Sunday, February 14, 2016

Will high court prove to have healing powers?

As balm for a divided nation, the historic Supreme Court ruling this week that upheld health-care reform offers the prospect of healing on a several fronts — even if there’s no certain cure.

Will high court prove to have healing powers?


As balm for a divided nation, the historic Supreme Court ruling this week that upheld health-care reform offers the prospect of healing on a several fronts — even if there’s no certain cure.

The benefits could be felt at the Supreme Court itself in support for the rule of law, in the expanded access of millions to health care, and even perhaps in the fractured political process that hampers Washington’s ability to grapple with critical problems.

In the majority opinion written by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., the court found that Congress acted within its power to impose a tax penalty on individuals who go without health insurance. But the court did as much to rescue its own standing as it did for the health of the nation.

Roberts joined with liberal-wing justices, thwarting a conservative victory Republican and tea-party partisans expected. After earlier pivotal slam-dunks — from picking a president to throwing open the door to the influence of money — the Roberts court, polls showed, skirted dangerously close to being viewed as just another political player.

What's the long-term political impact from the health-care ruling?
Both parties will use it as fodder to fuel partisan conflict
Respect for the Supreme Court hangs in the balance
Gives President Obama an edge in the fall
Mitt Romney will still use it to his advantage

What damage was being risked to a nation of laws when a majority of voters told pollsters that they believed the fate of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) would be determined by the justices’ political leanings? Fortunately, the ruling shores up that erosion of the civic fabric.

On the health-care front, the reform provides welcome certainty that — two-plus years after the law was enacted as President Obama’s signature legislation — the overhaul of the $2.7 trillion health-care system will move ahead. That’s critical, not only to preserve existing benefits like free preventive care, drug discounts for seniors, and the scrapping of lifetime coverage limits, but also because most states are waist-deep in building health insurance exchanges expected to help the uninsured get coverage. Similarly, the health-care sector can continue to pursue mergers and rightsizing by hospitals and medical providers, as well as other changes that offer the best hope of controlling costs and boosting quality.

Of course, opponents of the law may dash any hope that health care reform could become settled national policy, like national defense. The battle cries for the repeal of what critics dismiss as “Obamacare” point that way. Yet, the ruling finally cements health care in law — and, over time, in the minds of voters.

For Mitt Romney, the party platform plank opposing the ACA — a health-care strategy that’s nearly identical to the plan he pioneered as Massachusetts governor — must remind voters that Romney stands for … well, only what he stands for on any given day.

As a turning point, the high court’s upholding of the ACA ruling without question poses a challenge to all Americans to make the most of it.

We encourage respectful comments but reserve the right to delete anything that doesn't contribute to an engaging dialogue.
Help us moderate this thread by flagging comments that violate our guidelines.

Comment policy: comments are intended to be civil, friendly conversations. Please treat other participants with respect and in a way that you would want to be treated. You are responsible for what you say. And please, stay on topic. If you see an objectionable post, please report it to us using the "Report Abuse" option.

Please note that comments are monitored by staff. We reserve the right at all times to remove any information or materials that are unlawful, threatening, abusive, libelous, defamatory, obscene, vulgar, pornographic, profane, indecent or otherwise objectionable. Personal attacks, especially on other participants, are not permitted. We reserve the right to permanently block any user who violates these terms and conditions.

Additionally comments that are long, have multiple paragraph breaks, include code, or include hyperlinks may not be posted.

Read 0 comments
comments powered by Disqus
About this blog

The Inquirer Editorial Board's Say What? opinion blog showcases the work of the editors and writers who produce the newspaper's daily and Sunday opinion pages.

Find out more about The Inquirer's Editorial Board here.

The Inquirer Editorial Board
Also on
letter icon Newsletter