The U.S. Supreme Court announced the other day that it had agreed to hear a new challenge to the Affordable Care Act. The new challenge claims that the tax subsidies for 34 states that chose not to run their own exchanges—most of them under Republican control —are “unlawful,” since opponents’ interpretation of the law is that it limits subsidies to marketplace exchanges run by states, as the blue state of Washington does. Nevertheless the Internal Revenue Service has interpreted the relevant passage as allowing the federal government to run the exchanges in states that refuse to do so themselves (again, mostly “red” states).
The New York Times noted that there was some surprise that the court decided to hear the case since no lower court agreed with the plaintiff’s line. But for all the talk of the court legislating from the bench in the past, no one has caused more harm to common human decency by legislating from the bench than the terrible trio of Scalia, Alito and their flunky Thomas. Who will stop them now?
Experts say that low and middle-income people must have the subsidies to afford health care when employers offer poor or no health care benefits. It’s “funny” how when Pres. Harry Truman proposed universal health care coverage, businesses strenuously opposed it because they viewed health care benefits as a “perk” they offered to desired employees. Now, most businesses find health care coverage increasingly onerous on their profit margins, and most small businesses do not even offer health care coverage at all.
The “alternative” to the ACA—usually referred to as “Obamacare” to induce a “rise” out of Obama-haters—is no health insurance at all, and emergency rooms fill with desperate people who a doctor will refuse to see even for preventative care if they don’t have “acceptable” insurance. The question is who “benefits” from this situation? Certainly not the country. Nobody benefits save the politicians who use opposition to anything positive that can be tied to the president to gain partisan advantage. People who are congenitally opposed to Obama for reasons of race hatred tend to assume that anything he does on domestic policy is meant to benefit only minorities; they are too blind to know that the ACA ultimately benefits all Americans.
Why would anyone oppose something that citizens in every other civilized country take for granted? Why should the U.S.—allegedly the “greatest” country in the world—deny a significant portion of its population health care simply because they are poor? Who are these people who would fight such an ethical and moral imperative? Do these people have any sense of right or wrong? Are they have a touch of evil in their beings, their hate so great? Do Republican lawmakers have this master of the plantation mentality, with health care benefits a matter of one’s “class” and social station?
And what of the news media? Why is the media not looking out for the best interests of the people? Why is it not exposing the fact that Republicans never offered any worthwhile alternative, and media has not made that an issue? Why are they not speaking to people who have benefited from the ACA? Why have they not contrasted the conditions of people who had no health insurance before, and with health insurance now? Why are Republicans being allowed to hide behind the tax and budget issue, instead of being forced to reveal their inhumanity?