Obamacare is Not a Threat to Liberty

Once the U.S. Supreme Court found the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) constitutional, it was no surprise when far right radio, blogs, and cable television claimed that liberty is under attack.  But what kind of liberty is the far right talking about? As I pointed out in my May 6^th blog post, they aren't talking about the liberty of the American founders and the U.S. Constitution.

            When Solicitor General Verrilli appeared before the Supreme Court in favor of Obamacare, he argued that the mandate requiring everyone to have health insurance is constitutional.  We have a free-rider problem, he argued, because “social norms . . . to which we’ve obligated ourselves” result in the rest of us paying for the healthcare that is delivered to uninsured people when they are unexpectedly ill or injured (e.g., in emergency rooms).  Adopting a dog-eat-dog, you-are-on-your-own idea of liberty, which has captured the far political right, Justice Scalia responded that the solution is “don’t obligate yourself to that.”  In other words, for him and the far right, there is no social obligation to help people when they arrive sick or injured at the emergency room and don't have health insurance.  He was saying, in effect, that the uninsured were at liberty to choose not to have healthcare and the rest of us ought to be free to let them suffer – or, I presume, die.  Liberty is a central American value, but not that kind of liberty.  

            Yesterday, in finding the health insurance mandate constitutional, the Supreme Court implicitly rejected that dog-eat-dog, you-are-on-your own idea of liberty, at least when it comes to healthcare.  And the nation is better for it.