Features
Jul 4, 2012 at 4:00 am
Obamacare, the Supreme Court Decision, and the End of Freedom as We Know It
George Pfromm II
Comments
Please wait...
Comments are closed.
Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.
is a proud member of the
media network
media network
All contents © Index Newspapers LLC
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
Many countries, including Britain, have only an unwritten constition, and in every country, even America, the unwritten constitution is how the nation is actually governed, even if molded by the written. What Justice Roberts has just done is added an amendment to our (unwritten) constitution stating "the Federal Government can make any law it wants provided it punish you with a fine...err... tax." Because the power to tax is a federal power, and because the only constitutional limit on taxes was effectively eradicated by the 16th Amendment, and because whatever behavior that tax is targeting apparently is outside of the scrutiny of the 10th Amendment, there is no longer any limit on Federal power. As the history of Ancient Greece proves, democracy, although somewhat useful, is not enough to constrain the predatory power of the state.
"Many opponents of Obamacare believe that your health should be intrinsically tied to your income, and that the wealthy few have more of a right to a long, healthy life than all other Americans."
Forcing people to buy healthcare (what Obamacare actually does, not what certain idiot commentators think it does) does not amount to believing they have ANY kind of right, let alone that kind.
"Remember the September Republican debate when the audience cheered the death of a hypothetical uninsured man?"
And for the exact same reason as why atheists enjoy portraits of catholic priests defecating. They are sick and tired of hearing "well the hospitals have to take whoever comes, therefore we must force you to do something because we cannot STOMACH doing what is right ourselves." We cannot be tyrannized by the feelings of contradictory hypocrites. Either you "care" enough to pay the price for their irresponsibility or misfortune, or you don't, period. No more of this "have our cake and eat it too by enslaving you."
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/apr/23/…
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/7645… (free login required)
--Harris Meyer, Yakima
This is pure genius and gets right to the eye of this storm of hot wind. Conservative stances and arguments just get creepier and creepier. I'm completely bewildered that this upcoming race is being reported as close. How can any rational human being support the conservative platform? Every time they have been in power and had a chance to implement their small government agendas, it has ended in horrible disaster. Why would you keep trying to employ the same solution to a problem when it demonstrably doesn't work? When did rational discourse get replaced with shouting?
The Affordable Care Act does not force a person to buy insurance . Don't want it, don't buy it. You won't be jailed. You'll simply pay a slightly higher tax. It is not a new precedent. For comparison, I sold my home last year and now rent. With no mortgage deduction, I am paying higher taxes. I'm not forced to buy a home, but if I do, I get a tax reduction. Very similar to the health care act. I don't buy insurance, I pay more taxes.
Tyranny requires something like random arrests with no access to a lawyer or court, jailed indefinitely and without charge, involuntary servitude, arrested for your speech, religion, writings, etc. We are nowhere close to that.
The Federal government is as limited today as it was in 1935 (Social Security), 1965 (Medicare), and 2006 (Prescription drugs). Why the hyperbole?
Yes, yes they do. The entire premise of modern conservatism, even in it's most intellectually and socially respectable guises, is that the problem with socialism is that it leaves the common man insufficiently cowed and humbled..
As far as the 'unwritten' law, it is called case law. It is a key attribute to the the common law system. It forms precedents and ensures the same circumstances aren't treated differently by different courts. But it is hardly unwritten. Why do you think the Supreme Court writes such a long dissertation for each decision?
I support the ACA. I find it absurd and cruel healthcare in America is a function of employment and monetary assets. The hysteria over the mandate and a gross loss of freedom is hyperbole, pure and simple. Clutching at pearls. Tyranny is not found in the requirements of the ACA. It does exist elsewhere, however. So when you write
I am reminded of this:
Secret 'Kill List' Tests Obama's Principles and Will
http://goo.gl/uZ4bZ
And this:
The Power to Kill
http://goo.gl/twbcy
It is no longer so easy to brush charges of tyranny respecting our government aside. I realize we're in a--albeit undeclared--war on terrorism, but to paraphrase Churchill, if this is how our government now operates, what are we fighting for? But we are discussing the ACA...
