Conlibe: Political Blog for TRUTH in Politics.

Liberal Opinion Blog. Boston, Massachusetts. Political Democrat, Independent. Debunk Republican Lies, Misinformation

Supreme Health Care is a Beach…

So the Supreme Court decides if America will have Comprehensive Health Care coverage – or not!

U.S. Supreme Court Justices

Is that what the Supreme court is for?

Americans are now beginning to view the Supreme Court as a politicized Institution…

  • Guess it started in 2000 with Bush vs Gore when The Supreme Court gave us George Bush – cause it sure was not the people of America! It would have been better for ALL of us if the Court had stayed OUT of politics and sent the “hanging chads” BACK to the people of Florida. But I guess some justices wanted to give the job to a fellow conservative who’d then appoint more conservative judges, slanting the Court in an even more conservative direction.
  • Then there was Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito mouthing “not true” at President Obama during the 2010 State of the Union speech. Obama was publicly criticizing the high court’s ruling removing corporate campaign spending limits. May the President was wrong to criticize the court (I don’t know if this is allowed or even in good taste) but I did not like seeing Alito mouthing off to the President so I’ve lost respect for him and his opinions.

We already KNOW that Supreme Court justices are appointed largely based on their political ideology (pretend it’s based on qualifications? Dream on!) and Alito is a Republican darling. He should have been smart enough to keep his mouth shut!

Samuel Alito

According to an article in the Star Tribune, a national poll (June 2012) shows the public overwhelmingly opposes how the court functions. Only 44 percent of citizens approved of how the court is doing its job, and 60 percent thought that appointing Supreme Court justices for life is a “bad thing” because it “gives them too much power.”

The Star Tribune article argues that “Federal judges are given life tenure to insulate them from public opinion, so they can protect minority interests and basic liberties.

But how many people should it take to come up with the final word on such questions? Our highest court is so small that the views of individual justices have a distorting and idiosyncratic effect on our laws.

According to the Star Tribune article…a 19-member court – roughly the average size of a circuit court – would be ideal. Appellate circuits are often divided between liberal and conservative judges.

Yet, it is rare that one or two of those judges consistently provide the swing votes on all issues when they sit “en banc,” or as a whole. Appellate courts of this size have proved to be manageable while allowing for more diversity in their members. More important, the power of individual judges is diluted.

U.S. Supreme Court Building, Washington, DC

Of course the Supreme Court is political

Another article, this time in the Washington Post, with the headline “Of course the Supreme Court is political” notes:

  • It’s been more than 75 years since the Supreme Court overturned a piece of legislation as big as Affordable Care Act (ACA), and (the writer) can’t think of any example of the court overturning landmark legislation this big based on a principle as flimsy and manufactured as activity vs. inactivity…Overturning ACA would be a whole different kind of game changer. It would mean that the Supreme Court had officially entered an era where they were frankly willing to overturn liberal legislation just because they don’t like it.
  • Justice Clarence Thomas’s wife, Ginny Thomas, has worked for Republican congressman Dick Armey, the conservative Heritage Foundation, and a Tea Party-affiliated group called Liberty Central, which has lobbied against the health-care law.
  • Justices are increasingly selected through an intensely political process meant to insure that they don’t disappoint the party that promoted them.
  • The people who serve as judges on the Supreme Court have been vetted by political parties, have often worked for political parties, frequently have loyalties to people in political parties who helped their career, and spend much of their time in Washington, where they sort into social groups they find congenial. They are, in other words, more…political than most Americans. 

What’s the Republican answer? When you “choose” not to have Health Care Insurance then get sick – who pays? John Boehner?

Meantime, is the Health Care Law SO BAD? Or have Republicans who’ve opposed the law FROM THE BEGINNING (partly to protect their business interests) driven the debate and latched on this for their own political ends?

According to a story from news agency Reuters, an IPSOS Poll finds: Republicans have dominated the political message on healthcare with calls to “repeal and replace” the law, condemned by conservatives as a government intrusion into private industry and the lives of private citizens. It passed in March 2010 with no Republican support in Congress.

  • Fifty-six percent of people are against the healthcare overhaul and 44 percent favor it, according to the online poll conducted from Tuesday through Saturday.
  • The survey results suggest that Republicans are convincing voters to reject Obama’s reform even when they like much of what is in it, such as allowing children to stay on their parents’ insurance until age 26.
  • Sixty-one percent of Americans are against the mandate, the issue at the center of the Republicans’ contention that the law is unconstitutional, while 39 percent favor it.
  • Americans are strongly divided along partisan lines. Among Republicans, 86 percent oppose and 14 percent favor the law and Democrats back it by a 3-to-1 margin, 75 percent to 25 percent, the Reuters/Ipsos poll showed.
  • Democrats back the measure as an effort to improve the lives of Americans and essential to control spiraling costs that are undermining the country’s overall economic health. Healthcare expenditures in the United States neared $2.6 trillion in 2010, over 10 times the $256 billion spent in 1980.
  • Overall, 61 percent of Americans oppose requiring all U.S. residents to own health insurance. Among Republicans, the percentage rose to 81 percent, and it was 73 percent among independents. But a majority of Democrats – 59 percent – favor the individual mandate.
  • People who describe themselves as political independents oppose the law by 73 percent to 27 percent.

My question is: WHO PAYS?…when a person with NO insurance goes to the Hospital – or do we just turn them away and let them die?

My answer to these “Independents” is: Go ahead. Repeal the law. Then after it is repealed, let some of them get sick. Then let these anti-health-care activists lose their jobs and get a part-time job that does NOT carry health care but pays too little to afford private coverage and too much to get Medicaid. Let’s see what you’ll do now. Hope John Boehner and other Republicans in Congress will help you out, come to your home and give you a big check or drive you to some clinic that he’s paying for! 

Your stupid flimsy argument that all Americans should not be “required” to own Health Insurance — does that also come with a guarantee/stipulation that “All American hospitals and health care centers should not be “required” to treat any persons who “choose” not to carry Insurance?”

You can’t tell people – Oh, don’t have insurance – then expect them to get treated when they get sick? You’re upset because it’s like forcing people to do something? Well, Ha Holy Ha! How about NOT forcing hospitals to treat the uninsured…at YOUR expense I might add? Soon as 50-thousand non-insured people started dying every month because they/we have NO insurance – EVERYBODY would rush to get insurance. And there’d be a loud clamor for the government to pay for those who could not pay!

People are talking this nonsense because nearly everybody in America does have access to healthcare – IN ONE WAY OR THE OTHER! Many people just don’t go…

Pretty expensive sand. Which do you think will win – man or nature? My money is on nature…those ice ages were pretty impressive…for those of us who believe in science.

I saw this story on CBS about America’s shrinking beaches. They’re eroding. Experts blame stronger storms, rising sea levels, and beachfront development.

23 million people on beachfront property in America are at risk from flooding, storm surges and intense hurricanes associated with climate change. So some cities, like Ocean City, new Jersey, are building artificial sand dunes to protect the multi-million-dollar-homes. Ocean City spends $10-million every 3-years in beach preservation.

On the one hand, the Federal government has cut off millions in funding for beach maintenance but on the other hand, when storm surges damage beachfront properties — the GOVERNMENT covers the loss under it’s federal insurance programs. Government still pays…anyway!

And so it is with Health Care. THE GOVERNMENT STILL PAYS, anyway!!! Somebody’s getting that money – is it YOU?


No comments yet»

Please Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: