The Supreme Court's decision to uphold the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act removed two huge fears for millions of Americans: the fear of being denied coverage because of a pre-existing condition, either for themselves or for family members; and the fear of large debts and bankruptcy because of medical bills.
The freedom to have access to health care was significantly increased.
It's no coincidence that this decision was left for the last minute. It's a rule and run.
Connie Kamen, Sound Beach
I am certainly in favor of affordable health care, but yesterday, with the approval of our judicial system, the government was once again successful in treating the disease with the cause, rather than the cure. The Supreme Court did not rule in favor of a better health care system. Instead, the justices succeeded in further eliminating the freedom to choose, while ignoring the cause of expensive health care, which is government intervention in the system.
The high prices of the current health care system are due in large part to partial market failure. The cure would be a free market.
Limiting the freedom to choose has never led to advancement or innovation. The greatest advances throughout history, both in technology and medicine, and the reason that America has the best health care system in the world, are the result of individuals pursuing their own greater interests, not by order of the state. This, in conjunction with the consumer's right to choose and the absence of government intervention, has always created an efficient market, in which supply and demand reach a balance, creating a fair market price.
Care will become grossly more expensive for those purchasing independent health care on the open market. State licensing boards restrict the number of physicians, excluding competent doctors from practice. This finite supply matched against infinite demand will lead to drastic increases in costs for those not aided by government intervention.
If this law is meant to allow citizens the right to affordable health care, we must ask ourselves, at what cost? It is evident that it is a zero-sum game. For every winner, there will be a loser.
Vincent Raia, Commack
Cathy Young opines that the Supreme Court is the best tool to balance the power of elected officials ["High court still our best tool to balance power," Opinion, June 26].
That would seem to be true only when there are four conservatives and four liberals seated, with one individual who can and will act objectively. Virtually every important court decision is divided lock-step with the underlying ideology of the political party that appointed the individual justices.
If constitutionality were truly the objective measurement by these legal scholars, most court opinions should and would be close to unanimous, one way or the other. I fear for our nation when the court becomes unbalanced politically, and the will of the political party in power is rubber-stamped.
Warren Essner, Malverne