I have friends across the gamut of the political spectrum, so I get all kinds of propaganda on Facebook. I have the strictly Christian relatives, whose political views aren't part of the frequent postings but whose postings are generally promoting a non-specific Christianity ('cause we all know there are a plethora of sects on that). I have HS friends who subscribe to religious right opinions. I have Libertarian leaning friends, who fortunately use their brains a lot more than the strictly Know Nothing sorts. Surprisingly, the least frequent postings I see are from left leaning friends. Not the usual chatter postings. They have plenty of them. They just don't put up a lot of political stuff. Except my brother. He does plenty.
So, that brings me to the point. On the side of those opposing the Affordable Care Act (ACA or Obamacare), there's much gnashing of teeth that the government is forcing people to buy a product. There's a certain amount of irony in that because the Democrats, on the whole, would have preferred a government run system of single payer insurance for all, but couldn't get that through with all the cries of socialism from the GOP. Instead, the ACA is a GOP plan. As we all know, it's the current GOP standard bearer's plan, which he now disowns. Ah, hypocrisy, thy name is Romney.
The problem with the objection that the government (federal, in this case) is forcing citizens to buy a product is that the ship for objecting to that sailed long ago. At the state level most states force citizens (and non-citizens, too) to buy auto insurance. They also charge you a bunch of fees, taxes by another name, to register a car, get license, and all sorts of other things related to cars.
Now, many argue that a person doesn't have to buy a car, which is true, albeit disingenuous in our car based transportation world. Ok. But the governments at the local, state and federal levels require taxpayers to buy all sorts of things, albeit indirectly. We're buying highways and equipment. We're buying food for those who can't afford it. We're buying anything that the government buys. It's our money, at some point.
Of course, legally speaking, the ACA isn't requiring anyone to buy anything. You have a choice between buying health coverage (or obtaining it through your employer or the government) or paying a tax (fee) if you choose not to buy the coverage. Guess what? This has been going on for a very long time. Ever heard of the mortgage tax credit? You can buy a house and get the credit, if you have a mortgage, or you can not buy a house and pay more in taxes. Same thing with the marriage tax credit and deductions for dependents. You can choose to get married and have kids, getting deductions on your taxes, or you can choose not to and pay more in taxes. It's the same thing.
Sure, it doesn't fly off the lips as readily as socialism or totalitarian alien, but then, reasoned thinking isn't a sound bite.
Showing posts with label Healthcare. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Healthcare. Show all posts
Friday, July 6, 2012
Tuesday, July 3, 2012
A Switch in Time?
Hoo Rah! It's time for the conspiracy nuts to crawl out of the woodwork. The Supreme Court, as we all know by now, decided that the colloquially named Obamacare is constitutional, by a 5-4 vote. What's interesting in that is who was the 5th vote in favor of upholding the law. Chief Justice John Roberts cast the deciding vote and wrote the opinion.
This makes two cases where he sided with the liberal side of the court (Kagan, Sotomayor, Ginsberg & Breyer) and against the "conservatives" (Scalia, Thomas & Alito). Surprisingly, Chief Justice Roberts had voted against Arizona's restrictive immigration tactics as an affront to an area specifically designated for Federal control. That kind of obviousness didn't stop the three mental midgets from voting for Arizona, or Scalia from shooting off his ignorant mouth at the release of the decision to attack President Obama on an issue entirely unrelated to the decision at hand (amnesty to illegal immigrants brought here as minors).
These switches by the previously solidly conservative Roberts reminded me of The Switch in Time that Saved Nine in 1937. Then there was the threat of expansion of the court to 15 justices because FDR was frustrated by the court's continual overturning of New Deal legislation and state legislation regulating business. There was no such threat this time, though. Coincidentally, the justice who switched from voting with the conservative block of four then was also named Roberts. Justice Owen Roberts was the one that time.
I'm thinking that the switch this time may have something to do with Justice Scalia. He's so unreasonable, so partisan and so divorced from any clear legal thinking, Roberts may be trying to separate himself from Scalia to show that it's his court rather than Know Nothing darling Scalia's court. Roberts is the Chief Justice, after all. Scalia can keep his posse of Alito (a cypher so far as any thoughts of his own) and Thomas (the most unqualified justice to serve in half a century), who support whatever he says without question. Like the wing nuts they represent, they're only driving themselves further away from the majority and relegating themselves to the ash can of history.
This makes two cases where he sided with the liberal side of the court (Kagan, Sotomayor, Ginsberg & Breyer) and against the "conservatives" (Scalia, Thomas & Alito). Surprisingly, Chief Justice Roberts had voted against Arizona's restrictive immigration tactics as an affront to an area specifically designated for Federal control. That kind of obviousness didn't stop the three mental midgets from voting for Arizona, or Scalia from shooting off his ignorant mouth at the release of the decision to attack President Obama on an issue entirely unrelated to the decision at hand (amnesty to illegal immigrants brought here as minors).
