Thursday, June 28, 2012

The Health Care Decision (5-4 Decision makes the law Stand. One more step toward true universal health care is upon us)

This is the most significant Supreme Court decision in the 21st century and one of the most important decisions in American history. The Supreme Court throws out the Stolen valor case. The individual mandate is upheld under certain circumstances. The Supreme Court ruled that the individual mandate (or the center piece of the health care law in trying to get money to fund the health care reform law) may be upheld on the taxing clause (from Congress) not the commerce clause. The whole law in essence (for the most part) has been upheld. This is a historic decision. The Supreme Court upholds the Medicaid expansion, but the Court bans the federal government from excessively fining states (or get rid of all existing Medicaid funding period to these states) who refuse to accept the Medicaid expansion. That means that the feds can't eliminate existing Medicaid funding to states that refuse to accept the Medicaid expansion part of the new health care law. So, this means that the federal individual mandate can't be executed under the commerce clause, but it can be administrered via the tax code (or you can be taxed if you refuse to purchase health insurance after 2014). The law isn't perfect, but it's much better than the status quo. Mitt Romney hypocritically believed in an individual mandate for his state insurance program, but he opposes it on the federal level. Chief Justice John Roberts voted on the side of the rest of the majority, which is historic in it of itself. This is the Roberts court. Justice Roberts preserved the President health care reform law. It's a new stage in the human evolution of Americans. We are just a few steps away from full universal health care for all people and it's great day to be alive. What we are fighting now for  (which is universal health care) is something that many industralized nations already have.

By Timothy



Comments by Other People:

martin d
on a mission to crush daily mail readers
6 minutes ago (10:29 AM)
America joins the majority of the western world in putting basic human rights over the money makers


Honi soit qui mal y pense.
6 minutes ago (10:29 AM)
I have never been so happy about being so wrong!


Novelist, anti-professional politicians, liberal l
28 seconds ago (11:32 AM)
Interesting that this court, which so many have characterized as a Republican rubber stamp, has issued these two rulings in a row -- 1070 and health insurance. People used to talk about how the Court changed those who served on it--the once-conservative Earl Warren is the most frequently cited example. It'll be nice to see how the court shapes up in the future.

Although I hold out no hope that Scalia and Thomas will ever be anything but doctrinists
34 seconds ago (11:32 AM)
so is there any thing else the republicans have been completely wrong on...........oh yea....but there si not enuff room to list them here......i was wondering if our Republican Supreme Court could actually strike down the mandate that republicans actually came up with .....The Affordable Healthcare act was originally a Republican idea and it was presented to our nation by Bob Dole as the private sector solution to Single payer..which would really be mor eof a govt take over of healthcare........but ya know facts, republicans the never see eye to eye
Natural enemy of sharks and tro//s
45 seconds ago (11:44 AM)
Except taxes are at a 50 year low and haven't been raised.

Unless we are talking about Republican imaginary land where up is down and tax cuts create prosperity.


The key to winning the game, is never to play.

Response: So the key to overpriced health care is to never get sick.

By that logic, the key to world hunger is to never get hungry; the key to unemployment is to never get laid off; and the key to poverty is to never be poor.

Implicit in this reasoning is that it's always the victims of economic terrorism who are to blame, not the terrorists themselves:



2 minutes ago (11:44 AM)
American presidents, both Republican and Democrat, have tried to expand health care coverage since Teddy Roosevelt in 1912. Reagan was behind COBRA. Richard Nixon was working on health care when Watergate intervened and of course Americans enjoy Medicare and Medicaid ("big government" programs). And Mitt Romney passed a similar program in Massachusetts so any criticism he has is pure and simple hypocritical. This is a win for the American people over big business and insurance companies and both parties should be happy about it.


#1 Socialism for the rich is not socialism, it's fascism.

#2 Stiglitz is cheerleading for a one world keynsian basket currency along the lines of the "Bancor" that Keynes suggested (and Roosevelt rejected) in 1942-1944 at Bretton Woods.

The mincing of words by Stiglitz does not suprise me , he turned out to be a traitor like many others.


________________ (I don't agree with the profanity, but this link has great information)


“Passage of this bill would mean grave consequences for the most vulnerable people in our communities. It is clear that House Republicans have willfully ignored the needs of their constituents with this legislation,” said Sheila Crowley, President and CEO of the National Low Income Housing Coalition. “How will communities take care of the housing needs of their disabled residents when more than two thirds of the funding to do so disappears? How will public housing agencies provide safe, decent homes for the lowest income families when their funds are cut more than 40%? House Republicans give us no answers, just more brutal cuts.”

Once again, Tarpley was right:


"What came after that [Obama's State of the Union address], of course, was Congressman Ryan of Wisconsin.... And Ryran -- what is his method? Notice: Republicans never want to talk about specifics, because specifics is how they're going to flay you alive. They want to pontificate and parade their principles. They want to rant about their superior principles of limited government and individual responsibility and all these other empty slogans. 'Rugged individualism' -- that was the watch-word of Hoobert Hoover, and with that he essentially precided over the destruction of the U.S. economy. Therefore Ryan's task was to pay tribute to these Republican reactionary platitudes, but without telling you how he's actually going to flay you alive. Now, his program is he wants to privatize Social Security; instead of Medicare, you're going to get a coupon which will, of course, be worth less and less, because as you get older -- by the time you get into your 90s -- the coupon they give you is not going to come near paying what you need in order to get medical insurance at such an age. So Ryan has to hide all these things. Ryan's plan comes down to genocide against older Americans. That would be the net effect of it: that many more would die, as they did die before Medicare was implemented."

-- Webster Tarpley, World Crisis Radio broadcast, 1/29/11, 2nd hour


I think part of the problem is the tendency many people have to oversimplify a given issue into either/or extremes. The result of this tendency is to confuse the language in which we communicate our ideas to one another. And where there is confused language, there is confused thought.

For instance, Thomas Paine was a deist, yet was often falsely accused of being an atheist (even though atheism is the literal opposite of deism). Why? Because he openly rejected all "revealed" religions -- including Christianity. Outraged by Paine's harsh criticism of their religion, many Christians responded by attacking the messenger, and their primary method of doing so was to employ the guilt by association fallacy:

    "All atheists reject Christianity. Thomas Paine rejects Christianity. Therefore Paine is an atheist."

A similar lack of discernment (and consequent confusion of thought) can be seen in the decades-old debate over health care.

From the point of view of many well-meaning conservatives and libertarians, if you don't advocate the all-out "privatization" of health care, then by definition you advocate the all-out "socialization" of health care.

Yet as the following excerpt explains, it's not only possible but quite common to be an advocate of neither:


Is national health insurance ‘socialized medicine’?

No. Socialized medicine is a system in which doctors and hospitals work for and draw salaries from the government. Doctors in the Veterans Administration and the Armed Services are paid this way. The health systems in Great Britain and Spain are other examples. But in most European countries, Canada, Australia and Japan they have socialized health insurance, not socialized medicine. The government pays for care that is delivered in the private (mostly not-for-profit) sector. This is similar to how Medicare works in this country. Doctors are in private practice and are paid on a fee-for-service basis from government funds. The government does not own or manage medical practices or hospitals.



And then there's the ridiculously false gold money-vs.-debt money paradigm, which has deceived countless people into falsely believing that the only alternative to enslaving mankind within a prison of debt is to crucify mankind upon a cross of gold, and that you therefore cannot oppose the latter without endorsing the former.



No comments: