Health Care

The big news this week is the Supreme Court debating the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, otherwise known as "Obamacare." The President's lawyers argue that the law is constitutional because the commerce clause of the constitution, which authorizes congress to regulate inter-state trade, gives congress the power to regulate the health care industry, which accounts for 18% of U.S. gross domestic product (GDP). The much publicized "individual mandate" portion of the law will require most Americans to either purchase health insurance individually, or pay a penalty to cover the potential costs of not doing so. The President argues that not paying for insurance is "an economic decision to pay for your own health care," albeit one that is mostly covered by the federal government. Opponents of the law, such as groups that represent big business, libertarian organizations, and 13 U.S. states, argue that the Federal government has no constitutional right to force American's to buy health insurance. They contend that, while the commerce clause explicitly authorizes the government to regulate economic activity between the states, congress has no right to regulate economic inactivity.

Other arguments that are being heard by the court concern the "severability" of the individual mandate from the rest of the (gargantuan!) 2,700 page law, and whether or not the government's proposed expansion of Medicaid is "unduly coercive."

I think it goes without saying which side the President is on regarding "Obamacare." The Republican candidates all strongly oppose the law. Both Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum say that on their "first day" in office they will issue an executive order to "repeal Obamacare." Ron Paul, a licensed gynecologist, insits that doctor's have an "implicit right", because of their Hippocratic Oath, to provide free health care for those in need. While I certainly respect Dr. Paul's opinion that health care should be a "charitable benefit provided by doctor's," I clearly don't have as much faith in people being that good to others all the time.

In my view, the individual mandate is extremely hard to defend on constitutional grounds. Yesterday, Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy asked "Can you create commerce in order to regulate it?" That question rings true, and as much as I would like a much improved health care system with greater amounts of coverage, I don't think the government really as a good answer for that question. That being said, I hope that the court doesn't strike down the entire law. Expanding Medicare and raising the age eligibility to be on a parent's health plan until they are 26 are both worthy changes that could help plenty of people out, especially in this rough economy.


Sources:

-The Economist's guide to the health care case
-Rick Santorum Campaign website
-Mitt Romney Campaign website
-Ron Paul Campaign website 

Bad Days In The 'Stan

Usually I write about the comic nature and the ridiculousness of the presidential campaign, but this week the biggest political news took a sobering turn, when a rogue soldier apparently murdered 16 civilians in the southern province of Kandahar. While it is inappropriate to judge whether the accused soldier did in fact murder and burn so many civilians(thats for the military justice system to decide), it is appropriate to ask whether or not the mission is 1.) Worth it, and 2.) doable.

While I still believe that the mission is worth it, the seemingly endless mistakes by the NATO-led coalition make a difficult situation even more complex. I believe staying in Afghanistan until there can be a steady and methodical transition to Afghan forces is the best way to ensure regional stability. If the United States were to pack up and leave tomorrow, Afghanistan would collapse and the bloodletting between the warlords in the country would be extreme. This would not bode well for the extremely unstable state of Pakistan, which is reputed to have over 100 nuclear weapons. Pakistan collapsing from a spillover of violence from Afghanistan where its WMD fall into the hands of terrorists would be THE nightmare scenario for the United States. The US should take all necessary steps to ensure this does not happen.

This leads to the question of whether or not the mission is doable. With the time constraints that the Obama administration has put on the combat mission, I don't think that it is. The timetable was officially pushed forward in the last few months, from 2014 to the middle of 2013. Whether it is a little over a year or two years, the time span is simply not long enough to stabilize Afghanistan. With this year being an election year, the administration will not want bad news from the war to have any influence over the President's reelection chances. The administration's main priority is seeking to find the least-bad way out of a terrible situation.

 Looks like some more tough luck for the Afghans for the indefinite future.

Sources:

Pakistan nightmare scenario
Obama sticks to his timetable

Same Old, Same Old...

New week, same old story. Over our spring break "Super Tuesday", consisting of Republican primary elections in 10 states, took place. Once again, Mitt Romney seems incapable of "sealing the deal." To be sure, Romney took over half the delegates that were available that day, but Rick Santorum--and to a lesser extent, Newt Gingrich-- seem to be gaining just enough momentum to prevent Romney from locking up the nomination. Ron Paul, too, has vowed to take his candidacy all the way to Florida, when the Republican National Convention is to be taking place in Tampa during late August. The Republican establishment seems to be frustrated, with John McCain, the party's 2008 nominee, expressing concern over the electoral chances of the eventual nominee against President Obama.

But the race may soon narrow to a virtually two man field, with Ron Paul running a distant third place. Although Newt Gingrich has vowed to stay in the race regardless of what happens in the Alabama and Mississippi primaries, outside observers are less confident. The Alabama Republican Party chairman stated that Gingrich "must win both states to stay in the race." With Gingrich potentially dropping out, Romney and Santorum could potentially take the race down to the wire. 

All of these developments bode well for President Obama's reelection campaign. With the Republicans divided and with no candidate separating himself, the President will be able to continue fundraising while the GOP tears itself apart. 

All along, the Romney campaign has been built purely for the general election. What we are witnessing is a battle for control of the Republican party. The establishment, for many years, has been used to a quick and decisive primary season with a prospective nominee fully established many months before the convention. With the rise of "Tea Party", a much more anti-government, anti-establishment wing of the party is fighting to take control of the GOP, one where purity is favored over pragmatism. Either way, I feel that the eventual nominee is doomed to be handily defeated come November.

Sources:

-CBS News article on Newt Gingrich vowing to stay in the race
-John McCain on Romney being unable to lock up the nomination