These switches by the previously solidly conservative Roberts reminded me of The Switch in Time that Saved Nine in 1937. Then there was the threat of expansion of the court to 15 justices because FDR was frustrated by the court's continual overturning of New Deal legislation and state legislation regulating business. There was no such threat this time, though. Coincidentally, the justice who switched from voting with the conservative block of four then was also named Roberts. Justice Owen Roberts was the one that time.
I'm thinking that the switch this time may have something to do with Justice Scalia. He's so unreasonable, so partisan and so divorced from any clear legal thinking, Roberts may be trying to separate himself from Scalia to show that it's his court rather than Know Nothing darling Scalia's court. Roberts is the Chief Justice, after all. Scalia can keep his posse of Alito (a cypher so far as any thoughts of his own) and Thomas (the most unqualified justice to serve in half a century), who support whatever he says without question. Like the wing nuts they represent, they're only driving themselves further away from the majority and relegating themselves to the ash can of history.
Thursday, May 17, 2012
Irrational Behavior and Healthcare
Can someone explain to me the philosophical opposition that the GOP has to the Obama healthcare plan? I don't mean political opposition to the plan. That I get. Anything Democrats favor, the GOP oppposes. That wasn't always the way of things in Congress, but that's the way it is now.
What I mean is, what's the philosophy to the opposition? For instance, the GOP is philosophically in favor of banning gay marriage because it believes that government has an interest in recognizing only a marriage between one man and one woman. I can argue the validity of that position, but it is a philosophy.
There doesn't seem to be any philosophy underpinning the opposition to the healthcare plan. The arguments have been based on states' rights, a long dead doctrine resolved once by the Civil War and again by Brown v Board of Education and its progeny, or that there's a violation of individual rights in requiring the purchase of health insurance.
This Supreme Court, which can't even read the one sentence Second Amendment accurately, may well be dumb enough to revive states' rights, but that's still not a philosphical opposition to the plan itself. If the plan were changed to be universal, government administered healthcare paid for by a tax, the states' rights argument would die on the vine but the opposition would not. As a tax paid program it would be no different from any other government plan, such as agricultural subsidies, defense spending, or WIC. Yet the GOP remains adamantly opposed to providing healthcare to as many Americans as possible, operating in some sort of logical bubble that separates the availability of medical providers from the expense of paying for them.
The opposition based on the requirement of individual purchase of coverage is not a philosophical objection, either. It's convenience. The GOP doesn't oppose mandatory auto insurance. For that matter it doesn't oppose requiring fees to register vehicles or to obtain a driver's license. These are all required purchases. Again, the current Supreme Court is dumb enough, and ideological enough, to buy this argument, but it's still not a philosophy.
Why does the GOP oppose Americans having healthcare available and paid for in a sustainable manner? (Not that this plan is necessarily either, but it's an attempt, and none of the opposition to it is couched in any failure it may be in that attempt.)
What I mean is, what's the philosophy to the opposition? For instance, the GOP is philosophically in favor of banning gay marriage because it believes that government has an interest in recognizing only a marriage between one man and one woman. I can argue the validity of that position, but it is a philosophy.
There doesn't seem to be any philosophy underpinning the opposition to the healthcare plan. The arguments have been based on states' rights, a long dead doctrine resolved once by the Civil War and again by Brown v Board of Education and its progeny, or that there's a violation of individual rights in requiring the purchase of health insurance.
This Supreme Court, which can't even read the one sentence Second Amendment accurately, may well be dumb enough to revive states' rights, but that's still not a philosphical opposition to the plan itself. If the plan were changed to be universal, government administered healthcare paid for by a tax, the states' rights argument would die on the vine but the opposition would not. As a tax paid program it would be no different from any other government plan, such as agricultural subsidies, defense spending, or WIC. Yet the GOP remains adamantly opposed to providing healthcare to as many Americans as possible, operating in some sort of logical bubble that separates the availability of medical providers from the expense of paying for them.
The opposition based on the requirement of individual purchase of coverage is not a philosophical objection, either. It's convenience. The GOP doesn't oppose mandatory auto insurance. For that matter it doesn't oppose requiring fees to register vehicles or to obtain a driver's license. These are all required purchases. Again, the current Supreme Court is dumb enough, and ideological enough, to buy this argument, but it's still not a philosophy.
Why does the GOP oppose Americans having healthcare available and paid for in a sustainable manner? (Not that this plan is necessarily either, but it's an attempt, and none of the opposition to it is couched in any failure it may be in that attempt.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)