Obamacare survived the SCOTUS review
June 28, 2012
This is a good day.
For those in need, yes, of course.
The more important thing, I hope, will be the gradual return to America as a community. The attempt to put us all in the healthcare system together, sharing the pain of payment, was a step at restoring the common path that has been so systematically destroyed by the right wing over the past 35-40 years.
Just yesterday NPR had an interview with a blue collar guy who noted that he was dependent on food stamps and Medicare but still “had a lot of conservative values”. In other words, he’d bought the lies and voted for the party that was fucking him over and against the party which provided him with his needs.
This only worked because of a split in the sense of community.
We’re marching back.
DrugMonkey 
June 28, 2012 at 7:16 am
right on bro!
LikeLike
June 28, 2012 at 8:02 am
Tell it like it is.
LikeLike
June 28, 2012 at 8:04 am
Sense of community? HA. When that idiot who lives off food stamps and medicare starts realizing which side his goddamn bread is buttered on, then we can start having a sense of community. As long as he, and those like him, remain convinced by the arguments of the extremely wealthy (who, by the way, are now allowed to spend as much as they want to convince that boob to vote their way, because of a decision by the very same court), we are going to remain a deeply divided nation.
This only worked because Justice Roberts has some health care problems of his own that would make him uninsurable. You see, he’s just like that doofus on foodstamps, and any other conservative, for that matter: when it benefits him directly, he’s all for government intervention. When it benefits you, you can fuck off.
LikeLike
June 28, 2012 at 8:25 am
I am OK with an exemption from this law for those among us who are immortal.
LikeLike
June 28, 2012 at 8:42 am
It’s not obamacare, most of the bill was STILL written by lobbyists and shitte
http://www.occupywallst.org/article/we-demand-real-healthcare-99/
LikeLike
June 28, 2012 at 9:43 am
The fact that those on the left are using this as an (election-year inspired, no doubt) “RahRah In yo FACE Repugnants!” moment is an obvious indication that we are most certainly NOT ‘returning’ to a single American community.
The facts are:
1) many parts of the act are steps in the right direction toward universal healthcare coverage. So I get the “yay” factor, really.
2) the overwhelming majority of this plan, as it will be implemented, is a bizarre legal contortion to get everyone (as a community!?) to bend over for the insurance companies
3) this is a victory for conservative America, and I’m shocked nobody, on either side, seems to recognize that.
LikeLike
June 28, 2012 at 10:23 am
While I mostly agree with you, becca, one nice thing about the ACA is that insurance companies can no longer exclude people with pre-existing conditions (like Chief Justice Roberts and a lot of other people). So, while single-payer would be vastly better, at least not being able to get insurance after a lapse in coverage is no longer an issue.
The ACA is also supposed to keep health care costs down, although how exactly this will work is a mystery to me. If health costs keep going up, insurance premiums will also go up, and so there will still be some motivation for people to push for single-payer.
LikeLike
June 28, 2012 at 12:11 pm
“The more important thing, I hope, will be the gradual return to America as a community”
Yes, let’s return to the America where people are required to turn over samples of their bodily fluids to employers, where kids are encouraged to turn in their parents for smoking pot, where we have the highest incarceration rate in the West, where parents spy on their kids and TSA agents grope childrens’ genitals….what a wonderful community!
LikeLike
June 28, 2012 at 2:05 pm
I am amazed you haven’t moved to Canadia yet Isabel, since the US is so horrible and all…
LikeLike
June 28, 2012 at 2:12 pm
this is a victory for conservative America, and I’m shocked nobody, on either side, seems to recognize that.
No change at all would have been an even bigger win for conservative America and I am shocked (ok, not really) that the wooly headed “take our toys and go home…cept we can’t” Progressives can’t seem to recognize that.
LikeLike
June 28, 2012 at 2:16 pm
This only worked because Justice Roberts has some health care problems of his own that would make him uninsurable.
Some rightwinger (Krauthammer?) has an OP/Ed suggesting his Chief Justice hat has him concerned with the legitimacy of the court given all the straight-ticket political votes of recent years.
Not buying it?
LikeLike
June 28, 2012 at 2:17 pm
Of course the rightwing has a different plan….
LikeLike
June 28, 2012 at 2:39 pm
LikeLike
June 28, 2012 at 4:33 pm
“Some rightwinger (Krauthammer?) has an OP/Ed suggesting his Chief Justice hat has him concerned with the legitimacy of the court given all the straight-ticket political votes of recent years. ”
Actually some on the left have been saying the same thing – I think I first heard this line of thinking from Robert Reich on salon.com. The argument goes something like this: the Supreme Court has no real power. It doesn’t command an army or police force. The only reason why the President has to abide by its rulings is because if he doesn’t, people will get mad at him for undermining the structure of government, and vote him and his party out of office. But if people start to think the justices are just political hacks who serve other interests (I’m talking about you, Scalia and Thomas), then they won’t call the President to account if he flounts the Court’s decisions.
I doubt Roberts thought the court was in imminent danger of having Obama start saying, “I’m going to act as if the ACA is law, no matter what the Court says.” On the other hand, he might be worried that things could devolve to this point eventually, if the stream of highly partisan decisions continues. So that could have influenced him.
Or he could genuinely believe the law is constitutional – in fact in his opinion, he specifically says he doesn’t pass judgment on whether the law is wise, just whether Congress was allowed to pass it under the Constitution.
Or he could be worried about getting insurance when he retires, because of his unexplained seizures, which qualify as a pre-existing condition. (OK, I admit this is silly, because as a federal employee he gets lifetime insurance benefits even in retirement.)
Or… well, scholars will be arguing about why he did it for decades.
LikeLike
June 29, 2012 at 4:47 am
I think the seizure thing is the most plausible–having a chronic health condition does tend to give you a bit of sympathy for others who might be experiencing similar issues. Then he threw in the bit about it being a “tax” to give the right ammo for the election, as well as to undermine the commerce clause long-term. Win-win-win. For him.
And yeah, it’s a great conservative victory, but way better than the alternative.
LikeLike
June 29, 2012 at 9:23 am
I don’t care about the new tax to support healthcare. I’m proud to start paying it in a couple of years.
I’m disgusted by my Republican/Tea Party delegates whom are currently bad mouthing a plan that helps insure poor individuals, as well as, provides insurance and important health care infrastructure to under served Native American communities in my state. Happily, there’s a second amendment–oh wait- a nineteenth amendment solution for such whackaloonery.
LikeLike
June 30, 2012 at 5:55 am
Single-payer would be better, and people should be pushing for it, but this is an important start. First time the country has gotten this far. Unlike some of my fellow activist brethren, I believe that incrementalism can be useful. And you know, my spouse, who has several chronic medical conditions, and all of my friends with chronic medical conditions, are thrilled that it was upheld, even though every one of them, to a person, would much prefer single-payer. Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good, and all that.
I’m not sure what I think about your “community” argument though, DM. That “community” of the past shat all over women, people of color, LBGT people, and non-Christians, among others. It was always an exclusionary community, a community based in part in the oppression of others. We don’t need to go back to the sense of community of the past. We need a new sense of community that we never had before. We need genuine solidarity.
LikeLike
June 30, 2012 at 10:03 am
What are the main differences between the different healthcare systems? (example, single payer vs now)
Why there’s a need for insurance?
Why such a complicated system is in place? purpose?
LikeLike
July 1, 2012 at 7:10 am
If you’d like a primer (ie if that’s a serious question):
We need insurance for the same reasons we pay taxes for expensive things like a military. Health care is too expensive for individuals so the risks and costs must be pooled.
The insurer can be the government (eg Medicare) or it can be a gemich of private companies (that’s what we have now, and what we will continue to have under Obamacare).
A single payer system (eg Medicare for all) would likely simplify administration and cut the costs of supporting a zillion insurance companies. It would also allow for centralized cost control. It would also allow for the one insurer to decide what to pay for and what not to pay for, which can be helpful or dangerous or both.
LikeLike
July 1, 2012 at 8:17 pm
Indeed. It is the right wing that is responsible for the fractured state this country is in. Let the healing begin, my friends.
LikeLike
July 6, 2012 at 4:00 pm
At least we’ll be gone by the time the fedgov ponzi scheme runs out of dupes to fund this shit.
LikeLike