I read an interesting article on Google+ (that I can't find now, unfortunately) about the decision. To sum up the article it was written by a woman that was actually at the hearing to announce the decision which is a pretty cool perspective. The article talked about the presentation of their decision and how John G. Roberts actually seemed to disagree with the passing of the law but still found it to be constitutional. The crux of the matter, according to the article is that it's a tax. The government cannot, constitutionally, force people to purchase anything. However, since the law is set up so that you don't have to buy healthcare as long as you pay the tax. It's like an optional tax, that you can decide to whom you want to pay the healthcare tax. If you want to personally procure it then by all means go right ahead, if you don't want to buy it, you pay a special tax. Therefore, it's constitutional as a special tax. Much like if you don't want to buy a house you don't have to pay property taxes. Anyways, the way it was written made me think about the qualities of true experts.
My dad always made that joke (that I started out with) in reference to his time in the business world when they would hire a consultant (read: expert) to come in and give the company advice on how to resolve some problem. Well, after reading the article people continue to blast the law and talk about how unconstitutional it is, etc. etc. etc. My response to these busybodies: Really!? You're more knowledgeable than the Supreme Court Justices!? Somehow I don't think Joe Schmoe Facebooker knows more about constitutional law than the Supreme Court. If you want to continue to debate the idea and discuss the dissenting views that's one thing, but to say flat out that they're wrong is akin to claiming you're better than the real experts.
As much as I don't like it, it's here to stay (unless recalled by the senate). Write your congressman, or vote for a different one if you really want to affect change.
|Alex learning to snorkel|