|
Name:
|
copperline
-
|
Subject:
|
AND you are CRAZY!!
|
Date:
|
7/1/2012 11:04:43 AM
|
|
i think it’s interesting that you would say that Justice
Roberts “really doesn’t like” the new healthcare plan, that he was “very vocal”
about his opposition and then changed his vote “for the wrong reason”. You’re trying to reframe his actions by
saying ‘he was one of us but failed to follow the instructions of his party’. What
he did was interpret the law, and craft a decision that said it was not the
role of the SCOTUS to overturn the wishes of Congress if their actions were
constitutionally sound. Your thinking is that he is a party
functionary and ultimately failed in his mission assignment. Any Justice
on the Court would probably resent being characterized as a mouthpiece of one
party or the other.
it’s a tax.
No, it’s a penalty. All of that
discussion is useless semantic hair-splitting in keeping with this crazy battle
of politics & rhetoric. Maybe it’s a contribution to pay for a much
needed public good. Who cares what you call it?
Sadly, Roberts’
ruling did leave the door open for further Tea Party disruption and i wonder
just how that will play out. By making
it possible for States to opt out of additional Medicaid (not Medicare) funds, your
party likely will move to threaten local politicians who are going to be considering
accepting the federal funding. On one
hand, state leaders will know that their local health services are underfunded already....
leaving many of their constituents vulnerable, their hospitals & medical
service programs already crippled by indigent care, and that the public prefers provisions like
prohibiting pre-existing condition exclusions, extending family insurance to
young adults, etc. They
will also know that there is no GOP alternative to play up. These politicians will have to decide between
following the threats from their party or accepting 100% funding from the
feds. Opposing it will be cutting off
their noses in spite of their face, will highlight the extremes to which the
right wing will go, and make for a very public display of insensitivity to the
poor.
We will have to wait & see how many of
them will intentionally refuse medical care for people in their districts, but
who knows? They almost drove the entire
national economy off the cliff in the Debt Ceiling debate, it’s entirely possible
that withholding medical care for the poorest of the poor won’t be as
distasteful to them as being characterized as consorting with the enemy.
i suspect that some Conservative politicians
are a bit relieved that this legislation was upheld, but know it's political
suicide to voice that. Mitt Romney
crafted the same legislation in Mass, but has to publically retract his opinion
in deference to the threats of the Tea Party. Thoughtful players know that we had to do something
to fix the broken healthcare system and join the rest of the developed
world. They would also know that it is
not really a good idea to allow for-profit insurance corporations to write our
national healthcare policies.
|