?

Log in

No account? Create an account
avril 2019   01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
MOOSE

MEDICARE FOR ALL!

Posted on 2012.06.28 at 10:09
Tags: , ,
That's where to go from here.

The Obamacare INDIVIDUAL MANDATE was stricken down by the Supreme Corporatists, (with their Thomas Scullito Neo-Feds). But this is being seen as a somewhat-victory for the Obama administration, as the decision states that the mandate is actually a TAX - and as a tax, Congress has the power to reword the act into new legislation wherein a "tax" is levied, as allowed by the the Constitutional right to tax. The rest of "Obamacare" has been upheld, of course.

I predicted a mandate-rejection, basically, a few years ago. But, this morning I awoke with a bad headache and was racing to make this post before the decision came in. I was going to post that there was a greater chance that the mandate would be upheld, (70%), based on my brain, but my paranoid conspiracy theory nature did cut that chance down a wee bit, (65%) - apparently, therefore, I AM NOT PARANOID ENOUGH!!

The problem was that if the mandate were rejected, (which it has been), that meant the whole Obamacare system could unravel, since costs could not be kept down. I did not forsee a REINTERPRETATION of the mandate into a TAX, which Congress has a right to levy. But this is good news for Obama, and MAYBE the plan can gradually be expanded, (as has Social Security, etc., in the past), more into MEDICARE FOR ALL. Truman, and others all the way back to Teddy Roosevelt, the adapted-Progressive (Republican), have been pushing for universal health care. Note: I seem to recall concluding long ago that a TAX would not be feasible politically, or legal, perhaps - and that's probably why I didn't foresee this nuancing by the court. (My posts on the HEALTHCARE DEBATE are available via my tags).

Right before the decision, I hear two snippets on the radio, hinting to me that the mandate would be stricken down. The main one was House Bobblehead JOHN BONER saying the PARTISAN fight would go on unless the WHOLE bill was stricken down. Really, all they want is a partisan issue - same with the war on Eric Holder. (More on all these things some other time). But the main thing to remember about THIS Supreme Corporatist, is that they judge first in favour of mega-corps, and second in favour of increased Federal or Presidential power. I thought the HEALTH INSURANCE COMPANIES would win out, (picking up 45 million new customers), along with Obama's BIG PHARM friends, but apparently the Kochs and others were more influential, opposing this mandate.

Clarence Thomas' wife has had ILLEGAL connections to mega-lobbyists, as has Allito - but they are not being impeached. Impeaching - and possibly reshuffling - the Supreme Corporatist is something that can be achieved by VOTING IN A LARGE MAJORITY OF DEMOCRATS in the upcoming elections. MANY good far-righties also want IMPEACHMENT, for such rulings as CITIZENS UNITED, and national security rulings that restrict the rights of individuals, (or unions), or privacy. So, THEY SHOULD ALSO VOTE STRAIGHT DEMOCRATIC, just to break this stranglehold of the grossly unfair Neo-Con, Neo-Lib, NEO-FED FAUX MIDDLE! So rally with the cry: "Impeach the Supreme Court: VOTE ALL-DEMOCRATIC!!!"

As an example: In essence, this court generally believes that individuals or community businesses do not have abundant rights, as wen considered under the Commerce Claus, but when MEGACORPS want to throw around money and commit the same "sins," they are allowed to do so under personhood, "free speech." See the double standard?

As with the ruling on the Arizona immigration package, this decision will be taken up immediately as a victory by both Obama and the GOPpers, but it only feeds further partisan squabbling in upcoming weeks and months and years...

This is supposed to be, "the hottest day in seven years." (I think that means BEYOND the actual day of June 28). Despite my disabling illness yesterday, I called to arrange for a pick-up tonight, for a ride home, with my groceries and dog-food - based only on the THEORY that I may be healthy enough to shop today! In the heat, leaving my dog alone, I may be able to shop today. Wish me luck! I plan to visit 5 stores, but mainly see this as a hunting expedition for CHOCOLATE...

Oh - it may interest you that my feeling was against the mandate, and so in favour of this decision. I opposed "Obamacare," very reluctantly, due to it's being pro-corporate, insufficient, and an over-reaching of the Federal Government. AND YET, I am pro-single payer! (I did see the mandate as a functional necessity, though, and so accepted it in that regard). More than this, I have ideas for how health care can be run in a new plan, where states' rights were respected, and these ideas were posted somewhere in my journal maybe about 4-5 years ago. I wish I could have time/ability to think through more such ideas and solutions, as well as a new economic theory, and possibly become the King of Iceland. Announcement from the President is coming up soon...

Also note: I do have a very cynical hypothesis, NOT A BELIEF, that Obama spent all that time setting up this health care system, not only to avoid dealing with the economy and corporate sleaze, but to let the Supreme Corporatist strike the mandate down. Another hypothesis is that he made a promise to his dying mother to institute the system within his first year.

PS: Please note that I have some really interesting points to add to this post soon, so keep an eye out. Most important: How this Decision can be overturned - in Obama's favour!

http://news.yahoo.com/john-roberts-saves-obamacare--how-does-george-w--bush-feel-right-now-.html

Comments:


dimestore_hippy
dimestore_hippy at 2012-06-28 20:38 (UTC) (Lien)
Sadly the mandate wasn't struck down. They made it a 'tax' or some such nonsense. Sigh. All the newsies jumped the shark in reporting this morning, I guess.
where hypotheses come to die
madman101 at 2012-06-28 21:20 (UTC) (Lien)
ha - yes, it was pretty confusing...

It was all because the mandate WAS technically stricken down, although it was given the real-world go-ahead to call itself a tax penalty instead! So, I believe one thing that happened was that Obama admin let out a quicky statement before they learnt that the "madate" could go ahead as a tax. The repeal of the mandate was reported by NPR, but then quickly "corrected."

The Libertarians were kind of disarmed, too - cuz while they got what they wanted, the outlaw of the mandate, plus constraint on expansion of Medicaid, (which wanted to penalise states who did not comply), which would have then UNRAVELLED Obamacare, they were upset that the mandate was OK to go ahead disguised as a tax - thus all of Obamacare would stand!

The way it was ruled, I actually prefer it this way. Because, even though I dislike the final "Obamacare" bill, I didn't want it to unravel due to the madate being outlawed, even though I saw the mandate as being wrong, (but necessary). With the mandate now a TAX, then there remains more political battling in years ahead, because "Obamacare" threatens to tax some people.

The best news of all this is, 1 - it put a curb on the infringement into states rights. 2 - It sets a precendent AGAINST possible future decisions where the Federal Government thinks it has a right to infringe upon individual rights, by the authority of the mandate. With the madate stricken down, that means the government has less leaway to, e.g., arrest people for privately growing pot or tomatoes, or raw milk, because, "these activity affect interstate commerce." Using that excuse is BOGUS, and it could have been used to mandating whether or not you frickin BREATH, because, "it affects interstate commerce."

So - I am very happy the mandate was technically stricken down, for this reason. VERY happy. I am also happy, though, that it is now called a "TAX" and that leaves it up to political fights to decide how Obamacare may ultimately unfold, or perhaps be rewritten.

I do not like the Federal power to tax extensively, but this is fine as it will actually save society money in health care costs. But as long as they are taxing this, how about taxing companies that send jobs overseas, or tariff those who import foreign goods, as we did most of our history! And how about taxing the rich at rates we saw under Eisenhower or even REAGAN, so the rich will stop spending their extra money on gambling on derivatives, or creating housing bubbles, and other bubbles, which benefit very few people.

You did raise a very important point - and thank you so much for giving me the chance to clarify my post above, which was also a bit confused!
Previous Entry  Next Entry