UPHELD! Way To Go SCOTUS: the nation's ER's now may be saved!

The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) today upheld the Heritage Foundation/Republican Party-inspired "individual mandate", a mechanism that proposed that all Americans directly participate in and be held responsible for something truly of national importance and modeled on "Romneycare" during Willard Mitt's tenure in Massachusetts.

In considering this decision I do so mainly from a perspective of underwhelmed sarcasm in that of those 55% who disapproved of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) in the first place, as written, I am with the roughly 15% that disapproved of it due to its myopic, "market-driven" facade of a solution.  I am of the constituency that once even sort of included the likes of Walmart that wanted business to be able to focus on their business . .  and get out of health-care altogether and supported (and still support) a "medicare for all" single-payer solution.  Walmart didn't extend their statement this far but other small and medium-sized businesses did.

A more "socialized" approach would also make moot the arguments and concerns in regards to "moral indignation" when it comes to certain legal and oft needed medical procedures or therapies.  But maybe this too is part of the "master plan" for should health-care also become a "civic" socialized concern like police, fire, military protection or like roads and airports then the lunatic right will lose another plank in their platform from which to continue their myth-making banter about the "good" private sector and the "bad" public sector.  Good luck with your privatized fire department if your home is not in a coveted zip code!

To give credit where it is due, SCOTUS has guaranteed that for all those paying into the private insurance market with its attendant demand for a 8-15% profit margin will no longer be alone in addressing the needs of the uninsured millions and those with preexisting conditions (your neighbors, your family, your fellow citizens!) who now may have found a semblance of relief within the ACA as we will now all have "skin in the game".

SCOTUS was cheered on to reject ACA by many of those who stand to benefit the most from health-care reform but instead abandoned their class and their own interests as they helped stymie any drift toward a system similar to other socialized approaches in the US that many of them LOVE: notably Medicare and the Veteran's Administration, both of which are viewed by tricorn hat wearers and the entitled as valuable and necessary and as we all may recall . . . "don't mess with my medicare or VA benefits"!  Again, programs both born from socialized tenets.

So now that the conservative approach has been upheld by a conservative, activist "Supreme" Court, it is obviously time to get to work and move this initial step in modernity and responsibility forward toward the sane, relatively simple, and progressive approach: one that has been successfully employed by most of our competitor allies and one that actually addresses problems like universality, access, preexisting conditions, costs and moves in a direction that abandons the silly, "market-driven" drivel of the individual mandate and begins instead with a "public option" and in time works its way toward single-payer "medicare for all".


Leave a comment
  • Now, what to do about Medicare and its dismal finances and fraud? I guess the solution is to take it "universal" and make it broker and more dishonest?

    I'm a little surprised in reading your bio, where you claim to be of independent thought. You thinking is very predictable in the norm of progressive-cum-collectivist thought.

    If you are young enough, and if ObamaCare is fully implemented, I guarantee that you or a member of your family will rue the day when you essentially turned your most precious gift of health CHOICES over to a GS-13 in DC. Hopefully you will fit the cost/benefit analysis of that particular number cruncher. If not, oh well....

  • In reply to Richard Davis:

    1) You are correct in not assuming all issues are inherently mutually inclusive -- which they are not -- now let us move on to fixing medicare and reducing/eliminating fraud! I have no problems with that. "The governement" is not a Japanese, anime monster -- it is a set of organizations run by American citizens. Let us then get committed citizens that are true civil servants as a good place to begin.

    Bottom line is that when you are brought into an employment situation, your total compensation package is one part salary, one part taxes, one part benefits (healthcare, holidays, paid time off and the like). So, if you look at the difference between your total compensation package and your take home one could semantically call the difference a type of tax if they so chose to. In other words, if you look at the healthcare premium your employer pays as part of your "compensation" as a tax, there is no reason these tax monies should go to for-profit organizations like Aetna, UHC, BCBS, etc.. Better add those allocated healthcare monies to FICA (or whatever mechanism) and send them both to "the governement" which would go a long way in addressing your first concern about the long-term financing of medicare. Again, I am with you on containing fraud.

    2) Being an independent and proudly believing in "collectivism" are not mutually exclusive endeavors, though it seems like a pejorative charge I could equally level against "conservatives".

    3) As a "gen-xer," I would much prefer to have replaceable civil servants administering/facilitating payments to my doctor(s) than some for-profit, actuarial, pencil pusher and his bonus seeking CEO -- anyday! By the way, my doctors feel this way (pro single-payer) too!!

  • Geeze, another brave blogger that is afraid to let people post without seeing the post first. . What is it with you brave progressives?

  • In reply to Richard Davis:

    Clearly you have no problem with us weeding out the propagandists, liars, and lunatics. Screening is something the "conservative" blogs employ habitually!

    And see, you and your contrarian post made the cut. An apology is in order I believe.

    Come on.

  • Can you please back up your proof that conservative blogs root out post s that are not in agreement with their ideology?

  • In reply to meangreen:

    Sure, first hand. I have had well-argued, well-cited, cogent, fact-based contrarian posts never "approved" at Red State -- opposite my position with the previous poster on this post! Perhaps it was because the vocabulary was polysyllabic?

Leave a comment