A
stronger prescription for what ails health care
“In arguments before the Supreme Court this week,
the Obama administration might have done just enough to keep the Affordable
Care Act from being ruled unconstitutional. Those who believe in limited
government had better hope so, at least. “
“If
Obamacare is struck down, the short-term implications are uncertain.
Conservatives may be buoyed by an election-year victory; progressives may be
energized by a ruling that looks more political than substantive. The long-term
consequences, however, are obvious: Sooner or later, a much more far-reaching
overhaul of the health-care system will be inevitable…”
“…Our only choice is to try to hold
the costs down. President Obama tried to make a start with a modest approach
that works through the current system. If this doesn’t pass constitutional
muster, the obvious alternative is to emulate other industrialized nations that
deliver equal or better health-care outcomes for half the cost.
I’m talking about a single-payer health-care system. If the
Supreme Court strikes down Obamacare, a single-payer system will go from being
politically impossible to being, in the long run, fiscally inevitable.
Cassi Creek:
We’ve reached
the point where the decision will be made.
Constitutional or non-Constitutional, The SCOTUS is slated to tell us in
June of this year. It is guaranteed that
the presidential election will be impacted by the court’s decision. The 2000 election keeps coming to mind, when
an election was decided by what was a stacked court that has now become even
more stacked.
If the Court
decides against the Affordable Care Act, there is bound to be a huge up-roar as
the positive benefits of the law as currently in place are rapidly withdrawn
from insured citizens by the insurance companies that opposed those benefits
from the start for the dent they once left in corporate profits.
Failure to
confirm the ACA would leave a huge pool of angry voters willing to let the GOP
taste their anger in November. They will
rightfully blame the teavangelists and the GOP main-line incumbents for their
sudden loss of those benefits. The
Democrats, having done little to focus the blame where it belongs for the last
three years, will be in a good position if they can only begin to act like
legislators concerned for the most good to the nation rather than as pawns of
the insurance industry.
The Democrats
had a back-up, single-payer, universal Medicare for all citizens. The GOP\teavangelists have no replacement for
ACA and no backup plan. The eventual
outcome will be a single payer tax-supported health plan similar to Canada’s,
France’s, or dozens of other industrialized nations.
I find myself
torn. Rejection and overturn of ACA will
result in loss of insurance, bankruptcy, and even loss of life. All of this can and should be heaped on the
GOP in November. Then, after a period of
chaos, the Congress will reluctantly do what should have been done previously;
institute a national single payer insurance plan. At some point, we will wisely realize that
the way to budget cuts is to boot the health insurance companies from the
control and profits they now exercise.
On the other
hand, if ACA is not overturned we will slowly and with great interference from
the teavangelists, finalize those portions of ACA not yet in effect. We will not move toward single-payer national
health insurance, and the insurance companies will remain in the revenue stream
they now enjoy.
We need to
get rid of for-profit health care. If physicians
opt out, too bad. The really good ones
will remain in practice. We need to
establish single payer national health care supported by universal taxation.
Which way will
the SCOTUS go? Which way do I hope they
go? I can’t honestly say this
morning.
Shabbat Shalom!
No comments:
Post a Comment