Obamacare?!

The big issue on the controversial health care question is contained on a provision of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (nicknamed "Obamacare") obliging Americans to buy health insurance or to be charged with substantial fines.

The question is one of principle and the solution rests in participatory democracy measures where American citizens press on their Senators and Representatives for them to redraw this bill and make it more palatable to all and where public initiatives are promoted to introduce the people's will through referenda.

Most people in the United States do not accept that the federal government have a right to impose such requirements on individuals or to blackmail the State governments with the suppression of funds if they do not submit. They rightfully ask, where does the Constitution empowers mere legislators to compel citizens to buy something they do not want or they would prefer devised in a different form?

That is why this bill is waiting for a Supreme Court ruling during the last few days. The problem is that many citizens have been perceiving the Supreme Court for many years as politically minded. Critics deride the "impartiality" of Supreme Court judges underlining their "liberal" or "conservative" leaning. They base their assumption on academic studies apparently confirming that when the court is divided, as it is clearly so with this bill, the liberal or conservative predisposition of the judges is a fair indicator of how their votes will go.

We do not live in a perfect world (not even in democratically minded United States!) and a certain amount of bias is to be expected in any kind of judgment made by humans. However, the US Supreme Court has been over two centuries -and up to the present days- one of the most impartial institutions in the world. In fact, there are many cases of so called "conservative" judges voting in favor of so called "liberal" causes, and vice versa.

The real problem here is not whether "conservatives" or "liberals" will have the final word in the US Supreme Court about this case, but whether legislators will understand that these issues can only be solved through negotiation. Any bill that faces such an acute edge along party lines cannot be considered as one that may benefit ALL Americans or at least most of them.

Of course, for the Supreme Court this issue has nothing to do with a national consensus but with its constitutionality. The US President, however, is not taking the issue on stride and is preparing for the worst case scenario by adopting a combative language, threatening to make the "unelected" High Court an issue in "campaign trail arguments". Clearly not a conciliatory move if the Court decides against his pet initiative.

Some observers go so far as to fear that if the Supreme Court does rule the law unconstitutional, then the President may seize the opportunity to criticize the Constitution as an outdated document.

Even Ron Paul argues from the other extreme of the political spectrum against the Supreme Court as the deciding factor regarding Obamacare:

"Why should a single swing vote on the Supreme Court decide if our entire nation is saddled with Obamacare? The doctrine of judicial review, which is nowhere to be found in Article III of the Constitution, has done nothing to defend liberty against extra-constitutional excesses by government. It is federalism and states’ rights that should protect our liberty, not nine individuals on a godlike Supreme Court."

On his part, President Obama dares to anticipate the Supreme Court decision as an “unprecedented, extraordinary step” by overturning the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and sternly argues against such "unconceivable" ruling because the act was passed by "a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress". That is not true. The fact is that the law passed by a short margin of 219-212 in the House, with some Democrats voting against it and not a single Republican voting for it. Neither is true that such a decision would be "unprecedented" and/or "extraordinary" if we simply check at the long Supreme Court record.

Nevertheless, whether a law is constitutional and whether it is good policy are entirely different questions. Constituents must raise their voices above partisan distortions on these issues. Whatever the Court decision is, the people must press their representatives to work hard for a much better health care solution that the one being discussed.