The Fight Over Obamacare Was a Giant Political Charade
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/the_fight_over_obamacare_was_a_giant_pol
itical_charade_20150702/
Posted on Jul 2, 2015
By Sonali Kolhatkar
Arina P Habich / Shutterstock
When the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on June 25 that the Affordable Care Act's
(ACA) subsidies for health insurance for the poor were indeed
constitutional, liberals cheered. The last-ditch attempt by the right to gut
President Obama's signature act failed. In his weekly address, Obama
triumphantly announced that "after more than fifty votes in Congress to
repeal or weaken this law; after a Presidential election based in part on
preserving or repealing this law; after multiple challenges to this law
before the Supreme Court, we can now say this for certain: the Affordable
Care Act still stands, it is working, and it is here to stay."
The case at the heart of the ruling was King v. Burwell, a legal challenge
that was based on a technicality. The Los Angeles Times explained that legal
experts saw it "as a fatuous misreading of the law and a tortured effort to
bend the process of statutory interpretation for ideological ends." But the
constant attacks on the ACA, including this last attempt, were less
ideological than political, and in the end, the Supreme Court ruling was an
affirmation of the supremacy of capitalism over human needs.
It is true that 6.4 million Americans currently receiving subsidies for
insurance would have lost their coverage had the court not voted to preserve
the ACA. The vote was 6-3, with conservative Chief Justice John Roberts
joining swing voter Anthony Kennedy and the four liberal stalwarts (Sonia
Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen Breyer). The fact
that Roberts voted for it, and wrote the majority opinion, speaks volumes
about what the ruling really means. According to him, "Congress passed the
Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy
them."
That single sentence clearly lays out the problem with what the right has
sardonically named "Obamacare." In voting to preserve the health care reform
law, the court sought to "improve health insurance markets," not access to
health care.
Paul Y. Song is the executive chairman of the Courage Campaign, executive
board member of Physicians for a National Health Program, and co-chair of
Campaign for a Healthy California. He told me in an interview on Uprising
that "this was really less about protecting patients and more about
protecting the health insurance industry, hospitals and all of the medical
corporations." The subsidies at stake are our tax dollars filling the
coffers of private corporations in exchange for profit-based "managed care."
Song concurred, saying, "This is less of a government-run program, but it's
a corporate bailout. It really is giving people money to buy a product from
a for-profit industry that only makes money by denying care."
The right-wing attacks on Obamacare were always about attempting to
delegitimize the president rather than the actual substance of a
pro-corporate health reform law. Indeed, Republicans long ago suggested
similar reform proposals, such as the health exchanges, to those at the
heart of the ACA. "Had anyone else proposed this," said Song, "I think the
Republicans would have said, 'Wow this is a great idea.'"
The GOP's relentless attacks on the ACA left progressives in the awkward
position of having spent the last five years defending a pro-corporate law
that the right would have ordinarily salivated over. As Michael Moore wrote
in the New York Times, "Obamacare is awful. That is the dirty little secret
many liberals have avoided saying out loud for fear of aiding the
president's enemies."
When the Supreme Court ruled to preserve the ACA, privately some Republicans
expressed relief, knowing that if 6.4 million Americans relying on subsidies
had suddenly lost them, the GOP would have paid a stiff political price.
The act of opposing the law at any cost has given Republicans legitimacy
among their right-wing supporters for targeting Obama while ultimately
getting what they want, which is a pro-corporate law. For Democrats,
supporting Obamacare has given them the appearance of caring about medical
bankruptcies and the plight of the uninsured. And Obama has won by achieving
the seemingly impossible task of passing health care reform, while also
propping up private industry. In the end, the fight over the ACA has
resulted in wins for the Republican Party, the Democratic Party, the health
insurance industry and the president.
Among the losers are Americans who remain dependent on their employers for
health insurance, and those who have bought plans from the ACA's exchanges
but pay through the nose for minimal coverage. Even plans available to those
who used to be denied them because of pre-existing conditions are expensive
and the deductibles extremely high.
Most unfortunate of all are the nearly 13 percent of Americans who remain
uninsured. Song pointed out that "the one thing that Democrats and
Republicans could agree on was to exclude our undocumented brothers and
sisters." It's no surprise that Latinos are among the least insured
communities in the nation.
Compared with the lack of regulations that the health insurance industry
used to enjoy, Obamacare has imposed some minimal limits. But in the end, it
leaves companies stronger than ever, as evidenced by the buoyancy of
insurance stocks in the aftermath of the Supreme Court ruling.
