June 26, 2012--The Supremes

En route to Florida via a flight from Newark Airport we stopped overnight in New York City. And went right over to the Smile for a couple of their wonderful cortados.

Walking back we ran into our "personal" banker and neighborhood friend. After the briefest of hellos, he asked if we had heard about "the Supremes."

"Were you at the Smile too?" I asked. "This morning they were playing songs from the 60s and the Supremes were well represented."

"I don't think those are the Supremes he's referring to," the ever-alert Rona said.

"Oh, you mean the Supreme Court," I said. He looked over toward Rona as if commiserating for the kinds of things she has to put up with living with me.

All excited--he's a very liberal banker--he said, "They just voted to overturn most of the Arizona immigration law. Actually, most of the worst parts of it."

"Really? There were enough votes for that even though Elana Kagan recused herself? She had to because she was Obama's Solicitor General."

"Yeah, incredibly, Roberts voted with the majority. And, not as surprising, Kennedy."

"I think I know why," Rona said with a wry smile. "Roberts voted this way so he could more easily vote later this week to overturn Obamacare. To show that he's open minded. To make it seem that the Court is not ruled by ideology."

In the midst of this back and forth about the Court, if I had been wondering exactly where I was after driving nearly 400 miles from Maine, I had no doubts anymore--two minutes after running into our friend we were involved in a heavy discussion about the Supreme Court. Not about the fog over Johns Bay or how Ken's work on his boat was coming.

"About that," without missing a beat our banker friend continued, "You know what they should do about the Affordable Care Act? They should do a version of what they did back in '54 when they voted unanimously to declare segregated public schools unconstitutional.

Puzzled by this reference I stared at him skeptically. He reminded us that, "It took decades before the South, as well as much of the North, actually desegregated their schools."

"I'm not following you," I said, really still thinking about Ken's boat.

"The Court didn't require that this had to be done immediately. They called for it to occur 'with all deliberate speed.' Remember that?"

"I do," Rona said.

"How about doing a version of the same thing now, saying the mandate part or, for that matter, all of the law is unconstitutional but adding that with all deliberate speed the Congress and the president need to come up with a constitutional alternative--say, the single-payer option: in effect, Medicare for all--and that until that time the 30 million effected will continue to be covered, that children up to age 26 can continue to be covered by their parents' policy, and that people with preexisting conditions must be able to buy insurance at affordable rates. Why couldn't they do that?"

"I don't know if they can or not," Rona said, "but if they don't do something like that they will be handing down a death sentence for tens of thousands who are currently receiving life saving treatment under Obamacare but will be denied coverage if the Court throws out the law. I mean this literally."

"Talk about death panels," I added.

"Further," our friend said, "we need a grand health care bargain. To afford to cover everyone--putting aside for the moment whether it's via the Republicans' voucher plan or the mandate or, better, the single-payer approach--we can't afford to do this as things are currently structured. We will totally bankrupt ourselves unless we make significant changes in the current Medicare program."

"By changes I assume you mean cuts?" Rona asked.

"That's the bargain part," he said, "Cuts need to occur not only to save most of the system but also to pay for  all those covered by the Affordable Care Act and still other millions not even taken care of by it. I'm as liberal as it gets," he added, "but the truth is the truth. Many, many things have to be done to bring down costs--the cost of testing, the over-doctoring of many Medicare recipients, the . . ."

"We're about to go to Florida," I cut him off, "for my 104-year-old mother's birthday. She, I would argue, sees too many doctors but does because it's covered by Medicare."

"These would all be difficult things to do," our banker said, "but we need to and the Supremes, which is where we started, if they could do what I mentioned, would really help."

"We'll see soon enough," Rona said, "To tell you the truth, I'm not optimistic."

"But there was the Arizona decision," he reminded us.

"All in the name of love, right?" Rona winked.