As I sit and watch the news today, on the major news outlets and all the talk is on President Obama's news conference earlier. One thing that has flew under the radar today was a ruling by a federal appeals court, which has ruled that the Affordable Care Act, passed last year, IS constitutional. This of course, flies against all conservative arguments that have been vehemently opposed to the law specifically because they claimed it was UNconstitutional. Claimed...
For nearly two entire years now, I had to sit and just listen to the right-wing decry this bill and it's passage as something approaching the destruction of the American way of life and I am finally free and happy to say that the vast majority of these arguments bring one word to my mind: PETTY.
The conservative Thomas Moore Law Center argued that the Affordable Care Act would place finical hardships because of the individual mandate. The only problem is the government has mandated PLENTY that has been and will continue to be constitutional. We are mandated to pay proprty and income taxes. We are mandated to sign up for selective services. We are mandated to have license for owning firearms and driving motor vehicles and to add, we are mandated to have insurance for said motor vehicle or be charged a penalty. However, I don't seem to remember any conservative groups arguing against that law. No, to do so would have been passé and anti-American because that law was past post September 11, 2001.
Bottom line, the government has always had the power to mandate a requirement from the American People and in the very case that a financial mandate would present such a hardship to any individual, the mandate is weakened or no longer required, such as the case for the Affordable Care Act. If you want greater care, you are free to get it. If you need to buy care, it is more affordable. If you cannot afford it, then you can still receive care regardless of your inability to pay. That is precisely why the law was crafted to begin with. Any claims that people are being forced to buy something they do not want or cannot afford are just that; claims. They are not facts. Now, with this ruling, the claim that the government overstepped its bounds and enacted an unconstitutional law is also undeniably a claim not backed by facts. What other reason could someone be against someone having a basic need of healthcare other than they are being petty?