A review of the news in the wake of post SCOTUS/Affordable Care Act ruling news cycle.
The President comments of the SCOTUS ruling on The Affordable Care Act
Rachel Maddow points out the role of the Affordable Care Act in solving the problem of America’s terrible health care system, and talks with Dahlia Lithwick, senior editor and legal correspondent for Slate, about the bigger picture of Thursday’s Supreme Court ruling upholding the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate.
- A victory for problem-solving policy – Video on msnbc.com
Most “Small Business Owners” don’t understand the implications of the The Affordable Care Act. J.J. Ramberg who hosts Your Business Sunday mornings at 7:30 am illustrates the terrible naivety so many small business owners display about the Act.
The Republicans look to Romney to put health care “back on track.” Really? What track would he put health care on? The model for what we know of as the Affordable Care Act was based on his defining signature piece of legislation that he crafted as Governor of Massachusetts. While Romney incessantly gurgles out the I will “repeal ObamaCare” meme ass kissing the the extreme wing nut tea party idiots that have taken over the Republican Party he has utterly failed to say what he would offer as an alternative.
- Cantor: Romney Would Get Health Care ‘Back on Track’ – Lara Seligman – NationalJournal.com (the emphasis is mine)
House Majority Leader Eric Cantor said on Friday that Mitt Romney, if elected, would get America’s health care back on track.
“The choice is very clear… it’s all about this election,” Cantor said on CBS’ This Morning. “If Mitt Romney gets elected, which as you know I support, Mitt Romney will be the one that will, frankly, get the health care that most people want back on track.”
During appearances on This Morning and MSNBC’s Morning Joe, Cantor specified that Romney and House Republicans want to see a very different health care system.
“The fact is, we need more choice,” Cantor said on This Morning. “We need people to be able to choose the kind of benefits that they want, and frankly, to base it on the needs of their family, not some dreamed up world here in Washington.”
Really Mr. Cantor? That’s it? How in God’s name does the Affordable Care Act as its written now limit choice? What is god’s name is this so called “very different health care system?” What has Romney articulated to you Republicans in the house NOW that is so vaster different than the health care system he crafted in Massachusetts that he not telling us?
Very very funny animation but Leno’s best line at around 0:15 imho: “This is a major victory for President Obama who spent three years promoting it and of course a major setback for Mitt Romney who spent three ears creating it.”
Bill O’Reilly may be on vacation this week, but he phoned into The Factor today to weigh in on today’s Supreme Court ruling, and had no good words for Chief Justice John Roberts today. O’Reilly told host Laura Ingraham the decision made even clearer that “Americans have to decide what kind of country they want,” one with “socialized medicine” or otherwise.
Suggesting people “take a deep breath, step back from emotional analysis,” O’Reilly blamed Chief Justice Roberts specifically for “stunning everybody” with the ruling, which allows “the federal government to take over the health care system… now the government calls the shots.” Because “the government can charge whatever they want,” he and Ingraham agreed, the middle class would have serious problems and, he added, health care “is going to be rationed.” He also predicted many doctors opting out of government programs as has happened abroad with similar programs. “Americans have to decide what kind of country they want,” he concluded, and President Obama offered “a huge federal government to level the playing field.”
The segment via Fox News below:
O’Reilly does nothing but repeat again the lies, misconceptions and misrepresentations about the affordable Health Care act that the marketeers (net, propagandists) on the right have upchucked since the bill was first introduced.
- The government isn’t calling the shots but has stepped in to represent the people of the United States and limit and or direct just what “shots” that the insurance companies can call all by themselves in the interests of their profits. i.e insurance companies can no longer deny you coverage because of a pre-existing condition nor charge you exorbitant rates for that coverage.
- Regarding “the government can charge whatever they want,” it not the government charging for your health insurance its is still very much the insurance companies and the bill to help control and limit what they can charge you (my bullet point above).
