Entries in Supreme Court (2)
Monday, July 7, 2014 at 10:42AM
After last week's Hobby Lobby Supreme Court ruling I couldn't help but see this AP article in a different light. Apparently some mafia sympathisers in a Calabrian town made a detour of their church procession this Sunday, in order to pay homage to an 82-year old mafiosi on house arrest. This was apperently a direct contradiction to a recent edict from the Pope himself, excommunicating the mafia.
I have two thoughts - first, good to know criminals and murderers are still God-fearing in the 21st Century. As long as they confess their sins to the church (not the cops), the Almighty has a way of letting a lot of that Old Testament "thou shalt not..." business slide for Christians (OT is so passé anyway).
Second thought - we're lucky to have companies like Hobby Lobby protecting the sanctity of our women's virtue here in the USA. By denying them coverage for certain types of birth-control we severely reduce the likelihood that American women will wind up having sex and ergo, babies, with Italian mafia-types, who we know don't believe in abortions, only generic post-partem murders. No Plan B = no sex with mafiosi = no problems.
I will sleep better this afternoon knowing this...and so should you.
Tuesday, March 27, 2012 at 8:19AM
For the past week the media has been abuzz with talk of the Affordable Care Act, affectionately known to most of us as "ObamaCare". The source of this buzz, is the fact that the legal challenge to the individual mandate provision of the sweeping healthcare law, has reached the Supreme Court. Today in fact that very provision goes to oral argument before the justices, and the media-fueled rhetoric around it has been heated. I'd like to take a moment to point out the obvious just for the sake of my own conscience.
First of all, I do understand the reticence many people have about the individual mandate. "The Govt is gonna' tell me what to do & what to buy?? Oh hell naw. Next thing you know, we'll all be wearing jumpsuits & eating broccoli!" This was my own basic & flawed thinking on the topic prior to the 2009 healthcare debate, which is why I supported candidate Obama's approach over candidate Clinton's. But in the end that healthcare debate did indeed change my mind & here's why in plainish English:
If we're going to have a system of privately issued insurance (which we do have, and which the govt has made no moves to get rid of), we run into a basic problem: healthy people don't wanna' buy it. To be specific, young & healthy people in particular don't see the point. It's a bad investment - I feel good, I take care of myself, the odds of being hit by a car are low so, I'd rather spend my money on beer. This is actually pretty sound logic if you're young & have no medical problems.
If you're old and/or sick, however, you desperately need medical insurance. Why? Because the out-of-pocket costs are prohibitively expensive for the average humanoid to afford. What naturally tends to happen to insurance markets then, is they become dominated by sick people who use up lots of insurance services, with relatively few healthy people to offset the cost. This automatically breaks the system. The only way insurance works, is if 100 of us buy fire insurance and when 1 of us loses a house to a fire, the insurance company can use the money collected over years from all 100 of us to pay the damages. If 50 or 60 of us have house fires, the system can't work.
Private health insurance can only operate if the preponderance of participants are in fact HEALTHY. This is why Insurance companies don't want to insure the sick - the infamous "pre-existing" condition clause. And if you were an insurance company, frankly you wouldn't either. The math doesn't work out. But you're not an insurance company are you? You're probably a soft, carbon-based lifeform that's thinking about eating a chocolate bar right now. In which case, if you determine you need health insurance you don't want to hear from every company you call that no we won't cover you because you have, say diabetes. And if you do have diabetes that is EXACTLY what you're likely to hear if you try to buy insurance. In the midst of the Great Recession if, like many Americans, you lost a job that used to cover you and now you're in the healthcare market on your own, you're pretty much screwed. Pre-existing condition = no soup for you!!
Well since we all hate the pre-existing condition clause, why don't we just get rid of it! Great idea! With a small caveat...if you get rid of it, how do insurance companies stay solvent & capable of providing the insurance promised (instead of weaseling out of covering bills as some have been wont to do)? Remember, only sick people and old people (who by virtue of being old, are more likely to eventually become sick) are interested in buying health insurance. The answer: you mandate that "everyone" buy insurance, thus giving insurance companies the mathematical liberty to actually get rid of practices like the "pre-existing condition" & denial of coverage.
The "conservative" argument against this of course, is that it's an infringement upon freedom - why should the government be able to force me into a market I don't want to be a part of, just because I'm "alive"? Aside from the fact that the individual mandate is in fact a 20 year-old Republican policy proposal, this argument is fundamentally flawed because like it or not, you ARE a part of the healthcare market, and sad as it may be...it's just because you're alive! This is the argument that the government is going to make in support of the healthcare law and it is the correct argument. In part two of this post I will explain why. First I need to go grab a chocolate bar.