|
Law in Contemporary Society
|
|
Health Care for All: A Victory.(revision) “This is a big fucking deal” Vice President Biden stated to President Obama as he passed the microphone at the historical health care reform signing. While probably not the most opportune moment, the Vice President was indeed correct – it is a big deal. There are currently 32 million Americans without health insurance. By 2014, they will all be covered or pay a tax. I. Health Care Reform: The Basics The key components of the Health Care Reform Act establish that insurance companies will not drop people if they get sick, people with pre-existing conditions will not face exorbitant rates, older children can stay on their parents’ insurance until they are twenty-six, and the new law will gradually end a “prescription drug donut hole” that causes many to cut their pills in half to get through a month. The bill also requires all Americans to have health care coverage by 2014, apply for a waiver, or pay a fine. (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20000846-503544.html). There are also 35% tax credits for small businesses who insure their employees. Furthermore, it’s projected that it will reduce the deficit by $143 billion over the first ten years. 32 million currently uninsured American citizens would become insured under the health care reform regime. No Republicans voted in favor of the Health Care Reform Act. In fact, in an attempt to prevent/delay passage, Republicans introduced facetious amendments such as providing Viagra to convicted rape felons. Most criticisms of the bill are lodged at the potential costs. Some conservatives are lamenting that costs will exceed 1 trillion dollars. There is also uncertainty about the impact that the bill will have on private practice. This site makes clear how the bill will effect individuals: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/03/24/us/politics/20100319-health-care-effect.htm#tab=5 II. An Argument for and the Backlash Most of the criticism seems to be unsubstantiated. Yes, reform will cost billions but the pros outweigh the cons. Every American citizen will have affordable health care by the end of 2014. No one can contradict the argument that drastic discrepancies in health care exist, often based on race and class. America should be a country that ensures its’ citizens have access to health care, information, and resources that encourage the health of its citizens. Safeguarding the health of American citizens is an important public interest concern. Health care is about people’s rights. Not black, white, poor, rich, but in general, a basic human right. Health care shouldn’t be something the wealthy have a monopoly on. However, the privileged’s backlash has served as interesting insight into the state of politics. There has been a reversion to old school tactics of blatant racism, bigotry, and hate speech .(http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/25/health/policy/25health.html?src=me&ref=health) Faxes with nooses, diatribes riddled with hate speech, and bricks thrown through windows have been some of the most outrageous reactions. For those who believed that we were in a “post-racial moment” because of Obama’s election, welcome back to reality. The effect of reverting back to white supremacist antics full of hate and animosity has been to instill fear which could drive people to engage in irrational opposition (i.e. Tea Party antics/rallies/protest signs). While the scare tactics’ impact is unknown, polluting real discussion and conversation with myths, tantrum-throwing, and vicious slurs only causes confusion and derails progress. Intimidation will not work this time. Americans deserve real information. The dispelling of myths promises to be a long and hard-fought battle but one that must be won since health care reform has passed. III. The Legal Argument Additionally, a legal perspective has emerged as an aspect of the reform discussion. A New York Times article “Health Measure’s Opponents Plan Legal Challenges” details the constitutional arguments that conservatives can be anticipated to make to fight the bill. The gist of the argument is that the federal imposition forcing Americans to have health care infringes on States’ constitutional rights. But with the Supreme Court’s grant of broad authority to Congress under the Commerce Clause and the power to tax , it seems unlikely that such an argument will be effective. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/23/health/policy/23legal.html?scp=5&sq=legal,%20health%20care&st=cse Yet, the future legal battle promises to be fascinating for any law student. That is, if it ever gains any momentum (which it appears it will because Republicans are determined to “kill the bill”). Most interesting is the salient and fragile nature of the understanding of the Constitution. The probing question for me throughout Constitutional Law has been whether or not the manifestation of the law is simply desired outcomes arrived at by convincing arguments based on manipulative readings/ [mis]interpretations of language determined by the social moment. With the history of the expansive interpretation of Congress’ power under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, it seems unlikely that any court would hold health care reform outside of that power. After all – stare decisis? If the conservative arguments prevail, it would seem that the court was given to manipulation moreso than judicial precedent. Moreover, the potential litigation raises a lot of questions about representation and legal affordability, and access to the court for real people with real legal quips versus high-paid politicians who can afford representation of corporate interests who may have real concerns but lack any real legal standing and will