“Mitt Romney is the godfather of our health care plan.” David Plouffe, NBC’s “Meet the Press.
This one is for all the marbles, particularly since Pres. Obama hasn’t sold a specific economic message since he came into office.
Public opinion is irrelevant, was what the Washington Post stressed on Sunday, whether you call it “Obamacare” or Affordability Care Act.
Watch A Viewer’s Guide to Supreme Court Arguments on Health Care on PBS. See more from PBS NewsHour.
The Supreme Court will hear three days of arguments starting Monday on whether President Obama’s Affordable Care Act is constitutional. Twenty-six states have filed challenges to the health-care reform law. The main issue, on which the lower courts have split, is whether Congress had the power to pass this law under the Constitution’s commerce clause. The answers to that and other questions are clouded by misperceptions about the law itself. Let’s debunk them. … – Five myths about the health-care law – Challenging everything you think you know
PBS is doing full coverage of the next big health care debate. It’s the safest place to go for answers and analysis.
The infotainment shows this week will overflow with partisan hyenas.
If Obamacare is upheld, it fundamentally changes the nature of the American social contract. It means the effective end of a government of enumerated powers — i.e., finite, delineated powers beyond which the government may not go, beyond which lies the free realm of the people and their voluntary institutions. The new post-Obamacare dispensation is a central government of unlimited power from which citizen and civil society struggle to carve out and maintain spheres of autonomy. – The Reckoning, by Charles Krauthammer
If you read Krauthammer’s piece it gets down to one thing, the contraceptive mandate, which has lit conservatives on fire.
It further proves the philosophical bankruptcy of conservatives, because the fundamental point of getting contraceptives in the hands of more women, many of whom cannot afford it, is to prevent pregnancy. That conservatives will never join in on this campaign through championing contraception, which they didn’t do before ACA’s contraceptive mandate became the issue, is why they cannot be taken seriously on so-called “life” issues.
Marty Lederman of Balkinization focused on severability last Friday and will be an important source information this week.
Politico’s Josh Gerstein has an interesting article up as well.
Many legal scholars, including respected conservatives, pooh-poohed the idea that the courts might actually strike down the law or the individual mandate requiring most Americans to get health insurance or pay a fine.
Yet on Monday, three days of oral arguments about the law begin at the high court — the most time justices have devoted to a single law since 1966.
The challengers’ journey from the near-fringe of legal thought to coming within striking distance of knocking out Obama’s signature legislative achievement has coupled an intense legal assault with a communications drive to convince elites and the public that the law violates the Constitution.
“Once the Supreme Court grants review of the case and sets six hours of arguments over three days, it becomes a blockbuster case where, either way, there’s going to be a landmark ruling,” said Doug Kendall of the Constitutional Accountability Center, a liberal legal group.
If you’ve forgotten the long trail to becoming law, here’s a tick tock and timeline of the milestones events from the beginning.
From Walter Dillinger’s “Five Myths” column cited at the top:
4. The law is socialist.
Actually, the opposite is true. The principal reason the Affordable Care Act has been called unprecedented is that it declines to follow the New Deal approach of having a monolithic government agency be the single provider of a good or service. Instead, the law adopts a new approach, one conservatives have long supported, of using providers in the private market to deal with social and economic problems.
In defending his “Massachusetts mandate” as a conservative model for national health-care legislation, former governor Mitt Romney editorialized in 2009 that by imposing tax penalties on people who choose to remain uninsured, an individual mandate “encourages ‘free riders’ to take responsibilities for themselves rather than pass their medical costs on to others.” And, as Romney noted, conservatives have never been inclined to favor freeloaders.
Dillinger, according to the Post, filed a brief on behalf of the Senate and House Democratic leadership defending the health care law in the Supreme Court.
