Preston Clive
2
All posts from Preston Clive
Preston Clive in Preston Clive - THE IRRITATED AMERICAN, Wielding The Digital Hatchet,

A Nasty Attack On Well Meaning Policy


Impartial? What's that, some sort of flowery liberal orchid you wanta plant in my brain? BAILIFF!! Get him outa here! (imgarcade) 

by Preston Clive

Here we go again, the Democrats are surely thinking in congress, as the conservative nasties in the government and on the elite sidelines of the world seek to take back their tax money which goes to helping sick people stay alive. 

How so? The Supreme Court is hearing opening oral arguments today vis a vis the King v. Burwell case, wherein the representative qualities of the English language are as much on trial as the Affordable Care Act, AKA Obamacare. The case, which gets down into the guts of the legislation's language and sticks a pistol to its temple demanding "Identify yourself simply and quickly for the record or you die, NOW!" essentially revolves around a couple of lousy words in the bill: those words are “established by the state.

The case, brought as a second attempt to blast Obamacare out from under itself (after the first attempt in 2012 was a flat out challenge to the governmental authority to even write the law in the first place), seeks to distinguish between the online marketplaces that exist within states that maintain their own exchanges, and the rest of the folks in the nation who simply "purchase health care."

Why? I'll let Bloomberg explain it in simple concise language:

The (Obamacare) statute says people qualify for credits when they buy insurance on an exchange “established by the state.” Those four words matter because only about one-third of the states have set up exchanges, with the rest relying on the federal healthcare.gov system. The challengers contend that the people who buy on the federal exchange can’t claim the subsidies.

The group behind the suit, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, describes itself as an advocate for limited government and individual liberty. According to the Washington Post, the group’s financial supporters include companies tied to Charles and David Koch, the billionaire brothers who fund conservative causes.

Since we allowed Bloomberg to explain for the attackers, I'll let them explain for the defenders:

What is the administration’s argument?

The administration says the disputed phrase is a term of art that includes a federally facilitated exchange. U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli urges the court to look beyond the “established by the state” wording to the rest of the act and its broad purpose of providing coverage to tens of millions of uninsured Americans.

Verrilli says Congress designed the law with the goal of offering tax credits nationwide and argues that no member of Congress suggested otherwise during the debate over the measure, which is President Barack Obama’s biggest legislative initiative.

To any sane individual, this exercise in semantic hairsplitting is positively preposterous and utterly anti-American. The billionaires who dearly do not wish to part with their money and contribute to the fabric of this nation's health--preferring to let them get sick and rot on the vine and reduce further the tax burden on the national bottom line--know that the intention of the law was to provide care for all Americans, not just to those Americans who resided in those states that had erected their own marketplace-exchanges. They are like a caged prisoner who each afternoon goes out into the prison environs beyond their cell to examine their surroundings for vulnerable spots, weak zones, undefended areas. Anything that suggests the possibility of escape will be closely examined, commiserated about with like-minded souls, and if shown to be promising, acted against. Any breach or weakness will be attacked to free the unwilling, wealthy participant to American taxation to assist the needy.

These greedy and selfish men are ready willing and absolutely guiltlessly desirous to upend the entire health care system of the United States, and leave a countless number of practitioners and providers with unpaid bills if the case is reversed on this most absurd of technicalities and the presently-insured suddenly find themselves without coverage as a result of the decisions of 9 politically appointed, robed, philosopher kings I mean Supreme Court justices. All for the savings of some tax dollars, needed a lot less than the affordable care desperately required by the countless millions of Americans living on the margins, who these same billionaires often refuse to offer benefits to via their corporations that they staff with contractors, 1099's and freelancers. Not to mention the unemployed.

The court is hearing oral arguments today, and the decision is expected in June of this year, towards the end of that month.

Until then, don't lose your lunch while thinking about the possibility of Justice Roberts facilitating a monstrous disaster in the industry of coverage providers. You can grind Rolaids and Tums and use them in dressings, mix them into salt and pepper, and spruce up all manner of sauces and sautees with them.  

Preston Clive

3/4/2015***