still use [abuse] the court’s minimal resources to entangle health care reform in a long, drawn out battle manipulating the system as much as their funding will allow. Power and wealth continue to govern the rate of progress. President Obama said it best – health care “ is a victory for the American people. And it’s a victory for common sense .” Health care reform now was the right and best thing for the American people.Health Care for All: A Victory. “This is a big f*cking deal” Vice President Joe Biden stated to President Barack Hussein Obama as he passed the microphone at the historical health care reform signing. While probably not the most opportune moment, the foot-in-mouth Vice President was indeed correct – it is a big deal. There are currently 32 million Americans without health insurance. By 2014, they will all be covered or pay a tax. There is a lot of distracting language in this first paragraph. Not so much the f*ck at the start, but "Barack Hussein Obama" and "foot-in-his-mouth Vice President." On the first, yes its his name, but no one ever says Bill Jefferson Clinton or Ronald Wilson Reagan. I think the only significance either of these statements had was as political attacks during electioneering. I didn't understand what relevance this had until halfway through the second section below. Maybe you had to sacrifice clarity because of the word count, but I'd just take these phrases out unless you can tie them in quicker, because I forgot your paper was about health care for a moment.I. Health Care Reform: The Basics The key components of the Health Care Reform Act establish that insurance companies will not drop people if they get sick, people with pre-existing conditions will not face exorbitant rates, older children can stay on their parents’ insurance until they are twenty-six, and the new law will gradually end a “prescription drug donut hole” that causes many to cut their pills in half to get through a month. The bill also requires all Americans to have health care coverage by 2014, apply for a waiver, or pay a fine. (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20000846-503544.html). There are also 35% tax credits for small businesses who insure their employees. Furthermore, it’s projected that it will reduce the deficit by $143 billion over the first ten years. 32 million currently uninsured American citizens would become insured under the health care reform regime. No Republicans voted in favor of the Health Care Reform Act. In fact, in an attempt to prevent/delay passage, Republicans introduced facetious amendments such as providing Viagra to convicted rape felons. Most criticisms of the bill are lodged at the potential costs. Some conservatives are lamenting that costs will exceed 1 trillion dollars. There is also uncertainty about the impact that the bill will have on private practice. This section's great, a lot of information packed into a few words, but you managed to make it very readableThis site makes clear how the bill will effect individuals: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/03/24/us/politics/20100319-health-care-effect.htm#tab=5 II. An Argument for and the Backlash Most of the criticism seems to be unsubstantiated. Yes, reform will cost billions but the pros outweigh the cons. Every American citizen will have affordable health care by the end of 2014. No one can contradict the argument that drastic discrepancies in health care exist, often based on race and class. America should be a country that ensures its’ citizens have access to health care, information, and resources that encourage the health of its citizens. There is a strong public interest in ensuring that the health of American citizens is safeguarded. However, health care is about people’s rights. Not black, white, poor, rich, but in general, a basic human right. Health care shouldn’t be something the wealthy have a monopoly on. "There is a strong public interest in" is a kind of clunky phrase. Maybe "Safeguarding the health of American citizens is an important public interest concern."? Also your next statement, "It seems the truth behind the animosity towards health care is that people don’t want other people (mostly minorities and impoverished peoples) to be “entitled” to something that they (the elite) have had endless access to." is a pretty big conclusion which you don't even try to support. Again, probably a word count issue, but maybe you could find a way to either support it or rephrase it to be less conclusory.However, the privileged’s backlash has served as interesting insight into the state of politics. There has been a reversion to old school tactics of blatant racism, bigotry, hate speech, and seemingly insane behavior. (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/25/health/policy/25health.html?src=me&ref=health) Faxes with nooses, diatribes riddled with hate speech, and bricks thrown through windows have been some of the most outrageous reactions. For those who believed that we were in a “post-racial moment” because of Obama’s election, welcome back to reality. It seems that the effect of reverting back to white supremacist antics full of hate and animosity has been to instill fear which drives people to engage in irrational activity and opposition. While the scare tactics’ impact is unknown, polluting real discussion and conversation with myths, tantrum-throwing, and vicious slurs only causes confusion and derails progress. Intimidation will not work this time. Americans deserve real information. The dispelling of myths promises to be a long and hard-fought battle but one that must be won since health care reform has passed. I would delete every instance of "seemingly" or "it seems" in this second section and see if the statement stands on its own. If not, I'd rephrase it or support it with something. This whole section is really provocative and intriguing but it kind of loses its force unless you can provide some examples or otherwise substantiate what your saying.III. The Legal Argument Additionally, a legal perspective has emerged as an aspect of the reform discussion. A New York Times article “Health Measure’s Opponents Plan Legal Challenges” details the constitutional arguments that conservatives can be anticipated to make to fight the bill. The gist of the argument is that the federal imposition forcing Americans to have health care infringes on the constitutional rights of the States. But with the Commerce Clause and Congress’ power to tax , it seems unlikely that such an argument will be effective. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/23/health/policy/23legal.html?scp=5&sq=legal,%20health%20care&st=cse Yet, the future legal battle promises to be fascinating for any law student. That is, if it ever gains any momentum (which it appears it will because Republicans are determined to “kill the bill”). Most interesting is the salient and fragile nature of the understanding of the Constitution. If the constitutional arguments prevail, it would seem that the court was given to manipulation moreso than “justice”. The probing question for me throughout Constitutional Law has been whether or not the manifestation of the law is simply desired outcomes arrived at by convincing arguments based on manipulative readings/ [mis]interpretations of language. With the history of the expansive interpretation of Congress’ power under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, it seems unlikely that any court would hold health care reform outside of that power. After all – stare decisis? Furthermore, while the sky will fall and the shibboleth crumble argument has permanent stay in the legal realm any time “tradition” is transgressed, it is irrational and unbelievable in this case. Moreover, the potential litigation raises a lot of questions about representation and legal affordability, and access to the court for real people with real legal quips versus high-paid politicians representing corporate interests who may have real concerns but lack any real legal standing and will still use [abuse] the court’s minimal resources to entangle health care reform in a long, drawn out battle manipulating the system as much as their funding will allow. The product of power and wealth continues to govern the rate of progress. The fight from behind continues. President Obama said it best – health care “ is a victory for the American people. And it’s a victory for common sense .” Health care reform now was the right and best thing for the American people. Overall I think this is a really great paper, and it seems like you really did your research or have been following this closely (props for finding the time!) I have to admit, when I got to your third section, I thought it was going to be a bit more legal, rather than philosophical. You seem to say that only "manipulation" of the Constitution could allow the health-care bill opposition to prevail, which while perhaps quite true, you never said why, other than by alluding to the Commerce Clause. And the part about the sky falling anytime tradition is transgressed being an irrational argument in this case, seems like you're arguing against stare decisis. I thought you were saying that the only way for the Court to find the bill unconstitutional is to overturn interpretation of the CC, or are you saying that the bill itself by providing health-care is not traditional? If its the first, why would it be irrational and unbelievable to adhere to stare decisis, when I thought your point was that the history of the interpretation of the CC would uphold the bill? And if its the second, why would stare decisis apply to an act of Congress before review by a court? I'm sure I'm just not reading it quite right, but maybe it could be a bit clearer. And I hesitate to ask, but what is a "fight from behind"? : ) Again, great paper and sorry if I focused too much on small issues. I think you tried to pack a lot into 1000 words, which is commendable, but sometimes what goes unsaid leaves what is said slightly hard to follow. I think if you had more space to flesh this out most of that would resolve itself, but since we only get such a small space, I'd probably just cut a few things and focus on what I really want to say (e.g. the Hussein and foot-in-mouth stuff at the beginning and the allusions to class warfare stuff definitely fit the class but I don't know if there's room to do all that plus health-care). I really liked the paragraph near the end about high-paid politicians representing corporate interests (maybe you can give some examples?) but I didn't understand what you meant by them not having standing. Are the politicians themselves litigating this is in the courts? If so that seems like something you might want to give a couple more sentences to. Super informative, and I think you had a lot of excellent points. I think most of what I had to say just boils down to how limited the space is, and to focusing it a bit more so that you can develop your points. You are entitled to restrict access to your paper if you want to. But we all derive immense benefit from reading one another's work, and I hope you won't feel the need unless the subject matter is personal and its disclosure would be harmful or undesirable. To restrict access to your paper simply delete the "#" on the next line: # * Set ALLOWTOPICVIEW = TWikiAdminGroup, KrystalCommons Note: TWiki has strict formatting rules. Make sure you preserve the three spaces, asterisk, and extra space at the beginning of that line. If you wish to give access to any other users simply add them to the comma separated list |
|