I’m on record being against the mandate. I was also one of the loudest voices in new media on the Stupak Amendment. That the Affordable Care Act never received a concentrated campaign with Pres. Obama’s full weight behind it is one reason why Sarah Palin and her Tea Party pack were able to get mileage with the “death panels” squeal in August 2010.
But that’s ancient history.
So is Pres. Obama’s choice to do back room Big Pharma and private insurance company deals, which has been recounted in several books on Obama in the last year.
The Affordable Care Act is a serious accomplishment, which was the goal of the Obama administration and Democrats that anyone in politics can appreciate. If you don’t score you can’t convince anyone you deserve reelection.
But the road to manifestation was rife with political missteps, botched opportunities and timidity, magnified by too many of the goodies being delayed, while what was implemented ended up being drowned out by a campaign that was indecipherably incoherent.
No one can say that people with pre-existing illnesses now being covered isn’t a good thing. That children into their mid-twenties being insured on the parent’s policy isn’t helpful to families. That the latest addition to get contraception covered without cost isn’t a boon to women.
This week is sure to be a partisan train wreck.
What this week’s Supreme Court arguments hold for this country, however, will come when the landmark ruling comes down.
I oppose the mandate bc Im for Medicare for All. No progressive should defend the mandate- it s an idea from the Heritage foundation 20 yrs ago. However, I dont want the mandate struck down for fear of other ramifcations.
Bigger- the court case on expansion of Medicaid. That is bigger for progressives. I fcourt rules feds cannot expand medicaid then mediciad itself is dead. dead. MSM is focuse don the mandate. But we must look at the real biggie- the poss striikng of medicaid ability to function.
You beat me to it. I’m hoping that this whole thing goes down and we are left with a truly Progressive movement which demands Universal Healthcare as the only remaining viable option. It’s what we should have been fighting for starting in the spring of 2009 anyway. Medicare for all- the way to make it affordable is to allow anyone to buy in, not just the sick and old.
Kuttner on the brief single payer drs filed on this case urging the mandate be struck, urging that going w/medicare for all is the soundest constitutional way to do this.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-kuttner/health-reforms-day-in-cou_b_1378782.html?view=print&comm_ref=false
I fear the worst. This Supreme Court is too political to escape making a decision that goes beyond left and right fault lines in order to take the best decision for the country.
Since the Citizens United ruling, I don’t trust the SC. There is no way striking down a legislation requiring transparency with regards to political donations and limiting the influence of big money in campaigns was the best decision for the country. Neither was granting first amendment rights to corporations and deciding that corporations are like individuals and can contribute unlimited amounts to political campaigns, even though individuals do not have limited liability and most of us do not have the power to influence policy through huge donations in the same way as corporations.
I fear that it wont be different this time the lobbying and misinformation from the crazy right has been too intense, and the fight back from the left and in particular the Administration too weak. Even though the legislation is far from perfect and the process that led to its adoption horrible, it was a huge step in the right direction for many uninsured. Republicans will ensure that these gains are reversed. Sad.
“Even though the legislation is far from perfect and the process that led to its adoption horrible, it was a huge step in the right direction for many uninsured.”
“Far from perfect”= doesn’t come even close to solving the problem of affordability.
“Huge step in the right direction for the many uninsured”= most people are NOT uninsured because of a pre-existing condition. They are uninsured because they CAN’T AFFORD INSURANCE. The Health Care plan does NOTHING for them.
What’s “sad” is the determination of some people to see a mountain where there is a molehill. The Health Care act was a sad waste of political capital. Let’s hope that the SC dumps it overboard so we can get to Universal Health Care.
“No one can say that people with pre-existing conditions now being covered isn’t a good thing…”
RICH people with pre-existing conditions are now being covered. How many times do I have to beat my head against the wall over this? The question is AFFORDABILITY. It is NO comfort to tell someone “ok, you are now eligible for insurance, thanks to the Health Care Plan” but also say “oh by the way, that price you can’t afford? It’s gone up.”
