The Supreme Court has upheld the Affordable Care Act. In what has been called an act of pragmatism over ideology, Chief Justice Roberts wrote the majority opinion that allows the Act to stand.
Beyond the ideological lines that have been drawn, the existence of this Act says something dramatic about American society, and how we govern. The rhetoric of the past dozen years has made many of us believe that the political schisms are so wide that we cannot decide any issue, no matter how minute.
The most interesting analysis comes in an article by Atul Gawande in The New Yorker. Dr. Gawande is a physician, and has written interesting books on the medical realm, and social order in general. His observation harks back to a social study done some decades ago:
In 1973, two social scientists, Horst Rittel and Melvin Webber, defined a
class of problems they called “wicked problems.” Wicked problems are
messy, ill-defined, more complex than we fully grasp, and open to
multiple interpretations based on one’s point of view. They are problems
such as poverty, obesity, where to put a new highway—or how to make
sure that people have adequate health care.
Gawande also describes the process that opponents go through to rationalize opposition to health care -- or any major social/political issue. In many cases, opponents have a basis or foundation of belief that is understandable, and I can respect those who have core belief sets. But our social systems change, whether economic, governmental, demographic. We need to change with them.