Killing health care

 Posted by at 18:56  Politics, Republicans
Mar 282012
 

It is unfortunate that our Republicans have channeled their hatred of President Barack Obama (and Democrats in general) into their fight against the Affordable Care Act (commonly referred to as “Obamacare”). If they were honest with themselves and us, they would acknowledge that they would be praising this legislation to the high heavens had it been enacted by a Republican president and a Republican congress.

The Republicans have succeeded in pushing their fight against the Affordable Care Act (and President Obama and the Democrats) all the way to the Supreme Court, where current consensus among the pundits appears to have the legislation on “life support.” That is a shame as it means a return of complete control of your health care to the big insurance companies. The Republicans have nothing with which to replace the Affordable Care Act. This is fine by them as it is not their intent to replace it. Their sole intent is to see it struck down as most Americans view it as a victory for the Democrats. They simply cannot let that stand. It has to go.

And that is a shame. If the Affordable Care Act is struck down, a whole lot of Americans are going to suffer. The thing is… Republicans don’t care. Their blind hatred supersedes any hint of humanity they might possess.

They must be stopped.
 

  15 Responses to “Killing health care”

  1. “The Republicans have nothing with which to replace the Affordable Care Act. This is fine by them as it is not their intent to replace it.”

    I think it is more correct to say “They don’t have anything as massive as ACA to replace ACA,” and I don’t think that is a bad thing.

    As we’re most likely going to see, Obamacare is going to be deemed unconstitutional because of the individual mandate (penalty), and the lack of a severability clause will mean the whole Act will have to be rescinded. This will allow the bill to be broken up (as it should have been) and reintroduced in smaller parts. This way, we will know what is actually being passed (unlike Pelosi who said we had to pass it in order to find out what is in it), and we can better control what impacts it will have on the health care industry, the national debt, and the individuals wallet.

    Currently, my projection on the Supreme Court ruling is:

    6-3 deeming that the individual mandate (penalty) is unconstitutional.
    5-4 ruling that severability cannot occur, overturning the whole Act.

  2. I don’t understand how people do not see the destruction the Republican party wreaks on the average American. My husband and I often look at each other at the dinner table and say, “Are we that much smarter than the average American? Why don’t they see the obvious?”

  3. @ U.S. Common Sense: No, I’ll stand by my original statement. The Republicans have nothing with which to replace Affordable Care and they don’t care.

    My state, and probably yours, requires that a I bear responsibility for my operation of a motor vehicle by purchasing automobile insurance and providing them with proof of that purchase. Nobody, including me, is a perfect motor vehicle operator. We are all subject to accidents, whether caused by us or others. Somebody must bear the financial burden of those accidents. The state has decided that somebody is me.

    No human body is perfect. All are subject to illness and injury. Everybody will, at some time in their life, be in need of health care. Somebody must bear the financial burden of providing that health care. Why would you or anybody else believe that it is the responsibility of others to pay for your care?

  4. Len,

    That is within the power of the state to require it. You are not required to buy or drive a car, but since you choose to do so on your own free will, the state requires you to have insurance. The Federal government does not. (That’s the flaw of that example.)

    As far as responsibility, you are right. Some people will choose not to obtain coverage. They will be responsible for paying their medical bills, and if they fail to do so, the hospitals/care providers have the right to seek recovery of expenses for services rendered through the courts.

    Now, if you really want a Constitutionally legal way to provide medical coverage for all and to ensure that everyone pays for it is to pass an Amendment that consolidates Medicare and Medicaid into a single national health care insurance (NHCI) program. This would provide basic medical coverage for all, while insurance companies could provide NHCI supplemental plans for those seeking additional care benefits (much like Medicare supplemental plans do now). That way, you achieve universal coverage without the need of a Constitutional amendment (since the mandate is unconstitutional) nor 2700 pages of legislation that no one (even the sponsors) read before passing. It would also take the existing Medicaid burden that was forced onto the states back to the Federal level where it belongs (since it’s a Federal program).

    Of course, if you want to get even more radical, I think you could nationalize the entire health care system and create health care version of the military. This way, the Federal government can deploy doctors to different parts of the nation to ensure that everyone has adequate coverage. There would be no out-of-pocket expenses since the how system would be paid out of your income taxes (just like the military is now). That would require a Constitutional Amendment though.

  5. Their sole intent is to see it struck down as most Americans view it as a victory for the Democrats. Great video.

  6. @ U.S. Common Sense:
    As per usual, you and I will agree to disagree. First, I do not believe the requirement within the Affordable Care Act that most Americans purchase health insurance to be unconstitutional, though I fully expect that the Conservatives on the Supreme Court will deem it so. Second, health care providers will not seek payment from the uninsured through the courts. They do not do so now, and they will not do so in the future. You and I will continue to pay their bills, through higher doctor and hospital bills and higher and higher insurance premiums (or at least the portion of health insurance premiums that will not go toward the purchase of mansions, yachts and limousines for insurance company executives).
    Third, you are not required to seek medical assistance when you become ill or injured any more than I am required to drive a car. Since I choose to drive a car and you choose to seek medical care, we both should be expected to shoulder some responsibility for those actions.

    I’ve not convinced you, have I? That’s fine. I did not expect to. Do you believe you’ll convince me? 😉

  7. hahaha . . . no and no, my friend. 🙂 But I always love our discussions. 🙂

    Have a great Friday and weekend!

