Saturday, March 31, 2012

The Affordable Healthcare Act and the Supreme Court

.
The Affordable Health Care Act (AHA), signed into law in 2010, was modeled closely after the Massachusetts Health Care act that ensured health coverage for most, if not all, state citizens. Mitt Romney, as governor of Massachusetts, believed that everyone should have some affordable insurance provided by the state if people could not afford or do not have health coverage. President Barack Obama, with the help of the writers and designers of the Massachusetts health insurance law, designed and developed the Affordable Health Care Act for an entire nation.
.
Republicans were quick to label the AHA "Obamacare" as an insulting negative slur, only to realize that brother Romney also had passed and signed into law the same mandate in Massachusetts (Romneycare, anyone?). What Republicans do not want of this new law is to share in the benefits what they have been using since the Nixon administration. Politicians such as Boehner, Cantor, McConnel, Issa, Bush, and the rest have always taken advantage of free federal health care. It would not surprise anyone to know that even Cheney uses the free federal health care more than Limbaugh abuses Oxycontin.
.
Cheney recently had a heart transplant, surpassing other younger patients waiting for an organ transplant. According to the American Medical Association (AMA), younger and more healthy patients have precedence to receive organ transplants first over older patients (usually in their mid 60's and older) regardless of wealth and status. This rule by the medical community was to insure that those with a better chance of survival would benefit greatly for themselves and their family. Apparently, rules do not apply to Republicans, especially Cheney. Obviously Cheney used the free "socialist" health Care paid for by tax payers and is now enjoying a heart he cut in line for. One has to wonder, how much was his deductible? Oh yeah! It was FREE!
.
When "Obamacare" was enacted into law, some states implemented it on schedule or early, mostly in blue states with unheralded success. Red states continue to hold back with Texas being the last state to (yet) enact the law. Red states have challenged the AHA's constitutionality as a reason to not implement it, not admitting to the public that the AHA's intent is to curb insurance companies from raising their rates, denying coverage, or dropping customers because they got sick or injured. So much for the "helping hands"! If Cheney was a regular client with insurance some Americans have, he would have been dropped after his third heart attack.
.
Now, we reach the culmination of the lawsuit challenge in the Supreme Court, and Republicans are quick to pounce on four of the justices as being "activist" in their decisions. One did not realize that Republicans were also mind readers! After days of hearing arguments. it was reported that five of the "conservative" justices, all of whom were appointed by Republican presidents (excluding Justice Sotomayor who was appointed by Dub'ya), are ready to invalidate the AHA law entirely despite 71% of public support in favor of the law. It seems there are "activist" justices on the Supreme Court bench after all: Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, John G. Roberts, Antonin Scalia, and Anthony M. Kennedy as a swing vote justice.
.
According to the Code of Conduct of United States Judges (this includes Supreme Court justices), each justice must adhere to the five Canons under the code of conduct. One particular Canon states "A judge should perform the duties of the office fairly, IMPARTIALLY, and diligently", (click on the link: http://www.uscourts.gov/RulesAndPolicies/CodesOfConduct/CodeConductUnitedStatesJudges.aspx ).
.
Although it may seem that the five listed justices are poised to strike down the AHA law entirely, it only raises the question of ethics and impartiality each one has sworn to uphold as Supreme Court justices. What does it say about the Republican party that wants to deny affordable coverage to all Americans and keep it for themselves? Is this truly a matter of looking after the best interests of the people, or to the best interests of the health insurance industry?
.
According to one of the justices (Scalia) who opined the mandate as forcing people to buy the coverage is akin to forcing people to eat broccoli, what does it say about the "forced" requirement that people buy car insurance? Obviously it makes sense for people to get car insurance because you cannot buy or use a vehicle without some form of liability. However, you cannot buy a house without house or home owner's insurance. Maybe it was applied to "mobile" homes but was mandated for all forms of homes. Gotta have property insurance when you open a business; it's "mandated" by banks as well as local and state laws.
.
If Republicans want you to believe there are "activist" justices, they are correct. They are: John G. Roberts, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito with Anthony M. Kennedy as the deciding justice.

No comments:

Post a Comment