Conservatives constantly talk about personal responsibility when it comes to anything, including health care. Of course, it's easy to pay for it when one is wealthy. ::hears sounds of throats being cleared:: Okay, okay. Conservatives couch it in more egalitarian terms, so it then becomes a matter of the individual finding a good job that provides health insurance. Conservatives pat themselves on the back for not losing the emphasis on the individual.
However what they conveniently become amnesiac about is the fact that individuals (times several million) can become enslaved to jobs they loathe, simply because they're afraid to lose that single benefit. I have a friend in the US (used to live in Canada) who is precisely in that predicament. At least she can derive some comfort in knowing that she and her husband have adequate medical coverage. But at what continued strain to her emotional health.
Is this a healthy example of "freedom"? Or is it a worry that continues to sap people, adding to their life's burden. People can be slotted into numerous socio-economic categories, but their health should not be. Intelligent people (and governments) understand intuitively that one cannot have a thriving nation when health is neglected.
"Obamacare" is used in this article nine times. (Yes, Mrs. Beuller...nine times.) Never is the "Affordable Care Act" used. That's because "Obamacare" is a sticky idea. Because it's been repeated enough times that it's been adopted as "what to call what that is."
"Obamacare" is a Fox-ism, designed to make it simple for their viewers "if you don't like Obama, then you certainly don't want him in charge of your health care..." just as Romneycare is a left-wing retort to that--"if you hate Obamacare, you should know that your guy was for the same stuff."
The ACA is a compromise--I doubt it's what President Obama truly wanted...I doubt, even, that it will work to do what it intends to do.
But, in the war for hearts and minds...the strongest idea usually wins. The right has pretty much put all of its chips on the idea that people don't like President Obama very much--and anything that he likes, they're opposed to... Their theory seems to be, the public doesn't have to actually like Mitt Romney or care what he'd do if elected--he just has to be "not Obama."
So, the challenge on the left is...how to reposition the public to "it's not about the person, it's about what's the best thing to do."
More complicated idea, that. Harder to brand.
All the features have the Report button on the comments; none of the Slog posts do.
there is no limit to federal power in the areas dedicated to the feds, as in interstate commerce. why? because look in the fucking constitution jack, it doesn't have one. it does not say "however, the regulation of commerce cannot affect people not active in interstate commerce." it does not say "there is a relation between th feds and individuals in which federal power is subject to some ill defined limit on intrusiveness". doesn't say it, so it's not there. the commerce clause granting power to feds to overrule state regulations ....can't be more limited than state regulations and conservatives admit those are plenary. you're simply arguing against having a government, that is a national government, which is stupid and contrary to the whole point of the constitutio which was to remedy the defective articles of confederation. you're a confederalist. you lost give it up. the practical limits in electing congress or in killing the economy if we had 100% taxes or if some asinine congress said you must eat a ton of broccoli every minute mean these things won't happen. stop the scaremongering. in america you have far more freedom and a little mandate to buy insurance WHEN PEOPLE LIKE YOU MOSTLY DO SO ANYWAY just isn't the humongous loss of liberty you fancy for ideological ax grinding reasons. and your position, in which an unelected court tells congress "where to draw the line, that tax is good, that one bad, that regulation of the interstate insurance market good, that one bad" ? that means you just gave the humongous power to the court that's not even elected! talk about tyranny dude. get a grip.
mandating purchase of insurance is as "unfree" as mandating you hook up to the local sewer system. just like the yahoos who don't spread their shit all around the rest of us, people without insurance then make us either kill them by not giving them care or make us pay more for their care -- that's the limit on freedom you should fear. that you and I can't make insurance work properly, we have no freedom to buy good insurance, when there's all these freeloaders. if your not buying bbroccoli today meant that later on I'd be forced to subsidize your panicky pleas for broccoli without which you'd die (analogy to you at the hospital ER door, begging for care not having bought insurance) then fuck yeah we could fucking mandate you pay for your broccoli in advance just like we mandate you deposit your feces in the town sewer system. stop whining about being responsible jack. grow the fuck up. join the rest of the industrialized world, are you going to tell me germany france switzerland and oh about 25 other countries with some kind of mandatory buy in for health care are all totalitarian states with gulags? what are you smoking? the bankruptcies caused by inadequate swiss cheese insurance or no insurance are 2/3 of all bankruptcies, you don't think that affects interstate commerce? what does, this is 17% of the economoy we're talking about and not one dollar of it is even local like the local wheat in the wheat grower case.
No. I remember when a handful of audience members at a republican debate offered a smattering of applause, which was then blown way out of proportion by almost everyone.
"No. I remember when a handful of audience members at a republican debate offered a smattering of applause, which was then blown way out of proportion by almost everyone."
So what would have been a correctly proportioned response?
Particularly since none of the Republican candidates on the stage said anything about it.
That seems pretty consistent with the idea that wealthy people have more rights to free speech than other Americans, which has been the law since it was decided that money is free speech.
This was the perfect chance for him to do a 180 and claim total credit for national Romneycare along with touting Bush appointed Roberts.
At some point he's gotta jettison the yahoos if he wants to break free of earth orbit and take it to the Moon.
Also, people are going to turn on the Rushes and Nugents because they realize they are not the ones whose healthcare will be affected by a mandate...they are only paying the 2.5% or so premium tax so their fans can get insurance.
Big backfire if they keep up with this stance (and thats just facts talking, loyalty etc).
It's die for your freedom, not die from your freedom.
Your anti-American sentiment is shocking!
The radical right loves this one. But just as both left and right-wingers all-too-often do with the Judeo-Xtian and Muhammadan holy books (and I sure as hell ain't no follower of the cranky desert gods), it is a passage taken out of context.
From Jefferson scholar Douglas L. Wilson in 1996:
http://goo.gl/3hAOc
Welcome to SLOG.
You'll go far here, lad/lassie.
America is so free you can actually get paid for writing articles about how your fellow citizens are taking away you're freedom (when they aren't). This is play and frolick, not writing. There are entities who would love to destroy your freedom and they have taken actions to prove it.
But forget about them. It's so much more fun to frolick over the extremely soft safe Wiffle Ball of evil Republicans.
It's not as if we didn't start from about the same place. Our systems diverged over 50 years ago. The practicality of universal health care was initially somewhat distrusted, but since the Medical Care Act was passed in 1966, it has become a cornerstone of Canadian life. It's not a perfect system (nothing is), but it does theoretically provide a high basic level of care for all Canadians, and succeeds for most.
As far as costs go, American per capita costs are about 1.8x ours, even though about 15% of your population has no insurance. Surely some of the rampant costs of medical advertising and lobbying could be reined in, and re-invested in actual care?
healthpolicymaven
Great article, Paul.
OR: Roberts always rules in favor of big business and this bill is a HUGE boon to insurance companies. Why wouldn't CJ Roberts love a precedent that makes it constitutional for the US Government to FORCE a citizen to buy something from an abusive industry?
Not addressed in the article is the unfortunate fact that the Affordable Care Act retains the corrupt and prohibitively expensive regime of healthcare insurance and delivery in the USA, with minor tinkering to make it available to more people. The right thing to do would be to decouple health insurance from employment and make it single payer, investing more in prevention and healthy living and less on pharmaceuticals and artificially extending life in terminal situations.
And this is exactly what will keep the Dems home come election day, thinking the fight has been won. That, coupled with the fading novelty of electing tue first black president, will make this election closer than some think.
And this is exactly what will keep the Dems home come election day, thinking the fight has been won. That, coupled with the fading novelty of electing tue first black president, will make this election closer than some think.
Yes, heath care is extremely important. But I know of more than a few folks who think more about putting food on the table for their families than going to the doctor. I agree-jobs will be the number one issue.