Pages Menu
TwitterRssFacebook
Categories Menu

Posted by on Mar 30, 2012 in Health | 8 comments

What will happen if the Supreme Court overturns the Affordable Care Act

If the Affordable Care Act does end up completely overturned by the Supreme Court, millions of conservatives will erupt in cries of jubilation and proceed to sprint several victory laps while emitting the most unadulterated spew of hateful gloating imaginable. Either knowingly or unknowingly, they will be cheering on the return of 2.5 million Americans under the age of 26 to the bankruptcy-fraught existence of the uninsured. They will be ululating over the millions of children who suddenly find themselves living in a country in which a congenital heart defect will preclude them from coverage under their parents’ health insurance. They will celebrate the ludicrous status quo of having our health insurance tied to the fickle, profit-driven whims of our employers because of the predatory, laughable-yet-gut-wrenchingly-depressing Wild West of the self insurance market. They will fist pump to the return of rescission, in which your insurer can refuse to pay for your chemotherapy after one of their employees — who they pay hundreds of thousands of dollars a year to comb through your medical records in search of grounds for denial of coverage– discovers that you didn’t report a previous trip to a dermatologist to treat some long-ago face acne. They will raise their glasses to the continuation of the preexisting condition. Perhaps worst of all, they will thrash about in unabashed glee over the perpetuation of a health care system that takes up a whopping, deficit-inducing 18 percent of our GDP, almost a full 10 percentage points above every other developed nation on earth; these nations have adopted either the individual mandate or a single payer system to offer health care that is far superior to the US’ by just about every available statistical metric.

And why will conservatives be so happy? Because a law that was first proposed by a conservative economist, endorsed by the utlra-right wing Heritage Foundation, and enacted by a Republican Massachusetts governor suffered the unfortunate fate of being signed by a Democratic president, and conservatives must adhere to their tribal, troglodyte modus operandi of never letting progress get in the way of offering a middle finger to their Democratic brethren. And so onward they will march, pausing long enough for Glenn Beck to refuel his acid-filled tear ducts before they continue dragging us down into the Ayn Randian dystopia that future historians will look back at in unambiguous disbelief.

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2012 The Moderate Voice
  • IndyGuy

    And they don’t have one answer or solution because they know Obma/Romney care is one in the same, which was supported by the conservatives a while back. It’s one thing to support your ideology but when it’s on the back of the middle and poor classes, that’s just repugnant!

  • zephyr

    I think an overturning might fall into the “be careful what you wish for” category for republicans. If Obama is re-elected and the congress gains more democrats, the next round of HCR could will have benefited from mistakes made in this one. Bring on the single-payer.

  • Rcoutme

    The way that our senate works, the only way that ANY significant legislation will get through is by either 1) bipartisan support (good luck getting that!) or 2) one party has 60 senators to block a filibuster.

  • DaGoat

    Actually I think the provisions of the ACA like parental coverage until age 26 and coverage for children’s per-existing conditions are the parts of the law both parties could agree on. If the Democrats are willing I could see those parts being passed piecemeal.

    Although they are true I don’t have much sympathy for the charges of playing politics, since both parties have been playing politics with this from day one. The whole Supreme Court battle comes down to the unwillingness of Democrats to call the mandate a tax, and that goes back to Obama’s campaign promise not to raise taxes on people making under 250K. Obama is a constitutional law professor for God’s sake, he knew the tightrope he was walking and tried to play it both ways.

  • zephyr

    A good article from Ezra Klein about this:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/there-was-a-reason-conservatives-once-supported-the-individual-mandate/2012/03/30/gIQAiddnlS_blog.html

    (if this screws the page up I apologize, I don’t know how to change the link)

  • dduck

    DG, yup………..

  • dduck

    Z, I agree with Ezra, thanks.

  • zephyr

    Shore thing dd.

Twitter Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com