- Regarding: “health care is going to be rationed” another misleading fallacy. Rationing already exists only it is setup and decided upon by the insurance companies and it will always exist in some degree no matter what system of health care you are in. With the insurance companies rationing decisions are based on profit margins they deliver to shareholders and they are not answerable to you. The government via your vote represent the voice of the people and through government action we can potentially change the parameters that the profit making insurance companies make their decisions on now. Without the ACA as people, as individuals we have had no voice.
- Romneycare Architect: Individual Mandate ‘Very Similar’ In Obama, Romney Bills This agains prompts me to ask if Romney wants to “repeal and replace” the bill his handwriting is all over just what did he learn from the bill he created in Massachusetts that he wants to reform and rewrite.
- Obamacare Brings U.S. Closer To Policies It Has Advocated Overseas | ThinkProgress
- Mitt Romney Builds Fundraising List On Health Care Ruling, Obama Campaign Says It Raised More (the emphasis is mine)
“It’s perverse that Mitt Romney won’t share details about what he’d do for the millions he’d leave uninsured or at the whims of insurance companies when he ‘kills Obamacare dead,’ but he’ll share the hourly details of his fundraising after the Supreme Court ruling,” wrote Obama campaign communications director Ben LaBolt. “We’ve outraised the Romney campaign in that time period but that’s not the point — our supporters are more committed than ever to ensuring that insurance companies can’t drop coverage for people who get sick or discriminate against people with preexisting conditions by reelecting the President.”
I’d say Romney is a snake but I like snakes and find them fascinating creatures and I wouldn’t want to slight the snake species.
- White House: Sorry, Roberts, Obamacare mandate is a penalty, not a tax – ABC News—
The White House argued on Friday that the individual mandate at the heart of Obamacare is a penalty, not a tax, contradicting the Supreme Court’s 5-4 ruling a day earlier upholding the historic health care law. But if it is a tax, blame Mitt Romney, spokesman Jay Carney suggested.
“It’s a penalty, because you have a choice. You don’t have a choice to pay your taxes, right?” Carney told reporters aboard Air Force One….
…In any case, Carney said, the penalty “is modeled exactly on the penalty that exists in the health care reform that was promoted and signed into law by Governor Romney in Massachusetts.”
- Brad DeLong: Did Ruth Bader Ginsburg Peel John Roberts Off the Four New Horsemen by Dint of Intellectual-Rhetorical Mojo Alone?—
Amy Davidson thinks so. Here is her analysis of the Switch in Time That Saved RomneyCare:
Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Hero: Ginsburg wrote what would have been the dissent—and a strong one—if Roberts had voted with the four conservatives to throw out the entire health-care law. Instead, her opinion concurred with Roberts when he said that the individual mandate was within Congress’s power to tax—this was the Constitutional loophole he found—but rejected his view that it wasn’t valid under the Commerce Clause, which gives Congress the power to regulate commerce. Ginsburg wasn’t gentle. She wrote that Roberts’s analysis was “rigid,” “crabbed,” and “stunningly retrogressive,” that it “finds no home in the text of the Constitution or our decisions” and made “scant sense.” There was also a mesmerizing dissection of the broccoli question…. Roberts’s view of the Commerce Clause, she wrote,
harks back to the era in which the Court routinely thwarted Congress’ efforts to regulate the national economy in the interest of those who labor to sustain it…. It is a reading that should not have staying power….
[B]y writing a scathing opinion, Ginsburg may at least have done him the favor of showing him what he might have looked like if he had signed on with Scalia: a political opportunist, and almost a fool….
- This Is Why We Can’t Have Nice Things, Affordable Care Act Edition
- Misconceptions abound on health care act – Politics – The Detroit News
- 5 common misconceptions of the healthcare bill – KSLA News 12 Shreveport, Louisiana News Weather & Sports
- Interactive Quiz: How Much Do You Know About Health Reform?
- 5 myths of the individual mandate – Joanne Kenen – POLITICO.com