I received a robocall from Mike Huckabee last night. He asked me to Press 1 to add my name to a petition supporting the repeal of Obamacare, which he described as a destructive law. I declined.
For all of the children with pre-existing conditions who can no longer be denied coverage because of those pre-existing conditions, I apologize for keeping this harmful law in place.
For all of you with expensive medical conditions whose coverage can no longer be terminated because it has reached its cap, I apologize.
For those of you whose coverage can no longer be cancelled for making a mistake when disclosing information and whose insurance application must now be proven to be a fraudulent, I apologize.
For those of you who have the right to appeal the decision to an independent reviewer if your claim is denied, I apologize.
For those of you who now have access to free preventative health services, I apologize.
For those of you whose children can stay on your policy until they are 25 instead of being terminated at age 19, I apologize.
For those of you who can now choose the pediatrician or primary care doctor you want from your health plan’s provider network, I apologize.
And for those of you who won’t be required to get prior approval before seeking emergency room services from a facility that is outside of your plan’s network or pay higher copayments for doing so, I apologize.
If only I could realize just how destructive health care reform has been for this country.
Try Not to Sing Along
2 months ago
5 comments:
The people who complain about the health care reform are the same ones who go the the hospital ER for every ache and pain and then stiff the hospital because they don't have insurance.
Big Pharma apologizes for their secret deal with the Obama administration that locks in trillion dollar profits and thwarts competition.
Union brass would like to apologize for the million dollar kickbacks Pharma gave to bosses like Andy Stern for turning out labor support for the law.
Big insurance would like to apologize for the record profits it has has made since Obama locked in its customer base.
Obama would like to apologize for lying about open negotiations and supporting the public option.
The IRS would like to apologize for criminalizing people who must decide between health premiums, food, or rent.
Gloating liberals with excellent, often taxpayer-paid insurance (ahem), would like to apologize for their self-righteous victory dance.
Republicans would like to apologize for not really giving a shit.
Elites would like to apologize for finding a novel mechanism, the mandate, which at best constitutes regressive taxation, and which they claim can be applied for purposes far beyond health care.
Voters who still have consciences would like to apologize for voting for a corrupt charlatan who promised hope for real change.
Uncle Sam would simply like a moment alone to weep.
The stakes are high, but the Constitutional question on the mandate is simple. The Supremes will strike the mandate down, 7-2.
The Obama administration didn't help itself by ridding the law of the public option, or by opportunistically declaring the mandate a "tax" or "not at all a tax" depending on the rhetorical demands of the moment. The self-congratulatory cleverness of Democratic lawyers is already falling apart under the simplest of questions in the first skirmish on delaying the decision.
The court will reassert itself (in its view) as the dispassionate arbitrer of constitutionality, and power limitation as the long term guard against despotism.
Despite striking down legislation, the court will see itself as acting in accordance with judicial restraint. Only the individual mandate and penalty will fall. State challenges on Medicaid will fail.
If the Administration had any game at all, they would be scrambling for a fallback position suggesting an explicit framework for limitations on the mandate power. But, Obama, the solicitor general, and the rest are far too arrogant to actually address the fundamental question before the court. They don't understand that the court sees their refusal to engage as a thumb to the nose at the Court's power.
Drones and Gitmo are one thing, domestic policy is another. Non-judicial process my ass, the Court will be inclined to reply.
7-2
I'll wager 6-3 in support of the mandate. My reasons are cynical though. Citizens United best illustrates this court's philosophy: pro-corporations and plutocracy, anti-citizen rights.
At heart, that's what the mechanism of the mandate is about: the government empowering corporations to force citizen behavior to maximize profit.
That the law is oddly tagged " socialist" by conservatives only provides the Supremes more cover. Yes, they want to guard their branch's power, but mostly they want to please the plutocracy. In the long run, the new mandate power, like "money is speech," further empowers corporate-governance at the expense of citizens. That trend will become clearer when the mandate is applied to other subjects. We'll go from being taxpayers to crimalized peons, forced to buy from the company store. Corporate-Fed hybridization is what the court, and both major parties, ultimately prefer.
Medicare for all. Time to pick up the banner.
Roberts (and Obama?) is hosting a charade to placate Thomas and give the appearance of deliberation.
Kind of Bush v Gore but more public and in favor of the Democrats.
8-1.
Post a Comment