  8. Having a health care benefit is a big help. I am thankful for President Obama of taking his part of this. I just can’t get why others are not in favor of it.

  9. Good thing there’s such people like you who don’t ignore this kind of issues. I agree with you, most of us are ignorant of what is happening around us. And somebody should make a move, and it was you. I salute you for that. Many Americans would surely suffer. But I believe in you. You can make a change.

  10. I can’t see the point of Republicans who still against the Affordable Care Act. Don’t they realize that they can also benefit from it? These actions are purely nonsense!
    How many Americans will suffer if this happened? Are they sure that they will not suffered too?

  11. I’m on your side, an Obama voter, but honestly, it would be interesting to see if you could pen a blog about the important issues facing the nation, without ever once mentioning the Republicans.

    From what I can tell, you’ve fallen victim to the same blind partisanship that afflicts so many on the other side. The notion that anything one side does or says is always right, and anything the other side does or says is always wrong etc.

    The simple real world fact is that about the half the country is left of center and about half is right of center. The power pendulum will continue to swing between the left and right for the rest of our lifetimes, and there’s nothing anybody on any side can do about that. No amount of snotty partisan ranting from any side will ever change this reality.

    Thus, the only hope for the country is to find somewhat sensible compromises somewhere in the middle. If the solutions aren’t compromises, then whoever is currently out of power will simply reverse the decision once they regain power, and nothing will ever move forward.

    Compromise, the art of politics, means that nobody ever gets everything they want, and that we all have to make peace with that if we want to do the next deal.

    Calling the other side names etc just makes the necessary compromise harder, and puts the partisan’s own personal petty psychological needs above that of the nation’s interest.

    A blog that never mentions Republicans, a worthy challenge for someone with your energy. If you couldn’t talk about Republicans, if you couldn’t have an enemy, would you still be interested in the nation’s future?

  12. @ Phil:
    The Republican party is evil. Its only goal is the destruction of the country I love. I will fight them in any way I can.

  13. @Len, as a fellow Demo, I propose the following…

    Your hatred of the Repubs has little to nothing to do with the country, but is instead motivated by a personal need to have an enemy of some kind.

    In fairness to you, this is a very common motivation, which drives hyper-partisan sentiments like those you’ve just expressed, on all sides of the political spectrum. For every Demo who feels as you do, there’s a Repub who does as well, for the same personal reasons. It infects religion too of course.

    I propose that this mass psychology of putting one’s personal agenda’s above the nation’s interest is the real threat facing the country. It’s always been there throughout our history, as it is a very human phenomena, but in recent years it’s just getting completely out of control.

    Even if you don’t accept any of this, which I imagine you won’t, there really isn’t any evidence that any of us calling the other side evil, and repeating it over and over again, whether it’s true or not, does anything to change anybody’s mind or solve any of the problems we face.

    If you want to prevail on any of the issues that matter to you, that’s going to involve winning some of those on the other side over to your point of view. How does labeling them evil assist this effort? Please explain.

    And of course, this completely reasonable practical question can be equally put to the fire breathers on the other side, who are also engaged in the same irrational emotion-centric activity.

    For all your energy and sincere interest in politics, I respectfully propose you’ve missed the heart of it. The real dividing line is not between left and right, but between the middle and the extremes.

    Those in the middle will have differing views, and they will surely debate, but in the end what they want is solutions, and they are willing to accept the messy business of compromise to get them.

    Those in the extremes, whether left or right, don’t want solutions or compromise. They want conflict, for the sake of conflict. They want somebody who will play the role of the evil enemy in their own internal personal melodrama.

  14. @ Phil:
    I do appreciate the lecture and the thoughts. I really do. However, I’ll continue to fight my way. I hope you’ll continue the fight in whatever way you see fit.

    P.S. When did we start calling ourselves “Demo”?

  15. @Len, ok that’s cool. Thank you for your diplomatic response to a less than fully diplomatic challenge.

    If you’re willing to continue this as an academic exercise, here’s a question we might consider together.

    Where is the evidence that my words will have any affect on you, or your words will have any affect on Republicans? Where is the evidence that either of us are affecting any kind of constructive change with our writing?

    As an outspoken raging moderate, I’ve stated your motivations are mostly personal, a rather socially inept undiplomatic point unlikely to be well received by anybody. You’ve somewhat hysterically called half the country evil, and claimed they’re out to destroy the nation.

    I’m not changing you, you’re not changing the Republicans, and we’re both intelligent enough to see that. And yet we continue.

    To make this easier, let’s imagine a far right tea party Limbaugh type pounds the podium and hollers a passionate red meat speech about the horrors of liberalism etc. What is accomplished? Yes, some people stand up and cheer. But they were going to vote for the right wing agenda anyway, so really, little to nothing is accomplished. Much sound and fury, signifying nothing. This is easier to see when it’s the other guy we’re looking at, isn’t it?

    Elections are typically decided by the independent swing voters in the middle, those who could go either way. Thus, we might define serious people as those who aim their words at this point of greatest leverage.

    What do independent swing voters want?

    Whatever our point of view, how do we convince the independent swing voters, those who usually decide elections, that we are the mature sober thoughtful responsible adults in the room, and power should be entrusted to us?

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.