There is a certain irony evident in those who self-identify as progressives and actively support the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
It is an undeniable fact that those who stand for individual rights and autonomy in the most intimate spheres of daily life have no problem with a statutory monolith that will give Uncle Sam a giant peephole into every corner of it (and not just the sacred, private bedroom.)
It's not merely the legally vulnerable "individual mandate" which has a good chance of succumbing to a constitutional challenge on commerce clause grounds (if, that is, the justices are wise enough to understand that 'non-activity' cannot be regulated even by those fanciful New Deal standards championed by FDR.)
It's the fact that the Act will create what Scott Holleran has aptly called a "health care dictatorship" where the "state will control medical treatment for people of all ages."
This is not conservative rhetoric. This is not hyperbole. This is not Medicare. This is an intrusion so drastic and draconian into our pocketbooks and upon our principles that it makes Hitler's acquisition of the Sudetenland look mild by comparison (and no, I'm not comparing President Obama to Der Fuhrer, so cool your jets, people.)
There is actually only one way to square the progressive idea that the state has no business interfering with our zones or privacy (uteruses, for example) and this medical Leviathan: elevate health care to the level of a fundamental right. If you can, by some legislative alchemy, turn the right to be healthy at government expense into a constitutional imperative, like abortion, you then have the right to demand policies and procedures that would promote that "right," whether it exists in reality or only in the minds of its able advocates.
We can debate whether a universal health care safety net is a good thing (which we didn't do with Obamacare because most of the wheeling and dealing was done behind closed doors with Nancy "We'll know what it says after we pass it" Pelosi leading the charge.)
We can quibble over terms like "general welfare" and "pre-existing condition" and "26 year old kids."
We can even call the people who disagree with universal health care heartless if we truly believe that denying people free (or virtually free) health care coverage is tantamount to persecution and denies them an inalienable birthright.
What we can't do, though, is ignore the hypocrisy in demanding that Uncle Sam pay for whatever medical procedures we deem necessary while at the same time telling him to butt out of our health care decisions.
Which is exactly what the Obama administration has tried to do.
Now, it's up to the Supreme Nine to decide if the Founders, and not the FDRers, would approve.