?

Log in

No account? Create an account
Well, I'll be damned! Miracles DO happen! - alyburns' (aka sideburns & alyjude) Hiding Place
If you spoke faster than David Hewlett you’d travel back in time: Michael Shanks
alyburns
alyburns
Well, I'll be damned! Miracles DO happen!
patrotic_animated_4th-of-July-fireworks



Imagine waking up to find a miracle had occurred while you slept! In this case, the Supreme Court had upheld the majority of our new Health Care Reform.

*MAJOR THUD*

The vote was 5 to 4 that the bill was Constitutional, with the surprise "Yes" vote coming from Chief Justice Roberts, who sided with the Liberal Justices in his "Majority Opinion" paper.

Of course, the more I thought about it - the more I realized that Cheif Justice Roberts (the only conservative to side on the side of the "Yes" voters) was actually being rather cagey!

Why?

Because most of the important changes won't occur until 2014 and 2016, respectively, and I'm betting the Conservative Court members, Roberts included, don't believe President Barack Obama will have his 2nd term, thus he won't BE President in 2014. Which means Romney will be - and the conservative majority know he'll dump "ObamaCare" (he claims he has another plan - but when asked about any issue - that's his "line"). So, in my estimation, it was a win-win for the Court and Roberts because now the conservative members can sit back in their black robes while looking smug and as if they care about Americans health and reforming our health care system - while in reality, they believe their ruling will be moot come November.

Obviously I hope they're wrong, Obama wins in November and the conservative judges end up with egg on five of their faces. *BG* OTOH, I'd love to believe they simply understood the truth of the Reform and its ultimate benefits, including the Mandatory insurance part of the law (which many conservatives felt that if the Court upheld any parts of the bill, it wouldn't be that one!). But I'm guessing (read: hoping) they get the comparison here between Mandatory Health Insurance and Mandatory Automobile Insurance - namely that the many shouldn't have to pay more because of the few who refuse to get Auto Insurance!

One thing I learned in business, as a Manager who handled the Insurance benefit for my employess, I understood a major mistake our company was making. You see, because buying medical insurance was a 'choice' for our employees after 120 days of employment, only the families who knew they'd need it, signed up for it. And that meant the cost to the company for that insurance was HIGH because even though a low % of employess had insurance - they USED it, thus costing the company at the end of each year when the Insurance Carrier would raise premiums (due to excessive use). If, after 120 days, our employees were automatically signed up (after making a choice of plans), then, of our entire employee base, 80% would have barely used it, thus offsetting the 20% who had to use it, often in excess. So at the end of the year, the company's insurance costs (they picked up 2/3rds of the employees costs) would have to rise and they wouldn't have to shop for cheaper insurance each year! That's why the Mandatory part of the bill is so important - and why Americans finally realized why Mandatory Auto Insurance became so critical.

A quick look at our current Supreme Court members:
1. Pink indicates females (and it's not surprising that the two were nominated by Democratic Presidents)
2. Red obviously represents Conservatives (nominated by Republican Presidents) and,
3. Blue obviously represents the Liberals - or at least 'centrists' (nominated by Democratic Presidents)

Note: The current court is the only Supreme Court in history to have 3 females serving at the same time - but of course, there have only four in its entire history).

1. Chief Justice Roberts - nominated by Republican President Bush
(voted a surprising YES)

2. Associate Justice Kennedy - nominated by Republican President Reagan
(Voted No)

3. Associate Justice Thomas (2nd Black to ever serve) - nominated by Republican President Bush 
(Voted NO)

4.
Associate Justice Ginsberg - nominated by Democratic President Clinton
(Voted Yes)

5. Associate Justice Breyer - nominated by Democratic President Clinton
(Voted Yes)


6. Associate Justice Alito - nominated by Republican President Bush
(Voted No)

7. Associate Justice Scalia - nominated by Republican President Reagan
(Voted No)


8. Associate Justice Sotomayor - nominated by Democratic President Obama
(Voted Yes)

9. Associate Justice Kagan - nominated by Democratic President Obama
(Voted Yes)



BTW: There's an interesting Article regarding Roberts' "Majority Opinion" paper, with some rather incredible and edifying reasons for the 5-4 vote, which you can read here.

