Sorry folks, but what I see is sort of stomach turning, reading so many rushing to praise Roberts here and elsewhere. One real victor here in the short term is the for-profit insurance industry, which has got the green light to take on tens of millions of new customers, with the blessing of the government and courts. It's yet more profit for an industry that shouldn't even exist to begin with.
And yes, it's nice to see President Obama 'win' this for political reasons, but the ACA is really just a slightly modified version of what Republicans offered in 1994 as an alternative to Hillary Clinton's proposals. Remind all the Republicans of that - that ACA is simply modified from that plan and Romney's plan in MA. Because truly, that is a factual analysis.
YES. It's excellent news for millions who have no coverage at all that can they can get into the system even at reduced rates, but ultimately it supports a separate but equal type of health care, where the wealthy continue to get better care. I am more than happy that folks will be able to try and avoid being driven into destitution and agony over health issues. but it's not a fair answer. This is just a step forward.
It would have been horribly disruptive to the lives of so many if the court had decided to strike down the ACA, but ultimately I do not believe it was the welfare of the people or even the law that was Robert's concern. To me, it looks like Roberts' is playing a weird political game, sort of a twisted version of "only Nixon could go to China". I don't know what his angle is, all I know is that I still don't trust him at all. Maybe he's finding some back door way to wreck the Commerce Clause.
--------
The bottom line is, we are celebrating a continuation of a health care insurance system that's simply unethical and immoral. I know - it's better than what it was, but we owe it to ourselves not to lose sight of the bigger moral legal and ethical questions.
The purpose of health insurance is to help society as a whole deal with illnesses of the individual to prevent disruption to the society as a whole. Hopefully, it shows we've evolved past the stage where we simply leave the sick to die, as the rest of the herd moves on.
Profit need not be part of this process; the ethical conundrums that result when profit becomes a variable in the final equation of delivering health care to human beings seems to me to be morally repugnant.
Bernie Sanders is making the point, and I stand with him on this wholeheartedly in this statement he posted today.
http://www.sanders.senate.gov/...
"In my view, while the Affordable Care Act is an important step in the right direction and I am glad that the Supreme Court upheld it, we ultimately need to do better. If we are serious about providing high-quality, affordable healthcare as a right, not a privilege, the real solution to America's health care crisis is a Medicare-for-all, single-payer system. Until then, we will remain the only major nation that does not provide health care for every man, woman and child as a right of citizenship."
Bernie is right - and the ACA is a step in the right direction. But ultimate goal would be abolition of for-profit private health care, a system which must lead and does always lead to separate and unequal health care. Ethically and morally, every person [yes, even globally] deserves the same level and quality of health care - this cannot happen if some people are pampered with private plans in private hospitals.
I know, it seems like an impossible goal, but we should at least recognize that if we 'value human life', no matter what our national or political bent, we should be willing to see that health care is a basic human right.
I know, I'm a hopeless idealist, but to me making 'profit' from deciding who gets what level of care should never be a part of it.
