![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
redneckgaijinComing in to this, I was taking the delays on a ruling on the Affordable Care Act as a sign that the Court couldn't find a consensus. My prediction was that the split would be 4-2-3; the liberal justices voting to uphold, Roberts and Kennedy striking the mandate but keeping everything else, and Alito, Scalia and Thomas not only striking the whole thing but putting some obstacle in the way of a future single-payer system.
Well, the news is worse than I thought. No, I don't say that ACA surviving is bad- but look at the dissent. Four justices, including so-called swing justice Kennedy, all but said that if Medicare had been before the court, they'd have voted that IT was unconstitutional as well. And I'm convinced the only reason it was four and not five is that John Roberts did NOT want to go down in history as the man who killed the Affordable Care Act on a 5-4 ruling.
That's one reason I'm not celebrating: this is only a victory because it was a hot potato. Unless the composition of the Court changes drastically in the near term, I strongly expect the Court to trim round the edges of this ruling until the ACA is nibbled to death as if by ducks.
But that's not the only reason. Oh no.
Another reason I'm not celebrating is this: the ACA is a shit law. Ignore the parody frame of the post and look at the basic points made by the Republican Dalek* about the law just upheld:
(1) If you get insurance, you'll pay up to a quarter of your total income in premiums and co-pays- which, more than likely, you can't afford.
(2) If you DON'T get insurance, you'll pay the 2.5% uninsured tax... and get nothing in return for it.
(3) The ACA provides abundant loopholes which will allow your privately-owned, for-profit corporate insurer to deny inconvenient claims with little or no consequence. And when they do deny claims, THEY control the appeals process.
(4) The ACA does little or nothing to actually force down the prices charged by doctors, pharmaceutical companies, for-profit hospital corporations, or medical equipment makers.
(5) The "Cadillac plan" tax on large policies will hit more and more policies as time goes by, accelerating the drift of employers to discontinue coverage or reduce it to 50% copay, emergency-only policies- which, from the standpoint of all but the most chronically ill, is useless coverage.
And add to this item (6), which today's ruling adds: the health coverage system for the poor remains in the hands of state governments, near half of which have either made it impossible to qualify for or are moving to abolish it altogether. Thus, poor people in red states are S.O.L.
So, for my money, the ACA is going to be a massive flop. Tens of millions of Americans are still going to do without health care because they can't afford it... except now they'll be punished for not being able to afford it, while costs continue to go higher and higher.
But, you say, this is just the first step on the road to a true single-payer system?
Bullshit.
That's one of the most liberal Democrats in Congress, one of the leaders of the Democratic left wing, saying in effect that so long as ACA is functional, Medicare for All or any other form of single payer is DEAD. This shouldn't be surprising, especially since the Democratic Party is controlled by its pro-corporate conservative rump, as embodied in President Obama himself.
On the other hand, the ACA might not be around all that long- and that's the other reason why I'm not celebrating.
You see, right now the Republicans are 4-1 favorites to retain control of the US House. They're even money to take control of the Senate. And Romney... Romney is no worse than a 3-2 underdog. If the Republicans get total control of the federal government again- and their odds are NOT bad, not bad at all- practically the first thing they'll do is, as they've promised, repeal every last particle of the Affordable Care Act.
Now, a lot of pundits are saying, "The Republicans won't DARE repeal now!" Quoting George Will:
Whose corporate money is going to spend millions of dollars to bus those people to the town halls, George? Remember, it was corporate money that got the Tea Party there in August 2009. Also... haven't you noticed that, any time Republicans think they're even slightly unpopular, they stop HAVING town halls at all?
Quoting Paul Waldman of the American Prospect:
Idiot. They gave up on the "replace" part because the tea party Republican base, led by Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck, turned on them when they started talking about maintaining the prohibition on bans for pre-existing conditions. The base won't LET them drop it. Any Republican for the next decade who fails to vote at every opportunity to repeal ACA will be primaried, deprived of campaign funds, and destroyed- and everyone on Capitol Hill except the pundits knows this.
Quoting Francis Wilkinson at Bloomberg News:
How soon they forget. A couple months ago Grover Norquist, chief greedhead of the Club for Growth and the man who came up with the Taxpayers' Pledge (no higher taxes ever, for any reason, no matter the need), said that conservatives didn't WANT a president who had ideas of his own. They want a weak president who will rubber-stamp whatever a conservative-controlled Congress sends to him. Romney fits that bill just fine- he's won the nomination on terms that make him entirely beholden to the far right wing of a party that's ALL far right wing.
No, don't be deceived: if the Republicans ever get total control again, ACA is dead as T. rex.
So I'm not celebrating. Right now the BEST spin I can put on today is that it's a minor victory in a long, ongoing war for the American dream: a war in which liberals and progressives have no allies in either political party.
* You can trust this post, by the way. When a Dalek is gloating, it's always telling the truth.
Well, the news is worse than I thought. No, I don't say that ACA surviving is bad- but look at the dissent. Four justices, including so-called swing justice Kennedy, all but said that if Medicare had been before the court, they'd have voted that IT was unconstitutional as well. And I'm convinced the only reason it was four and not five is that John Roberts did NOT want to go down in history as the man who killed the Affordable Care Act on a 5-4 ruling.
That's one reason I'm not celebrating: this is only a victory because it was a hot potato. Unless the composition of the Court changes drastically in the near term, I strongly expect the Court to trim round the edges of this ruling until the ACA is nibbled to death as if by ducks.
But that's not the only reason. Oh no.
Another reason I'm not celebrating is this: the ACA is a shit law. Ignore the parody frame of the post and look at the basic points made by the Republican Dalek* about the law just upheld:
(1) If you get insurance, you'll pay up to a quarter of your total income in premiums and co-pays- which, more than likely, you can't afford.
(2) If you DON'T get insurance, you'll pay the 2.5% uninsured tax... and get nothing in return for it.
(3) The ACA provides abundant loopholes which will allow your privately-owned, for-profit corporate insurer to deny inconvenient claims with little or no consequence. And when they do deny claims, THEY control the appeals process.
(4) The ACA does little or nothing to actually force down the prices charged by doctors, pharmaceutical companies, for-profit hospital corporations, or medical equipment makers.
(5) The "Cadillac plan" tax on large policies will hit more and more policies as time goes by, accelerating the drift of employers to discontinue coverage or reduce it to 50% copay, emergency-only policies- which, from the standpoint of all but the most chronically ill, is useless coverage.
And add to this item (6), which today's ruling adds: the health coverage system for the poor remains in the hands of state governments, near half of which have either made it impossible to qualify for or are moving to abolish it altogether. Thus, poor people in red states are S.O.L.
So, for my money, the ACA is going to be a massive flop. Tens of millions of Americans are still going to do without health care because they can't afford it... except now they'll be punished for not being able to afford it, while costs continue to go higher and higher.
But, you say, this is just the first step on the road to a true single-payer system?
Bullshit.
The idea of a single-payer option, such as a Medicare-for-all approach to health care, will continue to be "a fundamental political point that we all support," said Rep. Raul Grijalva, co-chairman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. "But the reality of what just happened today probably puts the emphasis on making the law work as opposed to trying to get a new plan."
That's one of the most liberal Democrats in Congress, one of the leaders of the Democratic left wing, saying in effect that so long as ACA is functional, Medicare for All or any other form of single payer is DEAD. This shouldn't be surprising, especially since the Democratic Party is controlled by its pro-corporate conservative rump, as embodied in President Obama himself.
On the other hand, the ACA might not be around all that long- and that's the other reason why I'm not celebrating.
You see, right now the Republicans are 4-1 favorites to retain control of the US House. They're even money to take control of the Senate. And Romney... Romney is no worse than a 3-2 underdog. If the Republicans get total control of the federal government again- and their odds are NOT bad, not bad at all- practically the first thing they'll do is, as they've promised, repeal every last particle of the Affordable Care Act.
Now, a lot of pundits are saying, "The Republicans won't DARE repeal now!" Quoting George Will:
Even if Republicans do win the White House and Senate in 2012, how much appetite will they then have for that 1-page repeal bill? Suddenly it will be their town halls filled with outraged senior citizens whose benefits are threatened; their incumbencies that will be threatened.
Whose corporate money is going to spend millions of dollars to bus those people to the town halls, George? Remember, it was corporate money that got the Tea Party there in August 2009. Also... haven't you noticed that, any time Republicans think they're even slightly unpopular, they stop HAVING town halls at all?
Quoting Paul Waldman of the American Prospect:
But here's my guess: Republicans are going to drop health care very quickly. They took their shot with the only avenue they had to kill the ACA, and they came up short. The legal battle is over, and they know that once they start talking about repealing the whole thing, it makes it easier to talk about the benefits of the ACA that will be repealed, particularly since they have given up on even bothering to come up with a "replace" part of "repeal and replace."
Idiot. They gave up on the "replace" part because the tea party Republican base, led by Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck, turned on them when they started talking about maintaining the prohibition on bans for pre-existing conditions. The base won't LET them drop it. Any Republican for the next decade who fails to vote at every opportunity to repeal ACA will be primaried, deprived of campaign funds, and destroyed- and everyone on Capitol Hill except the pundits knows this.
Quoting Francis Wilkinson at Bloomberg News:
This is all good news for Romney. The question is whether it will still be good news a month from now or, more importantly, in November. Romney's challenge is to attack "ObamaCare" without actually engaging substantively on the state of U.S. health care. After having produced an ambitious health reform as Governor of Massachusetts -- and we know what that led to -- as a presidential candidate Romney has offered little more than a few retread policy ideas of little consequence to tens of millions of uninsured Americans.
