A Biased View

I was thinking about it and I realized that I do actually own a hoodie.  Ok, it is light blue and I bought it because it was the only thing I could find to buy and I was cold, but I could join the protest if I wanted to.  My nephew lives in hoodies.  And he looks suspicious.  His passport photo could be a poster for a criminal.  And he is the sweetest, most gentle person on the planet.  I'm just saying.  Skittles.  Really.  Peace be with you, Trevon.

In other news, the Supreme Court is hearing the constitutional challenge to the Health Care Law.  The liberal press calls it Obama Care--wait, that can't be right.  Anyhoo, I am slightly gratified that there are protesters at the Supreme Court who actually agree with the law--there's a pleasant twist. 

The first day of hearings was about the threashold jurisdictional issue.  Is it a tax?  If so, then the litigants have to wait until after they are "taxed", they pay the tax and then they can challenge it.  Very old law to help government impliment unpopular taxes.  When I first heard of this provision of the health care law, I immediately balked at having to pay another tax.  They can't force me to buy insurance I yelled in my head.  I hate the insurance companies.  Why would my wonderful Obama make me do such a terrible thing?  Never mind that I already have insurance.  Never mind that when I turn 65, I get medicare and it doesn't apply any longer.  Never mind that the state already makes me buy car insurance (which burns my buns everytime I write that check).  Never mind that I am in favor of universal health care which means taxes would necesarily go up to pay for that extreme buracracy.  But I digress.  My first reaction was that it was a tax.  Therefore, no brainer, the Supreme court will find that it is a tax and kick the case out as moot.  This is easy.

But wait.  If this case is not decided now, the states and the federal government will spend billions of dollars setting up the health care exchanges that would then be dismantled one month after they are implimented when some enterprising person pays the penalty and then sues to overturn the law.  Very bad result.  My pragmatic soul is deeply offended.  The liberal press (I just wouldn't listen to anything else) says none of the justices will vote to hold that the penalty is a tax.  Hmmmm.  Bad facts make bad laws.  Oh well, result it will be easier to challenge a tax? I'm soo sad for taxes.  Not.

Next the court is hearing arguments that the individual mandate--forcing me to buy insurance from the evil and maniacle insurance company--is a violation of my liberty under the constitution.  Huh?  Which provision?  The liberal press is a bit sketchy on this one.  Interstate commerce?  Really?  Sure, I had the same knee jerk reaction--don't tread on me--I state emphatically in my brain.  [Kind of mild mannered on the outside, but I digress.]  Brighter folks than me are fashioning this complex constitutional argument, but let's do the math.  I went to the statute and figured out that if I cancel my health insurance ($564 per month, every month and going up each year because I am sooo lucky to be over the age of 50, but not yet 65), if I cancel my health insurance and have to pay the penalty, how much will it be?  $91.  A year.  Right now I pay $6,768 per year for health insurance and if I cancel my health insurance I will be forced to pay a penalty of $91.  It hardly seems like a penalty at all.  Heck, I might have that in my purse (well not today--I don't really like to carry too much cash around, unless I need gas).

So the threashold argument balancing a law against the constitution is whether there is a rational basis for the burden as opposed to the benefit.  There are seven million uninsured people in this country (I made that up, but it sounds right, doesn't it?).  Seven million (even as a made up number, it is impressive).  So seven million people get health insurance for the price to me of $91 a year.  I've got to say, that seems pretty reasonable.  I sat with Megan at the free clinic a year or so ago--16 hours.  I would have gladly paid $91 to cut that short by even a couple hours--it was brutal.

Constitutionally, there is definitely a rational basis for this law.  That was easy.  Wait.  I'm not a United States Supreme Court Justice.  There's guys like Scalia, Alito and Roberts, yuck.  They think two plus two equals a duck.  I have to tell you that I really believed in the institution, until the Gore case.  States rights was a central, central theme to the Conservative court's adgenda.  I was positive that they would uphold the Florida State Supreme Court's decision.  Positive.  And they didn't.  Worse, the opinion made no logical sense at all.  Oye.

There are other aguements tomorrow, but I forgot what they are.  That $91 is such a little gnat, and let's face it, Obama had me at hello.