Pages

Loading...

Thursday, June 28, 2012

FDL Not Happy With Scotus Ruling

      They wanted repeal of course. They can never give the President a break. It amazes me how they end up calling for the same things as the tea baggers and they don't see it. Here is typical Firedoglake logic:

      "Fortunately, I was at work today and missed much of the bruhaha about the Supreme Court’s decision to entirely uphold the Health Insurance Corporation Enrichment Act(aka Affordable Care Act aka Obamacare aka Romneycare), and to strike down one of the few incrementally progressive things about it, which was mandatory Medicaid expansion. I heard enough on the way home on NPR, once I got home on the CBS Evening News, and read enough right here on FDL in the last few minutes."

     "The debate over “health care reform” is not even about health care itself. It’s over health care insurance. That’s a completely different thing. The key question is this: Is health care a fundamental human right in the biggest and wealthiest country that humanity has ever produced or not? For me, the answer is a simple YES. Period."

     http://my.firedoglake.com/ohiogringo/2012/06/28/the-scotus-health-insurance-decision-misses-the-point/

      Ok so health insurance is worthless? We don't want health insurance as this is the vehicle to health care? I just don't see what the point is in qubbling. Yes I agree that health care is a human right. But why is it that we have this "creationist" logic where health care must come in whole cloth or not at all?

     "There are plenty who disagree with me and say so. But if you think health care is a right, as I do, then you must recognize that this whole debate over Obamacare completely avoids my question. Obamacare’s not about providing truly affordable and quality health care to all Americans, it’s about requiring all Americans to either be poor enough to qualify for Medicaid, which is woefully underfunded, purchase private for-profit health insurance(which still has no cost controls), or pay a fine(or a tax, as SCOTUS put it), to the federal government. So, as others have pointed out(hat-tip to Obey), if you’re too “rich” for Medicaid but too poor to buy private health insurance you get fined by the IRS."

      No. I answered your question. Still while it's not yet for all Americans it starts us in that direction. This is why the GOP is so upset-it's about precedent. Social Security actually was a lot more limited when it was passed than the ACA already is. It can be improved on and expanded. This is why I say teabaggers and firebaggers are two sides of the same coin. Both of them insist-we must go back to the beginning.

     "How is any of that health care? It’s not. And how did we get to this screwed up situation in the first place? Well, there’s a simple answer: Capitalism."

     "Capitalism is all about making a profit. That’s it. Health care is all about treating sick and/or injured people and maintaining people’s health. That’s it. You can’t have both, not for everyone. Not even for most people, and as far as I am concerned even if the system worked for most people that’s still not good enough because quality health care is a right. America has tried to do so and has failed miserably."

     "You want health care for everyone? Then HAVE health care for everyone. There are several different ways to do it, but not one is capitalist. Not one. You have to ditch the profit motive to have truly universal health care. And you won’t hear that in our corporate media or from our corporate politicians."

     So we must have health care for everyone now or never. In 2008 we had 53 million Americans without health insurance. Now the ACA will chop that by 60%. But that's unacceptable because there are still some that don't have it. What I don't get is why Ohio Barbarian-as he calls himself-has this hierarchy of preferences.

    1). Universal health care for all

    2). the previous status quo with 53 million uninsured

     3). lowering that 53 million by any number less than the full 53 million

     This is why I say it's a creationist understanding of the bill. It can't be improved on. It can't be expanded.

     In a way he shows his hand. Just like the GOP has no plan to do anything, he would prefer that too unless we have-socialism. In his mind the profit motive is evil and its not enough to give someone health care if you do it for the wrong motive.

     Another thing they're doing at Firedoglake is bemoaning the ruling against states being forced to do the Medicaid expansion. Predictably the firebaggers are claiming that this was the only good part of ACA. Right-because it's the part that failed so you can blame the President. Only things that he can be blamed for are good ideas. He didn't want the ruling but they of course think he wanted to lose on that point.

     Nevertheless it seems that the Obama haters on the left are shrinking. Markos over at Daily KOS recently said of Obama: "He's ok. He's our guy."

     More and more Americans are realizing that. The firebaggers can get together with the teabaggers and cry in their beer.

       

4 comments:

  1. Off topic I hope you don't mind...

    Did you see this ? From the WSJ...

    In a little noticed ruling, the court struck down the law that made it a crime to falsely claim to have earned medals in the armed services.

    Ok, the ruling is not especially remarkable, but the dissent is...

    "Justice Samuel Alito wrote the dissent, on behalf of Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, arguing that by striking down the law the court was shielding lies and breaking from precedents that regarded false statements as not protected by free-speech rights."

    Get that? The guys who are all for unlimited spending to fund an onslaught of lies by the elite every election are worried that this might upset "precedents that regarded false statements as not protected by free-speech."

    wow.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304830704577494541067261380.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

    ReplyDelete
  2. Yes Bill I heard about that ruling. Again-as I was enjoying hearing Rush yesterday-he did complain briefly about that ruling too.

    To me it's amazing that telling a lie sends you to prison. I'm not saying lying is good-it isn't-but prison?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Well, if you lied about killing someone, you might end up in prison. Lying about your achievements, awards, etc. is another matter.
    Nanute

    ReplyDelete
  4. Bril­liant! Great talk that was extremely insightful and very enter­taining. It’s given me loads to think about.

    ReplyDelete