Commence Republican Spin

Several hours now since the Supreme Court handed down its decision upholding the Constitutionality of the nation's healthcare reform law.

I've noted that Republican talking points are concise and consistent:

• This is a tax and represents a HUGE tax hike on Americans - they're saying this because the law was held Constitutional by the Court as they determined that Congress could tax Americans if they did not have health insurance....and thus compelling them to buy insurance. So, taxation is the mechanism that makes the law hold. The law has not changed, but this "tax" interpretation is the one now from the right and you will be hearing A LOT about it over the next few months. 
• The act will actually raise healthcare costs and limit coverage to Americans. This is the typical Republican playbook. Take what your opponent is running on or claims that they make and reverse them. Convince Americans that their "strength" is their weakness. Facts need not be considered. 
• It represents a program we simply cannot afford. So says the party that ran our economy into the ground and manufactured our massive debt when they ran all branches of the government from Jan. 2001 to Jan. 2009. Sorry. Try again. You have zero credibility on this.
• We will move to repeal it legislatively. Now this is a true statement. They will. I suspect we'll see the first try in a few days and then more tries into the election season. And then certainly if the Rs control any amount of Congress or the Presidency come January 2013, they'll try again.

And in the case of Mitt Romney...of course he is saying all these things too...but doing so after supporting and passing a virtual carbon copy of the national law in his state while he was governor. Since that is public knowledge, you can see that Mitt is literally counting on Americans to be short-term-memory morons and just go with whatever he is saying today.

SCOUSA Upholds Healtchare Reform Law

I have to say, I am SURPRISED that the profoundly conservative majority of the Supreme Court has voted to uphold the nation's healthcare reform law. This is not something that I thought would happen.

What I am getting out of the first news reports I am hearing is that the Court decided that the entire law is Constitutional. More specifically, the majority opinion says that the law is upholdable under a taxation provision of the US Constitution, but that it was not under the commerce clause as orignally argued by the White Hosue and reform supporters. That's a bit of a twist.

So, while upholding the law under tax provisions, the Court also said that the federal government cannot require individuals to buy something as part of regulating commerce nationally...like health insurance.

I note that this also would mean going forward that laws requiring people to buy other things as part of regulating commerce would not pass muster as Constitutional...like private pension funds as part of a conservative overall of Socail Security. That's something conservatives have long talked about doing, but I seriouly doubt Republicans would try to enforce a individual mandate requiring purchase of private investment services as part of an overhaul of Social Security by relying on a TAX provision to do it. Just not their thing, and despite a keen ability to do a 180 on issues at a drop of hat...that might be a bit much for even them. So, the ruling today might be a double whammy against the conservative agenda.

One person who should be a bit perplexed by the decision today is Mitt Romney. After all, he championed and successuflly passed a very, very similar law in Massachesetts when he was governor. So, he was correct on what was best for Americans by supporting this reform back in the day, right? But he also has consistenly railed against the national healthcare reform law since he began running for President. Odd to run against the exact thing you championed previously. But that's Mitt for you.

But, all that being said, with its decision today the Supreme Court has upheld that:

• Expands coverage to 32 million Americans who are currently uninsured
• Health insurers cannot turn you down for coverage based on pre-existing conditions
• Insurance companies could no longer denying children coverage based on a preexisting condition

Do I think that a little thing like a ruling by the Supreme Court will stop Republicans and conservatives from trying to get rid of this law - in some way, some how? Hell no. If anything, this will compell them to double down on new and creative was to either effectively neuter the law or - if they gain majority power and the Presidency - just straight out repeal the law legislatively. You watch...that's what Mitt will run on now.

Prediction: Supreme Court Will Overturn Healthcare Law

Here is my prediction on the Supreme Court review of the national health care reform law...

They will overturn it. Or, more specifically, they will overturn portions of it...like the mandate that every individual has to buy insurance...such that the law is effectively negated. And thus will end, before it actually even was enacted (virtually none of the law's provisions have been enacted yet), the nation's most significant attempt at modernizing its health care system and making it more equitable and beneficial for more people. The infant law will be snuffed out in its cradle.

And if that happens? Well, we're back to where we were before the law was passed - a system predicated on earning maximum profit rather than one attempting to use the free market system to provide quality care for the maximum number of people.

Regardless of the outcome, I'll leave the bickering, taughting, celebrating and commiserating to others.

However, I will also point out something very ironic that I read today in an article about the healthcare law debate...

If the Supreme Court rules that the individual legal mandate in the health care law is not consitutional because Congress cannot compel an individual to buy private health insurance products (the law mandates you buy private insurance, not government run insurance), it will be simultaneously negating one of the primary pillars of conservative reform proposals for Social Security - namely, mandating that everyone buy commercial (private) pension funds.

Ooops.

As the article also points out, this does not mean it's likely that the conservative majority on the Supreme Court will suddenly support the health care reform act now because they want to preserve the chances for Social Security privatization in the future. No, it likely just means that those conservative judges will find a way to both call the health care mandate unconstitutional and any future Social Security privatization mandate OK. With a heavy sigh, I have to agree with that assessment.

Oh, and one more irony pointed out...if if Obama and the Democratically led House and Senate had simply enacted a single payer program back in 2009-2010, it would have been beyond constitutional challenge -- because government has an unambiguous power to tax and to use the revenues for public purposes.

US Supreme Court: Company = Person

Last month the U.S. Supreme Court decided a case regarding "corporate personhood" that reversed limitations on how much money corporations can donate to political campaigns.

Loaded with conservative judges, the court decided that the law cannot discriminate between companies and individuals when it comes to free speech. Free speech for individuals includes the right to donate funds to third-party political advocacy groups...the type of groups that produce "Swift Boat" advertising during campaigns. So, like an individual, companies can now spend essentially whatever amount they want on political campaigns in this way where before there were understandable limits.

And guess what? Less than a month later, a big DC lobbying firms is counseling corporations on how they can use this new ruling to pour massive amounts of money into campaigns without public scrutiny.

In addition to the influx of unlimited amounts of money into the political arena via elections funding, the primary thing that's disturbing about this is how the ruling puts corporations on the same footing as human beings.

Sure, companies are made up of people, but they are not a person. The sole purpose of a corporation is to make profit. They have no moral obligation to society at all. They exist to make profit. That's it. So, they spend money to support candidates that help that profit mission. As of this Supreme Court ruling, they can now spend more than ever.

For those of you thinking that this is not all that bad or perhaps no big deal, ponder this: Is the Exon Corporation the same as your baby girl or boy? Do you think GE is the same as your grandmother? Do those companies have the same interests as you do for your family? The defense of our nation? The education of your children? For disease prevention? For creating a job in the US for your brother or uncle? No. They do not. The could not care less about these things. Only making money. And now, they will have more say than ever in influencing who gets elected to government. Thanks Supreme Court.

Finally, I would also add that conservatives often cry loud and long about "activist" judges on the bench. Well, the decision in question here is clearly "activist" as it changes long standing law to the clear benefit of some and the clear detriment of most. But hypocrisy is not new to politics generally and no stranger to conservatives by any stretch.