ObamaCare: The White Elephant Is Still In The Room
Filed Under: Opinion, Politics | Posted: 03/25/2012 at 7:24PM
Comments | Region: United States
There has been much publicized in the mainstream media this weekend about the upcoming Supreme Court review of the controversial (and much contested) bill passed by the Obama Administration during the first year of his four year term in office.
Nothing much has changed.
The white elephant is still in the room…the United States Constitution.
This legislation not only flies in the face of that historic document and beacon of freedom in America.
It desecrates it.
Somehow, I find it rather odd that this legislation was passed at all. It also seems so very strange that it would be a black, "Constitutional" lawyer who would be behind this legislation, and his party "of the people."
Almost seems like it was ordained that way before the election was even held.
What better way to attempt to fool and re-educate the public that this bill will be one which the people will benefit, by a party supposedly known to be more representative of the people, than the Republicans – the party of corporate America.
Just who will benefit from this legislation….hmmm…
The medical community. The insurance and financial sector. The lawyers. The politicians.
The big four.
Who will be the victims?
The American public.
I listened today while some of those "political analysts" spoke of just how difficult this review would be, and how both sides can see it going either way. Using every tool in their arsenal in order to back up the positive merits of this legislation.
Which, way back when, was presented to the public with a carrot and stick.
The carrot? No insurer can refuse to insure those with pre-existing conditions (no mention of any governmental regulation on just how MUCH those insurers then can charge individuals seeking insurance after a death sentence diagnosis, or chronic illness, or on the level of profits and money those insurers will be making hand over fist if Washington can shore up the "search and seizure" portions of the bill which enforcement of that individual mandate will involve).
Affording 21-25 year olds to be covered under their parents insuance was another (although many now get their health care through their schools or jobs and health care for the young is relatively cheap to begin with). That was another carrot.
The stick? The entire bill, and most of its provisions including the individual mandate.
Many of the Democrats and Republicans keep citing the "commerce clause" as being the fundamental linchpin in whether or not this legislation will eventually be deemed Constitutional.
Using past "judge made case law" as their argument as precedence.
I’ve got news for those media pundits, lawyers and others who continue to murky those waters.
The Commerce clause as it was written was intended to protect the individual Americans FROM the corporate, and protect state funded industries from "foreign" (outside the U.S.) or domestic (outside the state) undue competitition across state lines.
Meaning, it is the clause that gives Washington the power to "regulate" those insurance companies, huge medical clinics, and health care networks.
Problem is, due to all the monies Washington has poured into the "tech" industry, including medical technology, unfortunately the mindset seems to be that it is now the American people that will need to pay the piper for Washington’s past largesse.
Since so many Americans are living longer (although those actuarial tables have changed little the past three decades) or due to the fact that there will be a larger aging public with the baby boomers, than there was with the World War II generation (if we all don’t die from starvation, or homelessness first).
The Commerce clause gives Washington the power to "mandate" that Americans (individually) must purchase health insurance OR ELSE?
The insurance sector is also simply another branch of Wall Street and the financial sector. And many of those national insurance companies are not even domiciled in the United States, those "free trade" agreements have become so generous to foreign countries the past thirty years.
I see that individual mandate as one included in order to gradually phase out Medicare over time and turn the entire "life and death" decisions over to insurance companies (foreign or domestic).
Without having to give any of those monies the boomers, especially, have paid into that program over the years since 1964.
Another banner year in legislation.
While then also raising the Social Security age at the same time in order to marginalize as many of the boomers under those programs as possible.
My question, though, is this…
How in the world does Washington believe or expect that Americans, especially those over 40, who are now homeless AND jobless (due to the mortgage mess, and tax credits now given for hiring younger workers to those national corporations) will be able to afford to buy health insurance, no matter what the price.
When their unemployment is running out, and the job market shrinking (except those jobs which would be created by passing this legislation in the public sector (enforcement) and private sector (a few insurance agents, since most of those "cut rate" programs will be "buy online," without involvement of a human, I assure you).
Just how can Washington justify this legislation, given that in many states throughout the nation those older workers contributed to both the building, and budgets of those hospitals through their property taxes, and the tuition for those doctors through also those same property taxes at local universities?
Except, of course, for all those foreign doctors who are being trained in U.S. medical schools from India and South America, for lower wages for those corporate health care networks.
Will Washington be putting all those homeless and jobless Americans who do not or cannot comply with the mandate in the privatized state or federal jails, in order to at least make their revolt beneficial to another corporate campaign donor.
The White Elephant lives on…still.
If this law is upheld by some legal slight of hand by those black robed arbiters of Constitutional understanding (using case law, rather than intent, as their standard) – do Americans who have contributed to Medicare since 1964 get their money back so that they can pay those cut rate premiums?
Or the Social Security that won’t be collected by all those boomers who are not wealthy enough after this past ten year economic tsunami given to their next of kin as suvivor’s benefits?
I hope that is also deliberated this week.
The "taking" of the cash for fraudulent purposes, without refund.