.. of this week's two SCOTUS decisions.
*runs away and hides as differing views will likely come to the fore*
I'm pretty sure we could handle this without too much hostilities, we seem to be rational, calm bunch overall.
Our SCOTUS has remained (surprisingly) slightly left-of-center, despite the conservative's best efforts to move it decidely to the right. Chief Justice Roberts has shown some balls.
Satire at the Huff Post!???!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/douglas-anthony-cooper/gop-fires-chief-justice-r_b_7666536.html
That's a great article. :)
I have a theory that says if nobody is happy with a deal, then the price was probably about right. Following that line of thinking, I don't think the populace is particularly happy with our cobbled-together-mess called ObamaCare, but I expect it's as good as we're going to get for a while.
I agree. What we had before really sucked if you were on the wrong side of a corporate policy. When my wife and I got married she was immediately booted off her parents insurance and we were not able to get her any health insurance due to her having a pre-existing condition (pregnancy). There was a gaping hole that was very easy for a typical person to fall into -- literally tens of millions of people were not able to get coverage.
About gay marriage, we either live in a secular society with religious freedom or we don't. This really parallels the restrictions on interracial marriage we had in the early to mid twentieth century. Back then those appose to interracial marriage sited religious reasons as well.
Quote from: rcjordan on June 26, 2015, 07:41:30 PM
I have a theory that says if nobody is happy with a deal, then the price was probably about right. Following that line of thinking, I don't think the populace is particularly happy with our cobbled-together-mess called ObamaCare, but I expect it's as good as we're going to get for a while.
That's a great summary. Some major opponents of Obamacase in the GOP have been shifting in the last half year to say that it is wrongheaded to try to repeal simply Obamacare without offering a solution of their own. They recognize the healthcare issue in America is huge and not going away and just saying "No" is not enough. So they've basically put it back on their Republican colleagues and said "Look, Obamacare will not go away until we come up with something better to replace it." So finally, the GOP is taking an adult approach to health care and this last decision from the court made it clear that the "burn it down" legal approach is not going to be viable.
It might be too late for the 2016 campaign (I don't know; I'm not policy wonk), but I think this decision means we'll start to see some creativity from the GOP and that will force the Democrats to get creative too and for everyone to put some serious thought into how we expand health care with breaking the bank. All systems, whether the completely screwed up job-based healthcare in the US or the govt-based systems elsewhere, will come under incredible pressure as Boomers age and start coming down with Alzheimer's and other high-cost chronic diseases. Every country is going to need to get creative and practical about what works and what doesn't. I think the series of court decisions says "You can't wish this problem away. You're going to have to roll up your sleeves and get busy."
I haven't read the decisions so I don't know the legal reasoning behind the decisions (yes it matters.) But both were good calls as too the final results. Now maybe as a nation we can finally move on and pay attention to things like war or peace, too big to fail investment banks, foreign policy, corporatists, and other very vital things we keep somehow avoiding.
I sure hope so Brad.
>know the legal reasoning
Gimmee the bulleted points when you do. I'm being quizzed here and am too lazy to dig 'em out.
re: conservative Right
I have been caught off-guard by the national backlash over the Confederate flag after the Charleston church killings. I personally think that camouflage clothing or some of the retired military bumper stickers can be as much a racist symbol as an old war flag, but I'll only shrug if it has to go. Whatever happens to the symbols, the attention being given to it can only be good for the nation. I'm seeing more than a few headlines directly connecting the dots between the near-extremist Republican/Tea Party political agendas and events like Charleston. I'm hopeful that this will continue.
As for the gay marriage ruling, SCOTUS did make a good call --but, IMO, the best part is that it will mandate separating a state's governmental policy from a thinly-veiled religious objection. The Silent Majority has been too successful over the last 4 decades at co-mingling (Christian) religion and government.
This is worth reading: Justice Kennedy's closing paragraph, writing for the majority on gay marriage -
Quote"No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were. As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization's oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right."
>There was a gaping hole that was very easy for a typical person to fall into -- literally tens of millions of people were not able to get coverage.
I'm very surprised that Republicans don't see that not allowing people to buy insurance through the government (pre-ACA -- "Obamacare") didn't/ don't see that it stops many people from starting their own businesses.
I've always been surprised that this isn't a major conservative issue for the reason you mention (obstacle to starting a small business) and because it places an onerous burden on larger businesses that do provide health care coverage. There's the old saw they used to say about General Motors: GM is a health care company that makes a few cars.
What we have now manages to be anti-worker and anti-business at the same time. If I were trying to think of the stupidest way to distribute health care, I would come up with something like what we have in the US. Actually having a law that would make it illegal for employers to provide health care would be an *improvement* in our case (because it would bring down the cost of insurance on the open market for most individuals, level the playing field and expose people to the idiocy that is our system).
In my own case, looking at losing the health insurance benefits that my wife's job provided, at the age of 52 I just took my first corporate job in my life. If not for the health insurance issue and pre-existing conditions in our families, neither my brother nor I would have corporate jobs, but now we both do and will at least until we find out who is elected in 2016 and what their stance on health insurance is.
Quote from: grnidone on July 01, 2015, 02:59:31 PM
>There was a gaping hole that was very easy for a typical person to fall into -- literally tens of millions of people were not able to get coverage.
I'm very surprised that Republicans don't see that not allowing people to buy insurance through the government (pre-ACA -- "Obamacare") didn't/ don't see that it stops many people from starting their own businesses.
I've read that part of the reason why some manufacturing jobs moved to Canada from the United States is because companies like GM could save in employee costs due to Canada's national health care.
>pre-existing conditions, 52
I think everyone ends up with pre-existing conditions if they live long enough. I'd guess that about half the population in their fifties would qualify.
Quote from: littleman on July 01, 2015, 03:45:53 PM
I think everyone ends up with pre-existing conditions if they live long enough. I'd guess that about half the population in their fifties would qualify.
In my brother's case, cancer. He was paying $18,000 per year with a $10,000 deductible and given some minor but expensive issues with another family member, that really meant $42,000/year in healthcare (premium + deductible + copays until out of pockets mins are met). When a client whose company he really admired and who was hiring him at least a couple of days a week offered a full-time job, he folded his consultancy. I once got a 3-hour ride from the airport with one of his clients who said he was one of the best consultants in his field... If not for healthcare issues, he would probably be employing people now instead of being an employee.