–Supreme Court predicted once again to vote against America

Mitchell’s laws: Reduced money growth never stimulates economic growth. To survive long term, a monetarily non-sovereign government must have a positive balance of payments. Economic austerity causes civil disorder. Those, who do not understand the differences between Monetary Sovereignty and monetary non-sovereignty, do not understand economics.

You undoubtedly know of the controversy, which now has reached the U.S. Supreme Court, over the federal requirement that people buy private insurance to qualify for benefits under the Affordable Care Act.

But you may not see why America, as a civilized nation, should have universal health care insurance, i.e. Medicare for all, paid for by the federal government. You may have been sold the Tea/Republican “self reliance” myth, where real Americans don’t need or want government help. Or were you sold the “sustainability” myth, which claims federal deficit spending is not sustainable, whatever that may mean. Or perhaps, you have been sold a bill of goods to believe the “federal finances are just like my personal finances” myth.

Aside from the fact that our Monetarily Sovereign nation can afford any spending, and aside from the fact that federal deficit spending has not caused inflation for more than 60 years, you may not know some of the benefits the new law would have provided you.

The irony is that had Congress voted to tax Americans, as it does with FICA, there would be no controversy. We have been brainwashed to accept tax payments as our requirement for being Americans. But, because Americans are being asked to pay private companies, instead of the government, there is a massive (politically motivated) hullabaloo.

One of many ironies is, paying taxes to the federal government harms the economy, while paying private insurance companies does not. Isn’t it amazing how we have been programmed to disdain our own best interests?

At any rate, a right-wing Supreme Court, that leans toward convoluted interpretations of laws meant for 16th century life, may well rule the entire law unconstitutional. Remember, this is the same court that claims corporations have the same rights as American citizens, so what can you expect?

Numbers of uninsured drop among those age 19 to 25
by: Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar | from: AARP | September 21, 2011

Two surveys released Wednesday — one by the government, another by Gallup — found significantly fewer young adults going without coverage even as the overall number of uninsured remained high.

A separate Gallup survey reported that the share of adults 18-25 without coverage dropped from 28 percent last fall to 24.2 percent by this summer. That drop translates to roughly 1 million or more young adults gaining coverage.

The government’s National Center for Health Statistics found that the number of uninsured people ages 19-25 dropped from 10 million last year to 9.1 million in the first three months of this year, a sharp decline over such a brief period.

The new health care law allows young adults to remain on their parents’ health plans until they turn 26. Previously, families faced a hodgepodge of policies. Some health plans covered only adult children while they were full-time students. Others applied an age cutoff.

Today, many people still are denied health insurance coverage:

Health Insurers Deny Coverage to Many Who Apply for Individual Policies
Denial rates of 20 percent or more are common
by: Phil Galewitz | from: Kaiser Health News | September 13, 2011 America’s Health Insurance Plans, an industry trade group, says 87% of people who apply nationally for individual coverage are offered a policy. That figure, however, includes people who are turned down for one policy but offered another that may cost more or have fewer benefits.

The federal website contains denial rates in all 50 states, the District of Columbia and U.S. Territories, and is updated periodically. The most current information is for the first three months of 2011. The data show that denial rates routinely exceed 20% and often are much higher, according to a Kaiser Health News review of 20 of the most populous states and the District of Columbia. The data reflect applications that are turned down for any reason.

The information provides fresh evidence of the challenges facing people buying individual health insurance. It also shows the likelihood of whether consumers are approved for a policy depends on which state they live in and the insurer they choose.

The new law would prohibit denial of coverage because of preexisting conditions.

Fewer lifetime limits on health insurance

The New Health Care Law and Annual and Lifetime Coverage Limits
by: Susan Jaffe | from: AARP Bulletin | August 23, 2010

Currently, more than 100 million Americans have insurance that stops when medical claims exceed their policy’s lifetime limit. On Sept. 23, lifetime limits are effectively banned for all plans that begin or are renewed after that date. Insurance companies can no longer cut off policy holders when their medical expenses reach a lifetime limit. Annual limits on coverage will be phased out over the next few years, beginning this year.

Vicki Gottlich, senior policy attorney at the Center for Medicare Advocacy in Washington, D.C., said, “There has never been a cap on the total amount of benefits for which Medicare will pay.”

The Supreme Court case, which threatens to eliminate the entire law, together with all its benefits, is entirely unnecessary. The government should not ask people to pay for health care. It should pay, ala Medicare.

Instead, a weak-kneed Obama administration “compromised” with (aka caved to) the Tea/Republicans and agreed not to seek a single payer (Medicare) option. So very soon, all you millions who now or soon would have, benefitted from the new law, may lose those benefits.

