This is my first diary and like many here I am following the Supreme Court hearings on the ACA. As I read through the transcripts online, I like many of you, am disappointed with the seeming lack of preparation by the government. Certainly they must have known that they were entering one of the most highly politicized courts in the history of the U.S. (though admittedly perhaps not the MOST politicized). They must too have noticed that the court has been stacked with corporate interests through a careful and systematic placement of conservative judicial activists that have apparently already decided their vote. So why would they NOT have guessed that the question of the limits to a government mandate in the participation in a "market" would be a major line of attack from the justices? This court has shown repeatedly that it has little interest in "public good" so the impact of striking down the mandate (while it might work) seems to be a wrong direction to argue.
To me at least, the argument is whether or not the government can specify how a tax is levied and collected. In the case of Social Security for instance, nearly all citizens MUST participate in the savings market. This comes out of the pay check and placed into a separate account to be used as a trust fund. It is widely seen as a tax however, even by many lawmakers. If instead of going into the trust fund, the money is transferred into a private insurance pool, it is seen as a mandate to participate, "fundamentally altering the relationship of the people with their government" as one justice put it. OK Tea Partiers also see S.S. as unconstitutional, but most, including many republicans and their hired justice minions, do not. If it were seen as a tax, then it would also be a fairly progressive one, based on affordability and heath status. The S.S. "tax" has not altered our relationship with our government and so too would this not. This is true for many such taxes. They participate in commerce such as paying for roads which I may not use, but must purchase. They also pay for a military which is partially privatized, (which I totally disagree with), but MUST pay for. HUD helps pay for housing in a market, and the FDA must be paid for. All of these have market components, and I MUST pay for them. So the simple answer to the justices question there is NO limit to the government's reach except the constitutionally guarantee that I be allowed to vote for representatives that puts those limits in place. And, I point out, that this was done, through congress, binding the government to a limit to its reach on healthcare. That limit was the mandate. So why isnt the mandate simply a "tax" paid to the insurers? And why doesnt that tax come with penalties when we refuse to pay it? It does everywhere else in our economy and our government. Seen in this light, I just can not understand how it is different. But when removed from this light, and placed into a context of misunderstanding of what our taxes are used for, it becomes this onerous monster that is somehow a mandate unto itself. This seems to be the ground on which the government's case is allowed to rest. It isnt the choice I think I would have made.