Oh my, what, oh, what, will the Supreme Court decide -- 5 to 4, as usual -- when the tortured health insurance reform bill comes for its "Constitutional" test? Any MeanMesa visitor who is actually wondering what the "corporate servants" disguised as Justices (and, one Chief Justice, of course) will decide should rush to buy some stock in the Mubarak regime before it's too late.
On the truly athletic, "fun" side of the "judicial" maneuverings, we see that the issue has been irretrievably submerged deep under the surface of the morass of the Commerce Clause. Naturally, the hope was, once these obstacles became too thready and academic for the horde of AM radio hill billies driving the debate's frenzy, the "unconstitutional" label would overwhelm the "commerce clause" label, simplifying the question to a handy, seven syllable "one liner."
"Gov'met cont'ol o' heth keare"
The remainder of the carefully crafted conclusions were, once repeated five times a day on the radio, month and weary month, gradually transformed into "stone law" and equally ossified, "undeniable truths" and, in fact, probably in "th'Bauhbul" itself. Once this "milestone of public opinion" had been "unearthed" by the Bachmann Beckettes, the impenetrable haze of good old Southern anti-intellectualism was finally -- and firmly -- in place.
The final ingredient for this fetid recipe would be the solicitous inclusion of a couple of nice crackers masquerading as judge somewhere South of the Mason Dixon line. No problem. Introducing Florida Federal Judge Robert "We know whut the facts is" Vinson. Judge Vinson can now take his well lubricated ($) place beside another monument to Southern Justice ($), Virginia Judge Henry "17th Century Discoverer of New Worlds to Conquer" Hudson.
As far as these Federal Judges and their carefully derived decisions about Constitutionality go, who cares. They are simply anonymous faces peering through a truly stinky episode of oligarchic tantrum throwing. If it hadn't been these two, it would have been two others.
After all, cash is cash. When the billionaires say "Jump," these bench monkeys ask only "How high."
Anticipating the oligarchic sympathy soon to be expressed by the 5 "Free Market Justices" -- Chief Justice Roberts being the salient case with murmers of conflict of interest even before his nomination was confirmed, and, BTW, conflict of interests with ... wait for it, wait for it ... an insurance corporation in one of his lower court cases -- should be child's play ($) by this point. Old habits, quite clearly, die hard.
The odor of this latest "judicial" attack on affordable health care has a familiar stench. It is the same gaseous cloud which we noted in the Senate.during the agonizing, year long debate. Remarkably, the entire affair is an outrageous attack on free markets and capitalism. Of course, there is no need to even so much as pause with that proclamation as one patriotically chants about socialism and the founding fathers.
Oh come on, now. Founding fathers?
Yes! Founding fathers who would most likely just write off this embarrassment as nothing more than another case of the market crookery they cited while justifying our Revolutionary War. MeanMesa geezer ranting? Hardly. Let's take another look at the big picture.
The American people can see examples of the health care which they wish to buy right in front of their eyes. There is a long list of countries, many with economies far weaker than ours, which have universal, single payer health care. These programs have significantly better health outcomes than the rolling "cancer Capitalism" in play here. The programs in these competitive countries are quite affordable, costing half, or even less than half, of the price we pay for a seriously shabbier product.
The kind of crappy health care we have in this country is illegal in most of our national competitors.
However, the message from the Senate and the message from these dirty-shirt judges may as well be sung in a chorus, soon to be a prelude to the song of the Supremes -- and we ain't talking Diana Ross, here.
"You are not to be allowed to buy what you want."
"This is not a free market issue. You Americans have no right to demand that the health care market offer what you want. You will buy what we supply, at the prices we ask, and then you will shut up. If you can't afford it, tough. We might be willing to take massive tax money payments to offer a little something so long as the profits are high enough. Whatever happens, don't expect us to compete with other countries. We don't have to. We get to decide what 'free enterprise' means, and it doesn't have anything to do with what the market might want."
Now, after the ranting and raving, things seem to be drifting to a negative state -- yes, a "frowny face." MeanMesa simply hates to go to one of these depressing places with complaints alone. We must propose a solution, and here it is.
The "Constitutional" crisis being so meat handedly exploited by the Florida Judge has everything to do with 2014 "mandate" requiring everyone to either buy health insurance from a nice for-profit firm or pay a fine. Surprisingly, this development contains not only the foundational problem, but also the solution.
The matter will only require a tad bit of re-framing. The citizen who is presently not burdened by the "mandate" actually enjoys the service of an emergency room if he needs it. We all know this. When the 2014 provisions come into effect, we must consider the fine imposed for having no health insurance to be the price of this guaranteed access to emergency room care.
When anyone demands that he can not be compelled to Constitutionally participate in the national health care system, that is, neither buy insurance nor pay the mandate fine, he must simply sign an agreement to permanently waive his emergency room access unless he pays for it before hand. Perhaps he might have a small tatoo with some insignia of pure Libertarianism placed on the base of his thumb which will serve to identify him as an ideological "do not resuscitate" should he ever wind up at the door of an emergency room while unconscious.
Problem solved. Everyone else who wants to be able to pay for rational health care insurance will be free to do so. The tattered minority who think that option violates their rights can lay screaming and unattended on the curb where the ambulance calls. Most of us think that we already have the right to buy health care without the corporate "gang rape" being so cynically defended by the Senate and the Courts. For those others who think such a prospect a grave intrusion on their rights, there's always the curb.
See? Everybody wins.
The "Constitutional" crisis being so meat handedly exploited by the Florida Judge has everything to do with 2014 "mandate" requiring everyone to either buy health insurance from a nice for-profit firm or pay a fine. Surprisingly, this development contains not only the foundational problem, but also the solution.
 |
| (art/image source) |
The matter will only require a tad bit of re-framing. The citizen who is presently not burdened by the "mandate" actually enjoys the service of an emergency room if he needs it. We all know this. When the 2014 provisions come into effect, we must consider the fine imposed for having no health insurance to be the price of this guaranteed access to emergency room care.
When anyone demands that he can not be compelled to Constitutionally participate in the national health care system, that is, neither buy insurance nor pay the mandate fine, he must simply sign an agreement to permanently waive his emergency room access unless he pays for it before hand. Perhaps he might have a small tatoo with some insignia of pure Libertarianism placed on the base of his thumb which will serve to identify him as an ideological "do not resuscitate" should he ever wind up at the door of an emergency room while unconscious.
Problem solved. Everyone else who wants to be able to pay for rational health care insurance will be free to do so. The tattered minority who think that option violates their rights can lay screaming and unattended on the curb where the ambulance calls. Most of us think that we already have the right to buy health care without the corporate "gang rape" being so cynically defended by the Senate and the Courts. For those others who think such a prospect a grave intrusion on their rights, there's always the curb.
See? Everybody wins.
No comments:
Post a Comment