Tuesday, December 3, 2013

Supreme Court won’t play along with ideologue games on healthcare reform

Call it a plus that the Supreme Court of the United States isn’t interested in playing along with the political games that the conservative ideologues of our society want to engage in to try to strike down health care reform.

The justices who wouldn't hear the arguments about whether larger companies should offer health insurance will still consider whether views about abortion should be an issue. Photograph by Supreme Court of the United States
The nation’s high court, of course, upheld the basic concept of the Affordable Care Act – the measure that is meant to give people in this country access to health insurance AND give Barack Obama a lasting presidential legacy.

TO THE IDEOLOGUES who are particularly resentful that their constant, hostile opposition to Obama wasn’t enough to defeat him in 2008 or 2012, the latter is enough reason to oppose health care reform.

Although I also realize there is a segment of the conservative element of our society that really wants to believe it’s not “their” problem that some people can’t get medical coverage.

No matter how much the cost of dealing with such people when they become ill hits us as a society as a whole (somebody has to cover the cost of those “emergency room” visits for minor medical matters), they’d rather ignore it.

They seem to follow the same line of logic they follow with any form of public assistance – it is money wasted on people who are undeserving.

THE CALLOUSNESS OF such thought is why I have been a backer of health care reform measures. Somebody has to address the problem, and even if one wants to argue that Obama’s attempts aren’t thorough enough, it is more of a solution than what the opposition has offered up.

OBAMA: Benefits society & his legacy
It is because of that thought that I was pleased to learn of the fact that the Supreme Court decided Monday to do nothing! Specifically with request to the lawsuit that Liberty University in Virginia that wants to knock down the Affordable Care Act on the grounds that it requires companies with 50 or more employees to provide basic insurance.

Liberty wanted the Supreme Court to take on this portion of the case immediately – without requiring it to go through lower-level appeals courts. The high court chose not to.

Part of why I’m pleased is that the reality of our society these days is that many companies want to view the benefit of a health insurance policy for their workers as some sort of undue hardship on themselves.

YES, THEY PROBABLY could have a better financial bottom line if they didn’t have to deal with the issue. Although from the worker’s perspective, the major selling point of a full-time job often is the health insurance benefits one can receive.

Because without it, one serious illness can be devastating financially. A hospital stay of as little as a single weekend can easily run up a $10,000 tab. How many people really have enough money stashed around that they could cover such an expense – if they were hit with it suddenly?

So seeing that the court isn’t about to mess with the idea that people are working for an insurance benefit just as much as a salary is a good thing. Anything else would have me wondering how deeply the high court was in bed with ideologue interests.

Perhaps we can now start moving forward on this issue – particularly since the claims are now that the problems that existed for people interested in signing up for insurance benefits through Affordable Care Act provisions have been worked out.

I’M SURE THE ideologues will want to forevermore believe the flaws exist and will want to tell scare stories in hopes that people don’t sign up.

But this has become a case where we ought to ignore the ideologues – perhaps give them a great big “Shut Up!” from the true masses of our society.
This can't be our health care for the poor!

Besides, the ideologues are still fighting it out over health care reform. They object to the idea that insurance benefits obtained through the program would include coverage for contraceptives – even from companies operated by people who want to impose their own religious thoughts on abortion onto everyone else!

The courts, which have been sympathetic to that line of logic in the past, is scheduled to consider the issue come spring. This fight ain’t over yet!


No comments: