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?
No comments:
Post a Comment