babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.
USian health care
June 28, 2012 - 10:32am
Sad that it was only a whisker away from being dumped into chaos
Does the US Supreme Court ever issue 9-0 rulings anymore?
I dont think they were ever that lopsided. But like so many things in the US, polarization means you have 3 to 4 justices on each side who you can bet with almost 100% certainty where they will be on an issue.
According to SCOTUSBlog: "The bottom line: the entire ACA is upheld, with the exception that the federal government's power to terminate states' Medicaid funds is narrowly read." Justice Roberts joined the majority.
Here's the link the PDF of the decision: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf
Good news, but they still need a single payer system.
From SCOTUSBlog re ACA: "In Plain English: The Affordable Care Act, including its individual mandate that virtually all Americans buy health insurance, is constitutional. There were not five votes to uphold it on the ground that Congress could use its power to regulate commerce between the states to require everyone to buy health insurance. However, five Justices agreed that the penalty that someone must pay if he refuses to buy insurance is a kind of tax that Congress can impose using its taxing power. That is all that matters. Because the mandate survives, the Court did not need to decide what other parts of the statute were constitutional, except for a provision that required states to comply with new eligibility requirements for Medicaid or risk losing their funding. On that question, the Court held that the provision is constitutional as long as states would only lose new funds if they didn't comply with the new requirements, rather than all of their funding."
O'Reilly Says He'll "Apologize For Being An Idiot" If Supreme Court Upholds Health Care Reform Law
Heehee..
http://www.buzzfeed.com/daves4/people-moving-to-canada-because-of-obamacare
Yes and the president who gets to appoint those judges as they retire can influence the country for years past his term(s) in office. Not to change subjects here, but this is a major reason why I will vote for Obama and not piss my vote away on some protest vote that in the end could help make the Supreme Court even more right winged than it is for the next decade or so.
Oh and I want everyone to have health care.
Well, one tweeter got it right:
Thank you for pointing that out, unionist. People here should not be getting excited, as this is not progressive legislation - not in the least.
The government is forcing people to buy insurance. What if you cannot afford it? You get fined. Well, for someone on a fixed income where the fine is lower than the cost of insurance - they may end up paying a pile of money and still have no insurance! How on Earth is this progressive or worthy of celebration?
The Supreme Court ruling stated that the individual mandate was unconstitutional as a mandate, but not as a tax. They have re-interpreted it as a tax - despite Obama's many public forceful declarations that it is not a tax. Who will be most hurt by this tax? Poor people of course.
Some sections are really good - no one denied due to a pre-existing condition, etc. But, this does not give Americans what we in Canada have. not even close.
'Mandate struck down': 'Dewey Defeats Truman' moment for CNN, Fox News
Ha ha ha Fox News...
Obama explained today that the mandate was for those who could well afford health care but did not pay into a plan until they got sick. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Medicare is there for those who cannot afford a health plan. Obama said that beginning in 2014 health plans will be available to everyone regardless of their ability to pay - so I'm taking from that that there will be low cost plans geared to income. Again, correct me if I am wrong - but he said that in his address today.
Nancy Pelosi just now on CNN: "Being a woman is no longer a pre-existing condition that can be grounds for denying health care".
Here in Quebec, my Blue Cross coverage - which I've used only for prescription medicine - costs me about $1200.00 per year - even though I live on a disability pension.
Reference: The Basic Prescription Drug Insurance Plan guarantees basic coverage for all Quebecers who must be covered either by a group insurance plan or the public plan, administered by the Régie de l'assurance maladie du Québec.
People should probably not be getting excited about the legislative response to the US health care crisis that the PPACA is. I think that it is extremely flawed and insufficient legislation. It will, however, significantly improve the lives of a lot of people. I'm (obviously) all for single-payer, and I dearly hoped back then that there'd at least be a public option. On top of that, there can be endless debates about what is/was politically feasible given the composition of Congress at the time and given the structural impediments inherent to the legislative process in the US, etc. etc.
But then again, that's not what the decision of the Supreme Court is about. It's not about the system that should be put in place to respond to the health care crisis. It's not about the validity, the usefulness, the efficiency, the advisability, etc. of the PPACA.
It is about what government is constitutionnally able to do to address social welfare issues of paramount importance. There are aspects of the decision that progressives should be upset about/wary of (restrictions relating to the expansion of Medicaid; the fact that the legislation was not upheld under the commerce clause—the tax power can only go so far as a government tool to enact social welfare legislation...).
But still, even with those caveats, progressives should rejoice—perhaps not "get excited", but rejoice, yes, without a doubt—about the SCOTUS decision, as it embraces the side of the argument in which government is constitutionnally able to enact broad legislation addressing social welfare of paramount importance.
What "USians" then do with that constitutional power is up to whom they elect, the state/evolution of their political institutions and mores, etc.
According to the CNN medical specialist Sanjay Gupta, beginning in 2014 and for the first three years of ACA, if you earn $29,700.00 or less, you automatically qualify for Medicaid.
Republicans: ObamaCare is the biggest tax increase in American history.
Democrats:
It's by no means ideal but it helps. It's also by no means clear that having the ACA struck down would have resulted in a single-payer system anytime soon. Indeed, some ways it could have been struck down might have made that even more difficult than it already was.
When the SCOTUS decision was announced:
People Who Say They're Moving To Canada Because Of ObamaCare
To be fair, I've heard on reddit that some (if not all) of those twitter posts were put out as ironic jokes.
Still funny, though.
yes, it was funny - I thought, "omg, the Americans are "collectively" idiots!
Boehner's suit (post 21) looks like a hand-me-down from the 1950s!
Why The Obamacare Decision Is Very Good News For Women
very good news indeed:
a crucial principle, universality, has been established for the first time in the U.S.:
http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/28/bending-historys-arc-t...
Posters above moaning it's imperfect and incomplete: no kidding!
when Social Security was first introduced in the 1930s, 70 per cent of the population was excluded: the entry age was 65, and most people died before then. (Median age of death, 61). SS has steadily increased its reach to cover more people and more completely. The principle of universality asserted itself over time.
go Obama
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/29/us/health-care-ruling-may-secure-obama...
What the Supreme Court's decision does do is preserve Mr. Obama's status as the president who did more to expand the nation's safety net than any since Johnson. It preserves a bill intended to push back against rapidly rising income inequality. And for a self-consciously historic figure, it allows Mr. Obama to argue that he has delivered on the most cherished goal of his 2008 campaign: "Change we can believe in."
"Historians will compare this to F.D.R.'s Social Security and Lyndon Johnson's Medicare," said the historian Robert Dallek, who has written about both presidents. "This is another step in humanizing the American industrial system."
In political terms, said Douglas G. Brinkley, a professor of history at Rice University, "It's the cornerstone of what could turn out to be one of the most extraordinary two-term presidencies in American history."
Beyond his legislative agenda - not just on health care, but on education and Wall Street regulation - Mr. Obama has sketched out a view of government as a force for good, a great leveler and a protector of the middle class. That view stands in stark contrast to the Republican mantra, articulated by Reagan, who headed in the opposite direction in his first inaugural address, saying that "government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem."
All my Republican co-workers are acting like it's the end of the world...LOL
This has already been said, but context people.
If this decision had gone the other way it would have been an absolute fucking disaster: open season on every social program around because it forces individuals to contribute and/or participate.