The fight over Obamacare is about freedom. That’s what we’ve been
told since these lawsuits were filed two years ago and that’s what we
heard both inside and outside the Supreme Court this morning. That’s
what Michele Bachmann* and Rick Santorum have been saying for months.
Even people who support President Obama’s signature legislative
achievement would agree that this debate is all about freedom—the
freedom to never be one medical emergency away from economic ruin. What
we have been waiting to hear is how members of the Supreme
Court—especially the conservative majority—define that freedom. This
morning as the justices pondered whether the individual mandate—that
part of the Affordable Care Act that requires most Americans to purchase
health insurance or pay a penalty—is constitutional, we got a window
into the freedom some of the justices long for. And it is a dark, dark
place.
It’s always a bit strange to hear people with government-funded
single-payer health plans describe the need for other Americans to be
free from health insurance. But after the aggressive battery of
questions from the court’s conservatives this morning, it’s clear that
we can only be truly free when the young are released from the
obligation to subsidize the old and the ailing. Justice Samuel Alito
appears to be particularly concerned about the young, healthy person who
“on average consumes about $854 in health services each year” being
saddled with helping pay for the sick or infirm—even though, one day
that will describe all of us. Or as Justice Antonin Scalia later puts
it: “These people are not stupid. They’re going to buy insurance later.
They’re young and need the money now.” (Does this mean that if you are
young and you pay for insurance, Scalia finds you “stupid”?)
