Immigration, Health Care and the Supremes... dancing around the real world issues...

I'm not a lawyer. I don't claim to fully understand all the nuances of even a traffic stop, much less the legalese that many are seeming to enjoy parsing after this weeks Supreme Court rulings. I know the US has an enormous deficit and that there are limits to what a society will turn over to a central government in both taxes and control. But I also know that people with no hope in the future get discouraged, give up and can easily be cast aside by a system that fails to take into account the personal side of political and legal decisions. That is part of what Justice Antonin Scalia was saying in his dissent Monday regarding SB 1070, popularly known as the Arizona Immigration Bill. He was trying to speak for the ranchers and farmers in Arizona who are feeling overwhelmed by what they see as rampant illegal immigration into their state. Many of those farmer and ranchers are at ground zero in the immigration wars.  With isolated plots of land, they have been surprised upon many a night to see someone using their out buildings as a camp, or makeshift home. Why they ask, has the federal government, across many administrations seemingly turned a blind eye to their struggle to feel safe and secure in their own homes? It is a good question... but it's not the only question worth pondering as we close out one of the most watched Supreme Court sessions in years. We should also ask if government has a role in making sure all Americans have access, not theoretical, but real access to quality health care in this country. Seemingly, both Presidential contenders agree.  Even though he disagrees with the route President Obama took, Mitt Romney's plan is to repeal and replace.  Clearly that says he too sees some role for the federal government in this area. There are millions of us who would love to buy health insurance.  And I say us because, like many, my family is uninsured. Because of a doctor approved procedure done 25 years ago, my wife is unable to get insurance in the private market.  She has a preexisting condition.  And with that, few, if any companies will offer her insurance at a rate we can afford. The current health care act gives people like us hope.  Hope that we will not have to forever lie awake at night wondering if we are just a little achy, or if something is seriously wrong inside the wonderful bodies that God gave us. We have hope that one day soon, when the entire law takes effect, that we will finally be able to gain real access to some of the best health care in the world.  At a cost that will not bankrupt us. Justice Scalia said the citizens of Arizona were feeling "under seige" against the effects of illegal immigration. Many of us have also felt under siege against the effects of having to live with a health care system that seems built to do everything possible to maximize profits and minimize access to all but the approved. The Supreme Court has given us lots to think about this week.  I hope we can move past the political rhetoric and seek some real solutions that are designed to both protect and serve the all of the American people.

Freedom and Individual Rights... promoting the general welfare...

It’s a freedom thing. That’s what he said. I was sitting in a local coffee shop this morning and a veteran of our idiocy in Vietnam was talking with the owner. He was saying that we have forgotten what made America great. We are, in his opinion, leaving behind the rights of the individual. The freedom to live his life as he or she chooses is central to this veterans understanding of freedom. And I agree with him, to a point. Because those rights do not exist on a one way street. They flow back and forth in both directions as much as the I-15 flows between Los Angeles and Las Vegas. I have found that there are very few rights that we can exercise that exist in a vacuum, or in a world where the exercise of those rights will not impact others. Let me cite a few examples. You want to smoke? That’s 100% fine for you, but how are you going to make sure that I do not have to pay one penny for the medical care related to your desire to engage in harmful activity? Or let me turn that one around. When does my desire to live in a smoke free world, impinge on your right to smoke when and where you choose? Want to ride your motorcycle without a helmut or drive your car without wearing a seatbelt? How are you going to ensure that the general public will not be paying for your decision to eschew these safety options if you are in an accident? You do not want to buy health insurance? Are you, and your family okay with medical personnel letting you die because you cannot pay your bill? You want to claim a right to build, or own your home in a flood plain, or tornado zone? Why should I have to help bail you and your neighbors out when the inevitable disaster strikes? This is the FEMA question that comes up every year. Even our right to practice religion exists on that big two way super highway. I wonder how many people claiming religion is under siege based on President Obama’s views on health care rose to the defense of Muslims in New York when they wanted to build a mosque at ground zero. Clearly, the free exercise of our rights has limits, something even the Supreme Court understands as evidenced by certain limits on speech. We have free speech, but we can’t yell fire in a crowded theater. So maybe the question is how do we decide when it is necessary, to promote the general welfare, to curtail, or put limits on those rights. It is such a delicate balance. What say you?