–Obamacare survives Supreme Court

Mitchell’s laws:
●The more budgets are cut and taxes increased, the weaker an economy becomes.

●Until the 99% understand the need for federal deficits, the 1% will rule.
●To survive long term, a monetarily non-sovereign government must have a positive balance of payments.
●Austerity = poverty and leads to civil disorder.
●Those, who do not understand the differences between Monetary Sovereignty and monetary non-sovereignty, do not understand economics.

==========================================================================================================================================

The decision was 5-4, with Chief Justice Roberts coming over from the dark side. As expected, the other four conservatives continued to vote against anything that would benefit the lower income 99% of Americans.

If history remembers these four at all (doubtful), it will not be in a favorable light.

Amy Howe: “In Plain English: The Affordable Care Act, including its individual mandate that virtually all Americans buy health insurance, is constitutional.

“There were not five votes to uphold it on the ground that Congress could use its power to regulate commerce between the states to require everyone to buy health insurance. However, five Justices agreed that the penalty that someone must pay if he refuses to buy insurance is a kind of tax that Congress can impose using its taxing power.

“That is all that matters.

“Because the mandate survives, the Court did not need to decide what other parts of the statute were constitutional, except for a provision that required states to comply with new eligibility requirements for Medicaid or risk losing their funding. On that question, the Court held that the provision is constitutional as long as states would only lose new funds if they didn’t comply with the new requirements, rather than all of their funding.”

[Amy Howe –Goldstein & Russell, P.C. — has served as counsel in over two dozen merits cases at the Supreme Court, including matters involving criminal law, the death penalty, the First Amendment, bankruptcy, and the Americans With Disabilities Act. She also has served as counsel in numerous petitions for certiorari, briefs in opposition, and amicus briefs. She co-teaches the Supreme Court Litigation class at Harvard Law School. She serves as the editor of SCOTUSblog.]

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty


==========================================================================================================================================
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. Two key equations in economics:
Federal Deficits – Net Imports = Net Private Savings
Gross Domestic Product = Federal Spending + Private Investment and Consumption + Net exports

#MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

14 thoughts on “–Obamacare survives Supreme Court

  1. Now, expect Congress to go into a prolonged (and phony) “How do we pay for this” hand wringing. Being Monetarily Sovereign, the U.S. can pay for anything.

    However, the Medicaid mandate for the states is troubling. The states are monetarily non-sovereign, so cannot create dollars, and they already are overburdened. The federal government should pay the full cost, and not heap more trouble onto the states.

    Bottom line: Obamacare is a step in the right direction, but the real solution would be for the federal government to pay for Medicare to cover every man, woman and child in America.

    That would eliminate the need for Medicaid, while giving Americans the coverage other civilized nations provide to their citizens.

    Like

  2. not suprised at all!

    this is a massive subsidy to the insurance industry and this Court is clearly pro-industry.

    and the republicans are just grandstanding–there’s no way they are gonna repeal it. how did it get passed anyway in a majority republican congress?

    what i do see them doing is chipping away piece-by-piece at the amount of coverage that is currently guaranteed… that way, their friends in the insurance industry can make even more money!

    Like

    1. The most pro-industry part of the Court, the right wing, voted against it.

      Obama care is a step toward a more inclusive Medicare. If you like Medicare, you should like Obamacare.

      The question now is whether the Republicans can convince the 99% to vote against their own best interests.

      Like

      1. roberts is right-wing, but he sided with the 4 “liberals,” hence the 5-4 decision. he said the mandate, in a way, is like a tax…

        dunno about obamacare… it doesn’t kick in till 2014… 2 yrs. is a whole lot of time for the republicans to sabotage it…

        Like

  3. I think every major law that has been passed in this country goes through changes–it doesn’t work exactly the way it was written when it was first passed. . Social Security has evolved over time as well. I was listening to someone talk about how it is virtually impossible for the GOP to repeal this because once business interests start benefiting from it–they won’t want it to change. Only time will tell–but I’m glad that the ACA wasn’t gutted–even if it isn’t a perfect piece of legislation. But then–what piece of legislation ever IS perfect?

    Like

  4. Romney’s reply to the American people:

    Romney: “This is now a time for the American People to make a choice. You can choose whether to have a larger and larger government making intrusions into your life…

    Translation: Like those awful “intrusions” of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid,

    . . . or whether instead you want to return to a time where Americans have their own choice in health care.”

    Translation: Or whether instead you want to return to a time when rich Americans have their own choice in health care, while millions of Americans cannot afford health care.

    Like

  5. Rodger says Obamacare is a step in the right direction, toward Medicaid-for-all.

    I say Obamacare is a major step AWAY from Medicaid-for-all. For one thing, Obamacare will further entrench the lie that government finances are the same as personal finances, and government needs to extract that money from us.

    For another thing, Obamacare does not control health care costs. Hence the private health industry will continue to jack up its costs, and the federal government will demand that we pay more and more money to the 1%…forever. If we cannot pay, then we must pay anyway.

    I’m with Yuu Kim, who says, “This is a massive subsidy to the insurance industry.”

    Yes. Absolutely. That’s why the 1% and the Supreme Court favor it, and oppose single payer (a.k.a. Medicaid-for-all). Obamacare is a river of money to private insurance companies.

    Next, Social Security will be privatized, which will be a river of money to Wall Street. Presumably Rodger will favor that too, just as he favors Obamacare. Rodger will call it a step toward the recognition and application of Monetary Sovereignty. I will call it a major step AWAY from it.

