could free up industry, our companies could do much better in providing quality products in a competitive international market.  Well that just shows how much I know.

Since Barak Obama came into office to promote a more comprehensive healthcare plan, Republicans, the party of big business, have done nothing but block all efforts at healthcare reform.  Years ago my wife came up with an idea that made more sense than any I had heard before. She said that if we allowed all children from birth to age 18 to be covered by Medicare, then we be granting healthcare to the most vulnerable of our population: the children and the elderly.  Adults could be covered by insurance plans just as we are accustomed to doing. In this way, the productive citizens are contributing to their own healthcare plan and the crucial developmental year of infants and children will be covered just as are the elderly.  Of course, that made too much sense to even be contemplated in Washington, D.C.

The truth is, if we had a single payer universal healthcare system, it could be a boon for the economy and a shot in the arm for every entrepreneur.  I personally know of people who would like to launch their own business, but do not want to risk losing healthcare benefits they have in their present job. Indeed, there are many who are working at a job they don’t particularly like just to have insurance coverage.  So not only would big business benefit from not being saddled with healthcare costs, small entrepreneurs would have more freedom to do what the Republicans say this country is all about – start new businesses.

The Individual Mandate

What about that provision in the healthcare reform law that requires an individual mandate – in other words, requiring everyone to buy health insurance? That is the key to making this healthcare act affordable. Currently, everyone gets medical care when they show up at the emergency room regardless of whether or not they have insurance. If they don’t have insurance and are in the ER, they are at one of the most expensive points of healthcare delivery, and that cost is passed on to the hospital and to those of us who have insurance. In the past, both Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich (and many other Republicans) have strongly favored the individual mandate. For many Republicans the individual mandate made sense. It was just good business. If everyone has to buy insurance, then that is more money in the pockets of the insurance companies. The Obama administration considered a public option that would be covered by a tax, but they opted for the individual mandate since it was a Republican idea anyway, and they did not see that a public option along with a new tax would pass in congress. So we ended up with a less effective hybrid bill in order to compromise with those who dislike taxes and government healthcare.

What incredible irony that a tax to cover a public option in healthcare would have been constitutional without question (we are already doing it with Medicare).  The individual mandate, that Republican idea, is now being challenged in the courts (by Republicans bent on overturning “Obamacare”) to determine its constitutionality.

By June, we will know the court’s decision.  Will it be a case of Republican activism in the Supreme Court?  Whatever the outcome, it will likely be a 5-4 decision – not a ringing endorsement in the court, however it turns out. It will be another reflection of the political polarization that is coloring so much of our country's actions and non-actions. If the law is upheld, maybe we can go on to improve healthcare accessibility. If it is struck down, I fear that with political gridlock and lack of congressional gumption we may not see any decent healthcare reform.  All of this argument about whether we can make people buy insurance sounds like a good case for bringing on a universal single-payer plan like other civilized countries have.

*

Nuns and Healthcare

I just read in the Newsweek blog, The Gaggle that a group of nuns have come out urging congress to pass Healthcare Reform. The healdine states that the nuns "defy bishops." I must say, I have to love those nuns. Right away I said to my wife, "They have more heart and more education than any of those bishops."

I know something of whence I speak. Back in 2001, my wife and I attended RCIA (Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults)in our local Catholic diocese. The instructor for us adult inquirers into the Catholic faith was an very gifted Benedictine nun. During one of our theological discussions, she explained some of the dynamics that have been going on in the church for a while. In the education the priests, typically they go through seminary, are ordained and then are sent out to work in the parishes. For many of them, that is the extent of their theological education.

For nuns, however, many of them have received theological education throughout their lives. After they take their final vows, many nuns work as educators. Those nuns who want to continue their education take college and graduate level courses during the summers when they are not teaching school. It takes much longer to get a degree that way, but one of the consequences is that the nuns are exposed to the latest developments and thinking among academics and theologians. Back during the 1960s and '70s when so much was happening socialogically and theologically, the nuns were at the forefront of knowledge and development. Consequently, they tended to be up to date and on the cusp of events, whereas many of the priests and bishops were 20 years behind the times.

I believe in continuing education, and I believe in working hard to see that ethics, theology, and philosophy keep pace with our understanding of what is happening in the world. I cheer those nuns who are not only out there in the world working with people in need, they are also keeping their minds sharp and their thoughts current. When it comes to faith and religion, I think having the heart, having the dedication, and being in pursuit of knowledge are vital.

My hat is off to those magnificent nuns who are living their faith.



*

Common Good vs. Corporate Greed: the Dilemma of Healthcare in America

Part of the healthcare debate in the U.S. has been the question of whether healthcare in a right or a privilege. This is the wrong question, and is often laden with hot-button issues. The real question is what is good for society? My take on it is that there are three basic things that make a society function well:

1. Access to education
2. Access to transportation
3. Access to healthcare

If these things are in place for the population, then you have an educated workforce ready to do the job, able to get to work and healthy enough to contribute to society. You don’t have to decide if healthcare is a right or a privilege, but it becomes obvious that optimal health for all citizens benefits the whole of society. The same is true for education and transportation. If they are available to all, everyone benefits.

The problem in Washington D.C. is that corporations are spending millions on politicians to keep their own interests secure with little regard for the common good. When Medicare “reform” was enacted to cover prescription medications, the primary beneficiaries were the pharmaceutical companies, not the Medicare recipients. The way healthcare “reform” is shaping up now in congress, it will benefit no one except the insurance companies. Insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies are no more to be trusted than the “fat cat” bankers when it comes to the good of the people.

I am a healthcare worker in favor of healthcare reform that will allow universal access to healthcare. Since we are seeing ever-increasing unemployment and the advent of the global market, it is wrong to place the onus on the individual people, requiring that they buy health insurance (if you are out of a job, requiring you to buy insurance is not going to solve the healthcare problem). It is also wrong to require businesses to furnish insurance when they must compete with international companies who do not have to figure the cost of healthcare into their product.

Therefore, the amalgam of ideas masquerading on the Hill as healthcare reform should be scrapped. It makes much more sense to extend Medicare to all citizens who are not covered by Medicaid. The current legislative proposal seems to favor the insurance companies, just as the financial “bailout” only favored the banks, and Medicare reform favored the pharmaceutical companies.

One is reminded of the words of Ebenezer Elliot (1781-1849) borrowed by Stephen Schwartz in "Godspell":

When wilt Thou save the people?
O God of mercy, when?
Not kings and lords, but nations,
Not thrones and crowns, but men!
Flowers of Thy heart, O God, are they;
Let them not pass, like weeds, away;
Their heritage a sunless day:
O God, save the people!

We could change the phraseology today to ask, when will we begin to care for people (including the working class, the poor, the sick and unemployed) rather than favoring corporations, banks, and politicians (the kings, lords, thrones, and crowns of our day).




***