In other words, Obamacare is a win for the 1 percent, and a loss for the
rest of us.
Our health care system places an entirely needless middleman between us and
our doctors, whose sole function is to vacuum up as many dollars as possible
in the interest of capital enterprise. But if our interest is health care, a
simpler equation is in order. It goes by the innocuous name of "single-payer
health care," and it takes the elegant form of "tax dollars in, health care
out."
Given the long-drawn-out fight Obama had over a pro-corporate law secretly
favored by Republicans, he might have been better off expending his energy
on passing a Medicare-for-all bill.
Thankfully, Obamacare's provision allowing states to design their own health
care systems starting in 2017 could result in state-by-state adoptions of
single-payer systems. California has twice passed legislation that would
have established a single-payer system, only to be vetoed by Republican Gov.
Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2006 and 2009. Activists like Song are determined
to build momentum toward that end in the next two years.
As Obama, in his weekly address, said of the Supreme Court ruling, "We
strive to do better, to be better, than the generation before us, and we try
to build something better for the generation coming behind us. With this
behind us, let's come together and keep building something better right
now."
Those words ring true: Obamacare is not good enough to pass to the next
generation. It's time to build something much better.
http://www.truthdig.com/ http://www.truthdig.com/
The Fight Over Obamacare Was a Giant Political Charade
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/the_fight_over_obamacare_was_a_giant_pol
itical_charade_20150702/
Posted on Jul 2, 2015
By Sonali Kolhatkar
Arina P Habich / Shutterstock
When the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on June 25 that the Affordable Care Act's
(ACA) subsidies for health insurance for the poor were indeed
constitutional, liberals cheered. The last-ditch attempt by the right to gut
President Obama's signature act failed. In his weekly address, Obama
triumphantly announced that "after more than fifty votes in Congress to
repeal or weaken this law; after a Presidential election based in part on
preserving or repealing this law; after multiple challenges to this law
before the Supreme Court, we can now say this for certain: the Affordable
Care Act still stands, it is working, and it is here to stay."
The case at the heart of the ruling was King v. Burwell, a legal challenge
that was based on a technicality. The Los Angeles Times explained that legal
experts saw it "as a fatuous misreading of the law and a tortured effort to
bend the process of statutory interpretation for ideological ends." But the
constant attacks on the ACA, including this last attempt, were less
ideological than political, and in the end, the Supreme Court ruling was an
affirmation of the supremacy of capitalism over human needs.
It is true that 6.4 million Americans currently receiving subsidies for
insurance would have lost their coverage had the court not voted to preserve
the ACA. The vote was 6-3, with conservative Chief Justice John Roberts
joining swing voter Anthony Kennedy and the four liberal stalwarts (Sonia
Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen Breyer). The fact
that Roberts voted for it, and wrote the majority opinion, speaks volumes
about what the ruling really means. According to him, "Congress passed the
Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy
them."
That single sentence clearly lays out the problem with what the right has
sardonically named "Obamacare." In voting to preserve the health care reform
law, the court sought to "improve health insurance markets," not access to
health care.
Paul Y. Song is the executive chairman of the Courage Campaign, executive
board member of Physicians for a National Health Program, and co-chair of
Campaign for a Healthy California. He told me in an interview on Uprising
that "this was really less about protecting patients and more about
protecting the health insurance industry, hospitals and all of the medical
corporations." The subsidies at stake are our tax dollars filling the
coffers of private corporations in exchange for profit-based "managed care."
Song concurred, saying, "This is less of a government-run program, but it's
a corporate bailout. It really is giving people money to buy a product from
a for-profit industry that only makes money by denying care."
The right-wing attacks on Obamacare were always about attempting to
delegitimize the president rather than the actual substance of a
pro-corporate health reform law. Indeed, Republicans long ago suggested
similar reform proposals, such as the health exchanges, to those at the
heart of the ACA. "Had anyone else proposed this," said Song, "I think the
Republicans would have said, 'Wow this is a great idea.'"
The GOP's relentless attacks on the ACA left progressives in the awkward
position of having spent the last five years defending a pro-corporate law
that the right would have ordinarily salivated over. As Michael Moore wrote
in the New York Times, "Obamacare is awful. That is the dirty little secret
many liberals have avoided saying out loud for fear of aiding the
president's enemies."
When the Supreme Court ruled to preserve the ACA, privately some Republicans
expressed relief, knowing that if 6.4 million Americans relying on subsidies
had suddenly lost them, the GOP would have paid a stiff political price.
The act of opposing the law at any cost has given Republicans legitimacy
among their right-wing supporters for targeting Obama while ultimately
getting what they want, which is a pro-corporate law. For Democrats,
supporting Obamacare has given them the appearance of caring about medical
bankruptcies and the plight of the uninsured. And Obama has won by achieving
the seemingly impossible task of passing health care reform, while also
propping up private industry. In the end, the fight over the ACA has
resulted in wins for the Republican Party, the Democratic Party, the health
insurance industry and the president.
Among the losers are Americans who remain dependent on their employers for
health insurance, and those who have bought plans from the ACA's exchanges
but pay through the nose for minimal coverage. Even plans available to those
who used to be denied them because of pre-existing conditions are expensive
and the deductibles extremely high.
Most unfortunate of all are the nearly 13 percent of Americans who remain
uninsured. Song pointed out that "the one thing that Democrats and
Republicans could agree on was to exclude our undocumented brothers and
sisters." It's no surprise that Latinos are among the least insured
communities in the nation.
Compared with the lack of regulations that the health insurance industry
used to enjoy, Obamacare has imposed some minimal limits. But in the end, it
leaves companies stronger than ever, as evidenced by the buoyancy of
insurance stocks in the aftermath of the Supreme Court ruling.
In other words, Obamacare is a win for the 1 percent, and a loss for the
rest of us.
Our health care system places an entirely needless middleman between us and
our doctors, whose sole function is to vacuum up as many dollars as possible
in the interest of capital enterprise. But if our interest is health care, a
simpler equation is in order. It goes by the innocuous name of "single-payer
health care," and it takes the elegant form of "tax dollars in, health care
out."
Given the long-drawn-out fight Obama had over a pro-corporate law secretly
favored by Republicans, he might have been better off expending his energy
on passing a Medicare-for-all bill.
Thankfully, Obamacare's provision allowing states to design their own health
care systems starting in 2017 could result in state-by-state adoptions of
single-payer systems. California has twice passed legislation that would
have established a single-payer system, only to be vetoed by Republican Gov.
Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2006 and 2009. Activists like Song are determined
to build momentum toward that end in the next two years.
As Obama, in his weekly address, said of the Supreme Court ruling, "We
strive to do better, to be better, than the generation before us, and we try
to build something better for the generation coming behind us. With this
behind us, let's come together and keep building something better right
now."
Those words ring true: Obamacare is not good enough to pass to the next
generation. It's time to build something much better.
http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/puerto_rico_is_emptying_of_peopl
e_as_its_economy_disintegrates_20150703/
http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/puerto_rico_is_emptying_of_peopl
e_as_its_economy_disintegrates_20150703/
http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/puerto_rico_is_emptying_of_peopl
e_as_its_economy_disintegrates_20150703/
http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/nyc_restaurant_per_se_settles_co
mplaint_it_stiffed_waiters_20150703/
http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/nyc_restaurant_per_se_settles_co
mplaint_it_stiffed_waiters_20150703/
http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/nyc_restaurant_per_se_settles_co
mplaint_it_stiffed_waiters_20150703/
http://www.truthdig.com/arts_culture/item/a_god_in_ruins_20150703/
http://www.truthdig.com/arts_culture/item/a_god_in_ruins_20150703/
http://www.truthdig.com/arts_culture/item/a_god_in_ruins_20150703/
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/global_warming_threatens_colder_climate_
for_europe_20150703/
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/global_warming_threatens_colder_climate_
for_europe_20150703/
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/global_warming_threatens_colder_climate_
for_europe_20150703/ http://www.truthdig.com/ http://www.truthdig.com/
http://www.truthdig.com/about/http://www.truthdig.com/contact/http://www.tru
thdig.com/user_agreement/http://www.truthdig.com/privacy_policy/http://www.t
ruthdig.com/about/comment_policy/
C 2015 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.
http://www.hopstudios.com/
http://support.truthdig.com/signup_page/subscribe
http://support.truthdig.com/signup_page/subscribe
http://www.facebook.com/truthdighttp://twitter.com/intent/follow?source=foll
owbutton&variant=1.0&screen_name=truthdighttps://plus.google.com/+truthdight
tp://www.linkedin.com/company/truthdighttp://truthdig.tumblr.com/http://www.
truthdig.com/connect
