Skip to main content

View Diary: Answer to anti-Obamacare decision? Medicare for all (171 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  That's preposterous (18+ / 0-)

    Why haven't they struck down Medicare?  There's no constitutional principle that you could invoke for Medicare for all that wouldn't apply for the current program.

    The block to Medicare for All is in the White House and the Senate Democratic caucus, not the SCOTUS.  Obama only paid lip service to the public option, but dealt it away secretly at the beginning of health care reform negotiations.  And as you've been fond of pointing out, he's never been for single payer.  So he's part of the problem, not part of the solution.

    When Free Speech is outlawed, only outlaws will have Free Speech.

    by Dallasdoc on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 11:29:38 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  A conservative majority on this court have proven (5+ / 0-)

      time and again and they care not for precedent. This may be part of a long term vision to gut the New Deal. Scalia has shown himself capable of talking out of both sides of his mouth in a single day. Monday he argued both that Arizona's immigration law SB 1070 trumped federal authority over immigration policy ans that federal law trumped Montana's century old campaign finance laws. If Roberts wants to get rid of Medicare he will find a way to do it. He was plenty of helpers on the Court.

      If the Court felt bound by precedent then why did they rule as expansively in Citizen's? If Obama were to support single payer and convince Congress likewise it still may be in danger from this Court. They are unelected and have shown such arrogance (especially Scalia and Thomas) that no public pressure short of impeachment is going to move them. And that means a New Deal era Congress of overwhelming Democratic majorities. Or trying to force out Scalia and Thomas like Republicans forced out Abe Fortas in the 60's

      •  An useless hypothetical (13+ / 0-)

        A possible rogue Court decision can be used to excuse inaction on all sorts of worthwhile issue pursuits.  Until a decision puts the Constitutional underpinning for Medicare at risk, it's entirely groundless speculation.  

        For that matter, why bother campaigning for Democrats?  SCOTUS might just rule against anything they might pass.  That's how empty an argument this is.

        When Free Speech is outlawed, only outlaws will have Free Speech.

        by Dallasdoc on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 12:04:35 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  It is not an empty argument when it is (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          backed up by facts. Which I notice you fail to do. Can you convince me that this court has not shown a disregard for precedent and not handed down rulings based on naked political gain like in Citizen's United? It ceases to be hypothetical after it happens. And it already has happened.

          •  Not everything is pro- or anti-Obama (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            surfbird007, Alumbrados

            Just because that appears to be the lens through which you view politics, doesn't mean you're getting a clear picture.  Even the RATS will require some threadbare legal justification for their political rulings.

            Can you suggest anything they've ruled on that would indicate they can rule that Medicare is unconstitutional?  To make such a claim, the burden of producing facts is on you, not me.

            When Free Speech is outlawed, only outlaws will have Free Speech.

            by Dallasdoc on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 12:38:54 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Ask Me Tomorrow... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Can you suggest anything they've ruled on that would indicate they can rule that Medicare is unconstitutional?
              .....if they overturn the mandate tomorrow based on a "principle" (inactivity vs activity) that was first seen in print in 2009 then FUCK YEAH I think that is STRONG indication that they'll manufacture ANY justification they need out of whole cloth.  (Just as they did in Dec 2000)

              They are at best only one vote away from an indication that NOTHING is off-limits if they think the stakes are right.  Let's just hope like hell there is still that one vote difference

    •  It's the source of funding (11+ / 0-)

      There would be no question of the constitutionality if it was funded by a tax, rather than a mandate to buy an insurance policy from a private company.

      •  Exactly (0+ / 0-)

        Change the mandate to a voucher for the cost of private insurance, and there's no problem at all.

        You're not FORCED to buy anything. You get GIVEN it, if you want to use it, that's up to you.

        You'd be a fool NOT to use it. And it could be set up that if you don't specify what insurer you want (from a list of approved vendors), you'll get assigned one.

        If you want somebody else, you pay the difference between the value of the voucher and what the plan costs.

        Or you get one of the approved plans and you buy your own supplemental coverage. Which you know will be offered as soon as they can figure out what people will buy.

      •  And the source of funding is the difficulty (0+ / 0-)

        If we are having this much trouble letting the Bush tax cuts expire on their own, then I'm not sure how exactly we're going to raise taxes on everyone to fund Medicare for all.  Last time Clinton raised taxes by a little bit, he almost got impeached.  

        And frankly, I don't think that's going to fly with the majority of the population, at least not until the uninsured situation gets a lot worse.  Everyone who has employer sponsored insurance is going to be pissed about having to pay more taxes for a health care plan that they don't want/need.  The current people on Medicare are going to be pissed about having 20 year olds getting the same benefits that they've paid into their whole lives.  

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site