As long as “health care” is considered a product (and so equated with “health insurance”), fewer people will have access to it. As long as “health care” is consdiered a product, there will be levels, degrees of the quality and quantity of care received.
I wish people would stop using the term “universal health care” when they mean “single-payer” (Medicare for all). Other countries have universal access (better word) and they get there different ways. In Switzerland and Germany it’s all private insurance with an individual mandate. No Medicare. In Canada it’s private providers paid by the government (single payer). In the UK it’s providers who are employed and paid by the government (socialized and single payer). What they all have in common is a method for reining in cost of care, either by putting providers on budgets or salaries or controlling prices. Only in this country do we have a fee-for-service system which creates incentive to do more and more service, whether or not it’s in the best interest of the patient. If we don’t fix that it won’t matter much who pays the bills, it will consume a greater and greater share of resources. If we want everyone to be covered we have to have a way to be sure everyone participates and pays AND we have to find a way to turn the incentive around.
This is why the public option or single payer was (is) so important. The government should not be allowed to coerce any citizen into a private contract. There is a difference between buying something of my own free will and having the federal government telling me that I have to give my money to an industry that I find abhorrent.
Thankfully, I get my healthcare from the VA, a public option if you will, and I love it.
One of my biggest gripes with the President is the way he handled the whole healthcare issue. Obama ran on a single payer plan and then took it off the table and sold out to the insurance companies. Granted what we ended up with was a tiny step better then what we had, and now I’m holding my nose and hoping the court upholds this tiny little step that we have.
I hate being in a position of supporting Obamacare only because it is better then the old system, when what we really need is a single payer plan that covers everybody with affordable healthcare. I’m afraid we will have to wait until 2016 before we get a chance at universal healthcare, but if we end up with republicans and the right wing in control, we may wait a hell of a lot longer.
Obama was always mealy-mouthed and garbled on health care during the ’08 campaign. It’s the principal reason I did not support him in the primary. The reform law has its good and its bad points. He’s done a lousy job of explaining what’s good. As to cost control, that will depend on providers changing the way they practice. Medicare is on the way to requiring that and the hope is private insurance will follow Medicare (the largest insurer) when they see the savings. This was the most compelling reason to have a public option.
This catastrophe needs to be stopped and the vast majority of Americans understand this. I have confidence the Supreme Court will put an end to this crime. It is clear that the USA will go bankrupt if this law goes forward. Obama and the Democrats already pilfered $500 Billion out of medicare to prop up this fiasco. The best arguement against this bill comes from the Democrats. If you listen to all of the statements by the democrats before the bill was passed and look at the reality of this legislation, all the ammunition to toss this garbage in the trash where it belongs is provided.
mjsmith: I’m wondering if you have an alternative solution in mind? Or do you think we were OK before?
1.”This catastrophe needs to be stopped and the vast majority of Americans understand this.”
Well, considering when the “debate” was going on it was 70% support and even now after two years of nonstop propaganda and lies from the right it is still 50/50 your statement on it’s face starts with at best an ignorant comment or more likely a blatant lie..
2.” I have confidence the Supreme Court will put an end to this crime.”
What crime is that? Trying to make sure more if not all citizens have access to healthcare?!!!
3.” It is clear that the USA will go bankrupt if this law goes forward. ”
As opposed to thge BILLIONS and BILLIONS flushed down the military industrial complex toilet as well as the forever wars?
“Obama and the Democrats already pilfered $500 Billion out of medicare to prop up this fiasco.”
That is simply a flat out lie both with numbers and implication of actions.
4.” The best arguement against this bill comes from the Democrats. If you listen to all of the statements by the democrats before the bill was passed and look at the reality of this legislation, all the ammunition to toss this garbage in the trash where it belongs is provided.”
Nice vague gibberish with no links or supporting information or quotes.
mjsith…Unlike StrideHyde I am not wondering if” you have an alternative solution in mind? Or do you think we were OK before?”
