ObamaCare -- polarization in a name

I recently ran across Wendell Potter's piece for the Center for Public Integrity (read it here:  http://www.natlawreview.com/article/analysis-obamacare-label-sticking).  Even though he wrote the article in Sept. 2011, I believe the principles still apply:  Americans generally have no idea what the Affordable Care Act does, and they have been inundated with false claims and negative publicity about "ObamaCare" that they have become ignorantly polarized.  Now that the Supreme Court has issued its opinion on the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act's Individual Mandate and Medicaid Expansion, and now that the Presidential election is getting closer, it seems that health care has come even more into focus while it still remains out-of-focus with regards to clarity.  To put it another way, with the political race going on, there is a lot of talk about health care, but it is mostly wrong and meant to scare people into voting a certain way.  Heck, I've been reading state governors' responses to whether they will expand Medicaid in their states, and over half of them seem not to have a clue about what the program does for their state.  The Obama Administration needs to get CMS and HHS to put together a massive education campaign about what the Affordable Care Act has done, is doing, and will do.  Fear is a strong motivator, and people are being fed fear right now.  Listening to an NPR broadcast, I heard an interview from an older man who said that he really like the Massachusetts health care plan (he had friends and family there), but he didn't like the Affordable Care Act plan because it was a tax.  It's essentially the same thing!  Moreover, the "tax" classification was merely a constitutionality hook, just as used to uphold Social Security. 

So, to avoid being someone who critiques without taking action to remedy the situation, I am pledging to write President Obama and Secretary Sebilius about the need for education about the Affordable Care Act.  What will you do?

Spinning Your Wheels and Taxpayers' Money

I was astounded at the price tag attached to the GOP's 33rd attempt to repeal the Affordable Care Act:  about $48 million.  It's disgusting.  I can't believe that in this time of economic woes, our representatives have voted on this 33 times, knowing that the Senate will defeat it, and have not voted on the jobs bill once.  I'm at a loss for words.  This propels me to write my congressman.  Join me in expressing your frustration and disgust for these senseless repetitious and wasteful acts. 

Read the story from CBS News here

Find your congressman here:  http://www.house.gov/representatives/find/ or http://www.usa.gov/Contact/Elected.shtml

To be completely catty, remember that insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.  I think we need to ship the GOP House members to the rubber room.

An interesting take on the ACA opinion: how it was written

Here's a link to an article that quotes a past-law clerk who has dissected the ACA dissent and concluded that Roberts couldn't go along with the mishmash of law (with a hearty dose of nonsense) the dissenters had thrown together:  http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/06/29/scalia.html.  Remember that law clerks are the ones who know what goes on in any one particular judge's chambers; they know their judge intimately and know that judge's thinking and writing style.  Again, I think Scalia has crossed the line into deciding cases before they come to him.

Read another article here, discussing how the dissenters continually refer to Ginsberg's concurring opinion as her "dissent."  It further suggests a change, and the author suggests some cold feelings on the bench.

More speculations:  http://www.volokh.com/2012/06/28/more-hints-that-roberts-switched-his-vote/

Affordable Care Act survives! The Supreme Court regains its credability

SCOTUS upheld the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act!  This is amazing, and it is truly a step forward for this country.  We need to gain control of our country's health care costs, and it is a concern for everyone.  I will blog more later . . . 

Toobin's take on Judge Brett Kavanaugh

Leading up to the Affordable Care Act's oral arguments at the Supreme Court, Jeffrey Toobin wrote a piece about DC Circuit Judge Brett Kavanaugh and his peculiar interpretations.  Like Toobin's later smack-down of Justice Kennedy's questions during that oral argument, Toobin provides a smack-down of Kavanaugh in his March 26, 2012, piece.  In that piece, he summarized Kavanaugh's 65-page dissent to the challenge of the Affordable Care Act, and he highlighted that Kavanaugh "appeared to offer some advice to the Republicans who are challenging Obama in the election this year."  Essentially, the judge suggested that "even if the Supreme Court upholds the law . . ., a President . . . could refuse to enforce ACA because he 'deems' the law unconstitutional."  Wait for it, wait for it . . . Toobin's next line: "That, to put the matter plainly, is not how it works."  (emphasis added).  Ha!  Presidents don't get to decide whether the law is constitutional, rather, that happens to be the one job of the courts (regardless of how much the court tries to expand its job title).  Toobin goes on to discuss the air of paranoia and misunderstanding and the danger of Kavanaugh (a judge who clearly is mistaken on the separation of powers) being appointed to the bench by a Republican president, but the best part was definitely the smack-down.  Enjoy.

Jeffrey Toobin's Smack Down of the SCOTUS Qs

During my trip to Asia, I read a lot (because it is what I do, as my father-in-law pointed out to me).  I used the time to catch up on my New Yorkers, and I absolutely must highlight Jeffrey Toobin's smack down of the justices' questions concerning the health care act.  In the April 9, 2012, edition, Toobin wrote:

"The key issue in the case is whether congress, in passing the [Affordable Care Act], exceeded its powers under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, which allows the government to regulate interstate commerce.  Consider, then, this question, posed to [Solicitor General Donald] Verrilli by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy: 'Assume for the moment that this' -- the mandate -- 'is unprecedented, this is a step beyond what our cases have allowed, the affirmative duty to act to go into commerce.  If that is so, do you not have a heavy burden of justification?'  Every premise of that question was a misperception." (Emphasis added.)

Ha!  Toobin then goes on to explain that the national government has been involved with the health care market since the 60's since Medicaid and Medicare and that the heavy burden is actually on the other party (the challengers to the law) according to case law.  Toobin then remarks on how previous cases have set up a deference to Congress on such matters but that these justices were taking it upon themselves to become legislators along with justices.  He really seals his article with the zinger, "The awesome, and final, powers of the Justices are best exercised sparingly and with restraint.  Their normal burdens of interpreting laws are heavy enough.  No one expects the Justices to be making health-care policy any more than we expect them to be picking Presidents, which, it may be remembered, is not exactly their strength, either."  ZAP!  Way to go, Toobin!

I'm so glad that such a well-respected SCOTUS writer and critic has really taken the justices to the woodshed for trying to overstep their powers.  Unfortunately, as is so often pointed out, the justices live in a very secluded life and often do not interact with true American humanity or culture.  I hope that for this issue that will greatly save the country's long-term fiscal policies and sustainably provide for the people very much unlike themselves, the justices will step outside their ivory towers when issuing their decision.