So whom do you blame? The feeble, inept Obama team, or the “defeat-Obama-no-matter-whom-it-hurts” Tea/Republicans? Either way, your life and the lives of all Americans may be made worse by a right-wing Supreme Court.

I award Congress two traitor images for putting election politics ahead of what is good for Americans.

Unpatriotic flagUnpatriotic flag

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

No nation can tax itself into prosperity, nor grow without money growth. Monetary Sovereignty: Cutting federal deficits to grow the economy is like applying leeches to cure anemia. The key equation in economics: Federal Deficits – Net Imports = Net Private Savings


16 thoughts on “–Supreme Court predicted once again to vote against America

  1. “federal deficit spending has not caused inflation for more than 60 years,” Although i support you, as the dollar is worth only 6 cents compared to 1920, something has clearly caused some inflation over that time and it can’t all be blamed on oil. I’d say it’s more accurate to state deficit spending has not caused intolerable inflation.


  2. Rodger stop blaming the Tea Party. It was just starting up when this thing was being bandied about. As you have hyperventilated about in the past, it was passed without any GOP votes. This legislation is all Democratic and all the horsetrading to get it passed was done within the Democratic caucus. End of story. Here is some actual fact rather than polls for your consideration. The administration said 400,000 a year would be signing up for this pre-existing stuff. Instead we get 30K in 1.5 years. Laughable. http://www.healthcare.gov/news/factsheets/2011/09/pcip09162011a.html


    1. Bottom line, Matt, do you consider the Affordable Care Act good for America or bad for America? The Tea/Republicans want to eliminate it. Do you agree with that?

      And please don’t say you want to change it. That’s a cop out. Everybody in America wants to change it one way or another. I want to change it to look like Medicare for everyone.

      But the Supreme Court may eliminate it, based on lawsuits by Tea/Republicans who, in fact, want it gone. Do you agree with eliminating it?

      Rodger Malcolm Mitchell


  3. The Right thinks that universal health coverage is a massive step towards socialism, as if saving lives is somehow going to lead to government ownership of all private companies.

    It must have been hard for Einstein to live in the 20th century, surrounded by so many fools.


    1. Presumably, to reduce “socialism,” they could eliminate Social Security and Medicare. Come to think of it, that is exactly the plan, as you will see.

      Unfortunately, Tea/Republicans don’t realize the war is not Right vs. Left. It’s rich vs. non-rich. The non-rich of the Right vote against their own interests.

      Rodger Malcolm Mitchell


  4. Rodger I purposely provided a government website with a specific about how horrid the legislation is. So here it is again for you. Please note this isn’t damn survey or an industry group report or a op-ed. It is a FACT.


    30K in a year and a half take the pre-existing insurance in a country of 300 million. Prices still going up. Your articles talk about increases in youth having coverage. Big deal. 26 and under don’t use health care hardly at all. I would support something like Mosler’s plan.


    1. On top of that what of the 1500 or so waivers granted (many linked to Democrats) getting out of the legislation entirely? Unions workers, McDonalds, Dish Network, etc. Why is that Rodger? Some specifics please?


    1. Matt P all you had to do was google “why health care waivers”!

      “Many of the waivers are for limited benefit or so called “mini-med” plans—controversial rock-bottom plans that provide a very limited amount of coverage (sometimes as little as $2,000 a year) to beneficiaries that are used heavily in low-wage industries like the restaurant business. New federal rules require such plans to offer a minimum of $750,000 of coverage annually, and the waivers exempt the mini-med plans from such rules on a case-by-case basis.”

      There you have it, the waivers are to prevent employers from dropping what little healthcare these employees have until the health exchanges are up and running after 2014.


      1. Fair enough. But this goes to my central point. The legislation was mainly sold as a means to get health care expenses under control. It does no such thing. Then there are areas where there appears to be scientifically less demand then advertised like the pre-exisiting stuff. Then there are things like CLASS.


  5. Matt, the site says, “The Affordable Care Act created the new Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan (PCIP) program to make health insurance available to Americans denied coverage by private insurance companies because of a pre-existing condition.”

    The program can be administered by the states or the federal government. then the site listed dates for state & federal administration.

    So what’s the “horrid” part? And what is the “scratch” in starting from “scratch”?

    Rodger Malcolm Mitchell


    1. Denial of coverage due to pre-existing conditions was one of the major selling points. The administration estimated 400K a year would need this or want this coverage. In a year and a half about 30K real people have signed up. That is horrid. It means it was either a false issue or a lie it seems to me. It would be one thing if the legislation brought down expenses but it doesn’t.

      Starting from scratch would be to get rid of it all and do something along the lines of what you wish. My original point in all of this was that Obama caved to his own big money interests and not the GOP or the tea party. I will agree in advance that the GOP will not put in place something like you desire.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s