Do want those 'Lexus lanes"?

Dear Mr. Mayo, you almost got it right in your commentary article in the Sun-Sentinel on Thursday, April 19, 2012, Does S. Florida want tolled ‘Lexus lanes’ everywhere? Almost. The term ‘Lexus lanes’  col;ors the picture accurately and you have posed the right question. But then you took it down to personal experience and simplification.

It is true that the system on I-95 in Miami-Dade County works. What is also true is that these express lane systems also work in other parts of the country without tolls and certainly without a financial ability test for access to public infrastructure. I have driven the express limited access systems in Chicago and on I-95 running south of Washington, DC, just to name two.

The issue is indeed “Lexus lanes’ as you have called the system, but it is about the right of equal public access to public infrastructure. Not whether it does what the traffic engineers desire. This also begs the question of what will happen if roads and highways are privatized.

This is an issue of commerce, and equal protection under the law. The use of public highways is after all supported by taxes in one way or another. A user fee that sets flexible pricing to exclude economically limited members of our community is blatantly unconstitutional. I keep wondering, where are all the consumer advocacy organization that ought to be up in arms, AAA, the ACLU, Progress Florida, etc.? Particularly with the trend towards spreading this concept of a ‘rich man/poor man’ highway system.

Our highways, bridges and public transportation infrastructure is supported by fuel taxes. There is a developing problem with the increasing efficiency and diversification of our fuel consumption that will reduce the funding available to maintain and grow this infrastructure. It does not make sense to design a system of having a limited pool of users pay for enhancements. A redesign of the fuel consumption taxes will be needed to capture a fair taxation for support of our transportation system. Perhaps a system that taxes odometer based vehicle usage would be fair. This is the real issue driving the bad idea of ‘Lexus lanes’. How do we pay for commerce infrastructure in a way that is fair and equal?

Mr. Mayo, you are a Commentator. But whether this is entertainment or opinion, you are a newsman influencing the public. You have an obligation to research and understand your subject. As a reader, I really do expect you to have a better understanding of the issues and the willingness to challenge the public when their rights to access are being infringed. Its just not a cute issue to be treated as “I think I’ll just sit on the fence here”.

Overturn the entire affordable care act? Hmmmm?

There is a national debate over the comments of President Obama to the effect that the Supreme Court is unlikely to overturn healthcare reform in the Affordable Healthcare Act. His comments referenced the traditions of the past 80 years. Our Attorney General, Eric Holder, was called upon by Judge Jerry Smith of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit to explain the President’s position. There are increasing speculations by media personalities that the Supreme Court is poised to find the entirety of the Affordable Healthcare Act unconstitutional.

The issue of universal health care is not a directly constitutional issue. The only issue that has been challenged at the Appeals Court level across the country has to do with the universal requirement to purchase private health insurance, a legislative compromise from the original proposal for a tax supported single payer plan. Consider, this is not the first universal healthcare coverage plan conceived and passed by Congress. Congress passed a law in 1798, supported by both John Adams and Thomas Jefferson that required all merchant marine seamen to contribute through a payroll tax to cover their healthcare for access to government supported federal marine hospitals and contracted private healthcare providers.

The problem with the current statute is that Congress rejected a single payer system supported by a payroll tax. If the concept of reduced healthcare costs through a universal payment system is to work then a private insurance mandate was needed. This strategy protected the private for profit health insurance industry and neutralized their opposition. This required a controversial payment mechanism that may be unconstitutional. But throw out the whole law? Consider the political consequences of that.

Although most people do not like this law in its current form, the support for the assurance of universal healthcare has been historically enduring. President Obama is only the first President to succeed. If the law is overturned in its entirety and President Obama is re-elected we can be sure of a groundswell of support for a single payer system. A Congress that is again Democratic would be far more likely to pass a new stronger health care reform law. And consider, there are three justices planning on participation in this ruling who have publicly known conflicts of interest (Kagan, Thomas and Scalia). What happens to them with a Democratic Congress when Article III stipulates their tenure as "shall hold their Offices during good Behavior". Would they risk an extreme and constitutionally unsupported political ruling?