As for me, I was utterly flabbergasted by the results - in fact. I'm typing this from the floor because that's where my jaw dropped. But it'll be a blast tonight watching The Daily Show as Jon Stewart will undoubtedly illustrate just how sleazy Fox News is as they somehow turn this loss into a victory for Romney. *BG*

Tags:

5 comments or Leave a comment
Comments
t_verano From: t_verano Date: June 28th, 2012 09:22 pm (UTC) (Link)
completely personal POV (I can't offer a valid opinion about the subject overall, since I haven't done the research and could see too many different sides to things even if I had) -- there's a difference between mandatory car insurance and mandatory health insurance, as in you can choose to not have a car (difficult and impractical choice though that may be) but you can't choose not to be a person. And even the most subsidized and "affordable" of monthly health care premiums is way out of my league -- unless I manage a much bigger income before the law takes effect, I'll have no choice but to pay tax penalties I can't afford either, pay penalties because I'm poor; penalties which will make me even poorer and make it even harder to survive as a poor person. I don't look on Medicaid or on showing up uninsured at an ER needing a free ride as something I would ever voluntarily seek out (or even involuntarily, if I can help it); my personally-set mandate is not to add to the country's unpaid medical costs, but I can't help but feel trapped and as if some of my personal choice and freedom has been taken away along with income I Do. Not. HAVE.

Again, this has nothing to do with how it affects other people or the country as a whole. I surely agree that there needs to be serious healthcare reform and that private insurance companies have made a huge greedy mess of things; maybe this is the only way out, I don't know. I just, personally, am not celebrating here.
alyburns From: alyburns Date: June 29th, 2012 01:47 am (UTC) (Link)

You're right, they are different, but the

principle is the same. BUT there's one difference with the health reform law - it has a provision for low income individuals - which is why the Insurance companies are fighting it. That provision subsidizes the low income families/individuals - you'll pay no premium, no co-pay for doctors, and in most plans, no co-pay for medications (while in others, you'll pay a max of $5).

*g*

The biggest problem with the reform is its length, legalize and it's very difficult to read - but I read it - we had a big discussion when it was first introduced and the law was online. Man, they sure know how to make things difficult when writing these laws! LOL!
angelsmile1 From: angelsmile1 Date: June 29th, 2012 03:40 am (UTC) (Link)

Re: You're right, they are different, but the

I think this is the problem. No one wants to read the entire act and President Obama has done next to nothing to take the time and explain it. Now that the tea party will more than likely be on the offensive riling people up I hope the President does a better job this time around of getting the word out.
alyburns From: alyburns Date: June 30th, 2012 01:29 am (UTC) (Link)

Re: You're right, they are different, but the

As I understand, Michelle Obama is going to be first up on the stand to 'explain' the plan - and from what I've heard, she's doing a GREAT job. Unfortunately, the majority of news (not what some call the "elite" news, as in NBC, CBS, ABC) programs, both tv and radio, are conservative andthey outnumber 'real' news and liberal news by 70% - which means only 30% (man, it's hard to believe, isn't it?) will hear the message. :(

What the Administration needs to do is FILL the web with info, dedicate an entire SITE to the law, spelling it out, section by section. But alas, that's what Republicans would do (and probably are, only with their own spin *G*) - because honestly, Republicans beat Democrats hands down when it comes to communicating to the public. :(
t_verano From: t_verano Date: June 29th, 2012 10:51 am (UTC) (Link)

Re: You're right, they are different, but the

Okay, you've made me feel better, then. :-) The thing -- the Misinformed Me thing -- that was clinging to my mind was reading newspaper articles (last year, mind you; I really suck at keeping up with this stuff) that went over various states' offerings of subsidized insurance for low-income people, and if I remember, the cheapest was around $150 a month. Which I guess isn't bad for health insurance, but when you don't have ten bucks to spare any given month, it was a pretty scary-sounding prospect to me.

But this is much better, thanks! I usually regret getting all worried and whiny in a comment or a post as soon as I hit the Post button, but this time I'm really glad I did. :-)
5 comments or Leave a comment