"a killing field for hypotheses" (madman101) wrote,
"a killing field for hypotheses"


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!

Tags: all * health care / insurance, law - supreme court cases/scotus/rulings, politics - health care debate / afa

  • Post a new comment


    Comments allowed for friends only

    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded