Letter to the Editor: What Obama Should Have Argued in the Supreme Court

As a non-lawyer, it amazes me how badly trained some lawyers are when arguing cases in front of the Supreme Court—as the Obama Administration did. I'm no fan of the individual mandate, but it seems rather obvious that anything that affects 17 percent of the economy comes under the Commerce Clause.

If I were the one arguing, I would have said that the federal government requires hospitals to treat people who can't pay. In doing so, those costs are shifted to people who pay insurance, so there's already a federal mandate.

People like me are mandated to pay for the health care of people who choose not to pay for their own treatment. So the change under Obamacare is that the government is mandating that people pay for their own insurance rather than mandating strangers pay for them through cost shifting.

If Obama's lawyer had made that argument then they wouldn't have looked pathetic in front of the Supreme Court.

Overturning Obamacare Might Backfire for GOP

I see the Republican party salivating over the possibility that the Supreme Court may overturn President Barack Obama's health care reform. Republicans seem to see this as some sort of huge victory, but I think this could backfire.

If the Republicans win it means that people and treatments that are now covered will no longer be protected, and voters are not going to be happy with Republicans taking things away from them when they vote this year.

The result might ultimately be a public insurance option or a single payer system that Republicans will hate even more.

I'm Gilroy resident Marc Perkel, and I approve this message!