I was wondering just when you had this self chosen psychotic break with reality and factual content?
secularhumanizinevoluter – I think this will be the last time I will ever acknowledge you. What Unixersity gave you a degree to make such judgements about me? I am sure there is a term for a person who consistantly posts harassing and insulting comments after another person all the time. I call it cyber-bullying and trolling. I do not apreciate your comments and I no longer wish to ever engage in any further discussion with you. Leave me alone!
1.”secularhumanizinevoluter – I think this will be the last time I will ever acknowledge you.”
Bwahahahahaha! Promises, promises.
2.”What Unixersity gave you a degree to make such judgements about me?”
The University of reality based world view. I calls em like I seez em. Politics, it’s a full contact sport, anybody can play, don’t bring no weak shit.
3.” I am sure there is a term for a person who consistantly posts harassing and insulting comments after another person all the time. ”
Waaaah, wah, wah…the mean man is actually expecting me to make sense and factual arguements!!!
4.”I call it cyber-bullying and trolling.”
You can call it anything you want, you STILL got weak shit with NO facts to back it up.
5.” I do not apreciate your comments and I no longer wish to ever engage in any further discussion with you.”
Said as he/she/it tearfully walks away from the playground after getting her/his/it’s ass wiped in the reality arena.
6.” Leave me alone!”
Frack off.
I am not saying that everything is OK with healthcare. I used to sell health insurance. I understand the high cost of health insurance premiums and the even higher costs of not having insurance. The one aspect of this bill that I did like, Long Term Care, was thrown out by Obama himself. Areyou are asking me if I have the answers to the USA’s health care/ health insurance issue(s)?
“are asking me if I have the answers to the USA’s health care/ health insurance issue(s)?”
I would say emphatically NOT both to asking or there being a snowballs chance in hell of your having.
Well, Smith, we can start by always making sure we separate the issue of the insurance product from the delivery of the service whenever we have a discussion.
The insurance product cost would be immediately benfitted by returning it to the days it functioned as insurance (coverage of a fortuitous event) as opposed to paying for cleaning your teeth and getting an annual physical. Taking the burn layer out of the coverage would result in a better educated health services consumer and wipe out a good chunk of insurance reimbursement processing and accounting costs.
The cost of service delivery requires us to un-do what brought so much defensive medicine into the equation as well as figure out how to limit heroic measures made into routine care at end of life.
While we’re at it, remove restrictions on purchasing drugs outside of the US.
mjsmith: yes I am asking you, since you seem to think the solution currently on the table is “a crime,” I am interested in whether you think you have a better solution. If you used to sell insurance you must know what drives health care costs, if it was health insurance you sold. I too was sorry to see CLASS (long-term care) go by the wayside. Its fatal flaw, it seems, was the fact that it was an opt-in program, thus setting itself up to cover only the folks most likely to make claims.
I would not hold my breath waiting for any sort of rational, reality connected answer.
I am for single-payer. I don’t think the government has the right to force people to buy into the insurance industry, especially the one this country has.
What do you think SS is? What do you think Unemployment is? What do you think short and long term disability are?
That being said, I am ALL in favor of single payer funded with a tax collection just like those other programs.
Of course, single payer is just another way of forcing people to pay. It would probably be a new, large tax. Just sayin’….. Of course, we would have to have s huge argument over what would be covered–wouldn’t that be fun?
1.”Of course, single payer is just another way of forcing people to pay. It would probably be a new, large tax. Just sayin’”
Death is preferable? How about this, ALL the morons who would rather DIE, OK, we’ll let them. If you don’t kick in the SMALL amount of the tax, if anything happens or you get sick unless you find a Dr or hospital who will treat you for free…DIE.…..just sayin!
2.” Of course, we would have to have s huge argument over what would be covered–wouldn’t that be fun?”
Medical…there, end of “argument. Simple enough for ya? Just sayin.