How soon they forget. A couple months ago Grover Norquist, chief greedhead of the Club for Growth and the man who came up with the Taxpayers' Pledge (no higher taxes ever, for any reason, no matter the need), said that conservatives didn't WANT a president who had ideas of his own. They want a weak president who will rubber-stamp whatever a conservative-controlled Congress sends to him. Romney fits that bill just fine- he's won the nomination on terms that make him entirely beholden to the far right wing of a party that's ALL far right wing.
No, don't be deceived: if the Republicans ever get total control again, ACA is dead as T. rex.
So I'm not celebrating. Right now the BEST spin I can put on today is that it's a minor victory in a long, ongoing war for the American dream: a war in which liberals and progressives have no allies in either political party.
* You can trust this post, by the way. When a Dalek is gloating, it's always telling the truth.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2012-06-29 05:23 am (UTC)(Including, quite possibly, mine. There are things you haven't been told because you didn't need to know.)
no subject
Date: 2012-06-29 02:47 pm (UTC)Which is WHY I'm still so pissed that Obama pushed, and pushed hard, to make this law as USELESS as he could.
Especially from my point of view. You have, no doubt, noticed a few moles on me; well, I've got a lot of others, including quite a lot of a different color. (None of them large, but they still prey on my mind, considering that my dad lost a kidney to cancer less than a year before he died.) I have a back that aches consistently and acutely in the same place when put under any prolonged strain- to the point that I avoid putting things on the ground as much as possible. I worry constantly about diabetes, bipolar disorder, and undiagnosed autistic spectrum disorders, not to mention injuries if I have an accident while on the road.
All of this preys on my mind, because even when Obamacare is fully in force there's still jack shit I'll be able to do about ANY of it. I won't be able to afford any health insurance beyond MAYBE the catastrophic-only plans the Obama administration is celebrating- you know, the plans that pay only 50% of your bills after a MASSIVE deductible, which for a poor person is the same as having no insurance at all. Everything I've read about the subsidies for insurance require you to BUY THE INSURANCE FIRST and then wait for your application to be approved. And if you're too poor for even the Neverpay policy, the plan throws you on Medicaid- which is run by states, and Texas is a state seriously toying with pulling out of Medicaid altogether and replacing it with NOTHING.
There are only a handful of provisions in the ACA that are really good. Guaranteed coverage to people with pre-existing conditions is good- if you have the money to pay the astronomical rates insurance companies charge in response. Covering kids until age 26 is good- if you're fortunate enough to have work-covered family insurance plans. Abolishing annual and lifetime health spending caps is good- presuming you can get the insurance companies to spend anything on you at all.
But the simple fact remains that, despite feeble hand-waves at accountability and assistance, Obama blocked single payer in any form and instead put our health care in two sets of hands: corporate insurance executives whose profits depend on NOT paying off claims; and state Republican officials and legislators who'd be quite happy to see people like you and me die poor and in agony.
I would have been pissed if ACA had been struck down- it would have meant health care reform dead for a generation. From where I sit, though, ACA as upheld means health care reform dead PERMANENTLY- unless the system collapses altogether. It's better than things were before, but it still won't help tens of millions of Americans.
Including me, and I suspect including you.
no subject
Date: 2012-06-29 01:45 pm (UTC)I've seen discussion that states the requirement to buy insurance will only apply to those who can afford it. Your discussions don't reflect that. Do you dispute there's that exception? Or, do you dispute that the conditions for the exception are reasonable?
no subject
Date: 2012-06-29 02:58 pm (UTC)The ACA defines it as about 22% of total annual revenue- so, if you're making $25,000 per year, the government presumes you can afford over $5,000 per year on health insurance and co-pays combined. And the responsibility is entirely on YOU, the taxpayer, to prove that you couldn't find coverage that meets the law's requirements for less than that- which means filling out paperwork to APPLY for the exemption, and good luck with that.
The no-insurance tax penalty, if I recollect properly, first kicks in at 0.9% of income for those making $8000 or more. It tops out at 2.5%, I forget at what income bracket.
The law presumes that anyone earning about $20,000/household or less will be on expanded Medicaid, so there are NO subsidies for buying commercial insurance for those making the poverty line or less.
And, of course, there's no guarantee whatever that the subsidies will keep up with the cost of insurance, which the ACA allows to increase at up to 13% each year. With the wonders of compound interest, that means the law allows health insurance rates to triple every ten years.
So I anticipate a lot of working poor will just have to take the $100-$200 tacked onto their income tax bill and continue on without insurance, because the real world definition of "affordable" and the law's definition don't line up.
no subject
Date: 2012-07-05 02:11 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-07-05 02:40 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-06-29 07:40 pm (UTC)But, oh boy, when I heard this story, it snapped me awake. What's amazing is the screeching mad-man at 7:07 does not make it to the transcript. It was his near-incoherent demands that woke me up, reaching for the gun....