Monday, March 26, 2012

What Are the Obamacare Legal Arguments?

Nobody has a better handle than Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) on the issues now before the SCOTUS regarding the "Affordable Healthcare Act," aka Obamacare.

In essence, the underlying question is simple: If Congress has the authority under the Constitution to issue an individual mandate that Americans MUST purchase a product, in this case health insurance, does that mean Congress can compel by individual mandate that Americans must do other things as well? And, of course, what "other things" might portend will make this SCOTUS decision, whichever way it is ultimately decided, a landmark decision with far-reaching implications either way.

As readers of this page can attest, I have opposed Obamacare from the moment I first learned about it. Apart from the legal nuances which are many and a bit obtuse for the casual observer, the fundamental question for me has always been this one: Does it make rational fiscal sense to foist this decision on the public at a time of record national debt and deficits, when all the cost estimates either from the independent CBO or other economists who have studied it confirm this will become by far the most expensive entitlement program ever launched in American history?

One can argue that Obamacare was conceived to "bend" the cost curve in future years associated with medical costs in this country, and that's certainly a worthy goal, as Medicare and Medicaid costs have nearly swamped our budget, but the scoring on the Act has proven it cannot be paid for in its present form without massive tax hikes. Now we await the judgment of the SCOTUS, and while we wait the fifty states and their residents remain frozen in uncertainty. If there were one word to describe Obama's legacy it would be that one - UNCERTAINTY.

Lee shares his views here in the third video in a series describing what's at stake and the probable outcomes as he sees them:

No comments:

Post a Comment