    Republicans only pretend to oppose Obamacare, in order to make the 99% more submissive to it, just as Rodger pretends to favor Medicaid-for-all.

    And so we have another topic where my views and Rodgers’ are at polar opposites. That’s okay. Some things we agree on, and some things we don’t.

    Like

    1. No, I said “Medicare” for all.

      I don’t see how Obamacare entrenches the lie that federal finances are like personal finances.

      Your prediction about the private health care industry flies in the face of experience. Obamacare is merely an expansion of Medicare. If anything, the private health care industry has suffered under Medicare, because of mandated limits. Ask your doctor how he gets paid.

      This has nothing to do with Social Security privatization.

      And I do love your mind reading act in which you “know” that Republicans secretly favor Obamacare and I secretly favor Medicare for all. Nuts!

      Finally, I try to post most comments, even the truly stupid ones, but I don’t post repeated 1000 word comments, repeatedly arguing silly semantics and wild-ass hunches, supported by zero data.

      Like

  6. The 1% wins again. Insurance giants designed, wrote, and financed Obamacare. They paid Democrats to support it, and Republicans to oppose it, so the masses would submit to it. The corporate media naturally hails this Supreme Court decision as “proof” that we live in the greatest country on earth.

    Now Republicans and Democrats can say we don’t need to discuss healthcare reform anymore, because Obama passed his “socialist agenda,” and gave the “American people” what they wanted. (Even though the American people wanted Single Payer.)

    Now Obama can focus on the other issues the “American people” want, like perpetual war. Like privatizing Social Security and public education. Like eliminating Medicare, Medicaid, and the minimum wage.

    The Supreme Court decides which corporate version is more beneficial to the 1%. This makes the masses think there are “alternatives.”

    The corporate media is now parading countless “experts” who argue for and against the decision, with none of them mentioning Single Payer. They frame everything in a Democrat vs. Republican context, while always avoiding a real public debate on costs. Politicians are receiving extra airtime as they praise or denounce the ruling. Lackeys from both sides are claiming victory, or predicting doom. And the 1% marches on.

    How different we are from the Soviet Union. Soviet propaganda was almost as relentless as our corporate propaganda, but the Russian people learned to read between the lines, unlike most Americans, who think only what the corporate media tells them to think.

    Like

  7. Rodger! Have you read the legislation in it’s entirety?. Other than you’re usual
    shibboleths about MS, do you honestly grasp all that the bill entails? As smart as you’ve led us to believe you are, no man alive can fathom the Act. And, why do you hawk the Democrat Party? How does a business critter like you get a liberal bent? Are there more responders there than you Rodger? And why don’t you reply to my queries anymore? Still enjoy you’re fascinating take on all earthly things. Honest !……………..Dan Brier

    Like

    1. As I’ve said many times, I used to have a conservative bent. But the Democrats became conservative and the Republicans became fascist. I didn’t change, but the political landscape changed.

      As for the bill, I’ve listed the most important details in the next post. However, the real details will be in the interpretation and execution of the law.

      Obamacare is a step forward for Medicare. It would be a bigger step forward if the federal government merely would pay for Medicare to cover every man, woman and child in America.

      Like

  8. II’m little disappointed with Supreme Court decision-it should have been 9 votes straight
    across the board “for the affordable care act ”—but 4 of the justices were trying to impose
    their “Judicial Activism”rulings suspected of being based on personal or political
    considerations rather on the constitution.
    Most people I would say do not know what this 5to 4 ruling means—most did not know
    what was going on when the supreme court was hearing this case back in April—most
    only knew about the mandate and noting more.

    Judicial review is essentially for checks and balances against legislative and executive branch.
    of our three branches of government – Executive, Legislative, and Judicial – the judiciary is the weakest. It has no power to create new legislation, nor does it have the means of directly enforcing its mandates. Those are two limitations written into our Constitution that prevent the Supreme Court from wielding too much power.

    On the other hand, as with Congress and the President, there have been times when the Supreme Court has seemed to overstep its authority by exercising judicial activism, applying a broader interpretation to the Constitution than many people believe appropriate.

    Most people will believed that the decision the Supreme Court rule 5-4 will be law—
    they do not understand the constitution.

    Once a decision has been made, the Supreme Court does not have the ability to enforce its rulings. This can only be done by the Executive and Legislative branches of government
    Supreme Courts do not make laws—Congress makes laws—Executive branch enforce these laws.

    A Supreme Court ruling—back in 1954
    When segregation in southern schools was declared unconstitutional in 1954, nothing happened in the south. It took until 1957 for the decision to actually be enforced. Though the Supreme Court had initiated a new approach in southern schools, no-one in the south wanted to enforce it and only the Federal government could do this by the use of troops.
    The Supreme Court needs to maintain its position within America as the most high judicial body within the country. Therefore it does need to be seen working as a partner with the Legislative and Executive branches as conflict between the three would invariably diminish their standing in the eyes of the public. It is rare that the Court will totally overturn an act passed by the Legislative

    Justice Roberts all he did was cast his vote for the “affordable care act “and in a “nutshell”
    handed it back to Congress—they initiated it and pass it–now they can do what they want with it- it is law by the constitution.

    The trouble with congress and people is not they are ignorant—it is that they just know so much.—-that isn’t so!!!

    Like

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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