The Constitutionality of Healthcare

I'll be honest, I'm not qualified to comment on the Constitutionality of healthcare, but I'm good at keeping score, and so far that score is 2-1; 2 judges believe the law is constitutional, 1 doesn't. Hardly an overwhelming a majority, but certainly not an indictment either. The score will change, but since I'm one JD short of being an authority, I'll stray from discussing whether or not this is Constitutional and instead talk about whether or not it is necessary and practical.

You see, health insurance may not be a right. It may very well be unconstitutional to force people to buy insurance. But while health insurance may or may not be a right, healthcare is. In 1986 Congress passed the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act. That's a long title for what amounts to this, if you need emergency medical care, you get it. Doesn't matter if you're a citizen; doesn't matter if you can't pay. If you need emergency care you get it.

Problematically, emergency care is the only type of care covered by EMTALA. Emergency care is also far and away the most expensive kind of healthcare, and emergency care is often used when and if people have no other healthcare options.

This healthcare is either paid for via Medicaid funding, or worse, just isn't paid for at all, driving the cost of healthcare for everyone up as hospitals are forced to charge more to people who can pay to make up the difference. In turn, health insurance premiums rise. The system is unsustainable.

So what does the new healthcare law do to fix it? The new law implements this supposed communist requirement that everyone buy healthcare. Forget that people will still be buying healthcare from PRIVATE companies, forget that most of the people vehemently opposed to this law already have healthcare (how dare the commies make me buy health insurance...wait, I already have health insurance, what am I pissed about...communists!). These things get glossed over by the sheer, overwhelming evil socialist plot to make Americans buy insurance.

Now again, I don't know if it's Constitutional, but I'm more concerned with whether it fixes problems, and this law seems to do that. By requiring everyone to have insurance - which most people would agree is something positive, it's not like the government is making you buy asparagus Judge Hudson - prices would be driven down because people wouldn't be taking advantage of the most expensive kind of healthcare. They would be able to afford cheaper preventative care rather than overburdening emergency rooms.

So I can only hope that judges decide that mandated healthcare is Constitutional, because, if they decide otherwise, healthcare costs will continue to balloon as people who cannot afford health insurance (or simply don't want it), receive free emergency treatment. Maybe mandatory health insurance is unconstitutional, but isn't an expensive and burdensome healthcare system that is causing our country hemorrhage money while neglecting nearly 40 million Americans a problem? Shouldn't our great nation be able to provide the best healthcare (which we do) at a price that is affordable to all citizens and doesn't contribute to our government's debt (which we don't do)?

Like Judge Hudson, I don't want the government telling me to buy asparagus...I'll buy it on my own, I think asparagus is tasty. But I don't have a problem with the government requiring everyone to have health insurance when that policy benefits America and Americans. The government requires us to have driver's licenses, but no one is outraged (except, perhaps Ron and Rand Paul). Why? Because there are a lot of very good reasons for it. Well there are a lot of good reasons for people to have health insurance too. As we continue to tally the score for the Constitutionality of healthcare, I hope we consider the important benefits that it will bring our country and not succumb to silly arguments about the forced purchase of vegetables.