Evening the "score"

Today, Judge Roger Vinson became the 2nd US Judge to strike down the new healthcare law as unconstitutional, evening the "score" at two judges apiece finding for and against the law. Predictably, both judges who found for the law were appointed by a Democratic president, and both judges who found against the law were appointed by a Republican president. In other words, all four rulings are relatively meaningless and the fate of the law is certain to be decided by the Supreme Court which boasts five conservative judges and four liberal judges. The new law may very well be overturned.

And if that's the case, then it will certainly be a sad day for America and Americans. Not only will all Americans lose the protection against insurance companies provided by the law, but millions of Americans will lose insurance and that means that those people will have their care paid for by taxpayers. As Americans without health insurance continue to receive the most expensive kind of care (emergency care), the rest of us will foot the bill with rising costs and thus rising insurance premiums.

But that's not even the real issue. The economics behind the healthcare law are sound and simple. Health insurance may not be a right (or a mandate), but healthcare is...plain and simple. Walk into any emergency room in the country and there will be a sign explaining that you can be treated regardless of your ability to pay. So as I've already laid out, people without insurance get healthcare that often does not get paid for, so providers raise prices for others which is reflected in unnecessarily high costs and rising insurance premiums.

But back to constitutionality. I'm not a judge; I'm not a lawyer; and most importantly, as a private citizen I don't think the government should be involved in what I can and cannot purchase. If I want an Xbox 360 instead of a Playstation 3, that's fine. If I want a Toyota instead of a Kia, that's fine. If I want a Nike basketball instead of a Spalding, so be it. But here's where healthcare is a little different, if I choose the Nike over the Spalding, no one else is paying extra money to provide me with healthcare. If I get a Toyota instead of Honda or Ford or whatever, then no one else is going to pay extra so I can get healthcare. There's a common theme here. My decision NOT to buy healthcare actually makes things worse and more expensive for others.

That doesn't make the new law Constitutional, but it does make it practical. Furthermore, the mandate doesn't require that you purchase something harmful. Most people agree that health insurance is a good thing. Most people have it already, some of those people buy it voluntarily, many people who don't have it wish they did. It's not as though we're being required to buy peanuts when some of us are allergic to them; it's not as though we're being required to buy a rabid dog; we're talking about health insurance, it's beneficial. We're not even talking about a specific kind of health insurance. The government isn't selling it, the government isn't designing the plans and packages, you still get to choose. And finally, you don't actually have to buy the insurance. You can choose not to and pay a fee instead. And you know what? That's fine with me, because if you choose not to buy the insurance and then need healthcare then I'm footing part of the bill.

Ultimately this battle will be decided by America's highest court, and unless the make-up of the court changes before the law reaches said court, it will probably be overturned. The result of that decision will be higher costs for everyone.