Today's fun nugget of wisdom from the left-wing radiosphere:
Justice Roberts ruled as he did on Obamacare, switching sides late int he game and effectively writing most of both the ruling and the dissent, not out of any sense of the Law or the right thing to do.
No, the reason Roberts ruled as he did is because he recieved a call from his crony pig-dog capitalist friends in the Health Insurance Industry and Big Pharma, and they exerted pressure on him, and provided him with money, so he'd rule FOR Obamacare, thus providing much profit to these evil capitalists.
The take away, of course, of this theory, is that Obamacare is not good enough, and private Health Insurance must be made illegal, so that no one can profit off of a basic human right like healthcare (food, housing and clothing tho, no comment).
Courtest of the Thom Hartman show. Thank god we have real journalists to expose these horrible corruptions of justice.
I don't know who Thom Hartman is, but he sounds like an idiot.
People rightfully cite Hannity all the time for what the right thinks or the far-right thinks. Hartmann is equally interesting for what the left (or far left) think on things.
This conspiracy theory is a huge stretch and a bit wacky, but in my opinion, politics DID play a big role in the ultimate ruling.
If ACA or the individual mandate was struck down, it would pave the way for a refactoring of health care reform in the relatively short term future. There is a danger that the model would shift from a status quo corporate capitalist to more socialist.
I dont buy into any conspiracy theories as to why Roberts voted the way he did.
That being said, there is no doubt that private insurance companies will benefit from Obamacare. They love Obamcare.
Why anyone would even try to tie Obamacare to socialized medicine is beyond me. Makes as little sense as this conspiracy theory.
What this country needs is a public option, "Medicare for all" to cover the basic essential coverage and then private insurance to cover the "extras" that are not essential but "people like it" coverage.
The first hurdle was the pwoer to compel. The next is the power to nationalize.
Pretty strait forward actually, given that a direct-to-single-payor had no chance whatsoever of being passed in the United States. Like anything, the only route is one of steps towards a goal.
Agree to disagree on a basic idealogical level.What this country needs is a public option, "Medicare for all" to cover the basic essential coverage and then private insurance to cover the "extras" that are not essential but "people like it" coverage.
Stop repeating the same broken record nonsense that you post with regards to Obamacare. No true socialist is happy with it. Not one.
Your constant linking Obamacare to socialist ideology is pathetically wrong. No matter how many times you keep repeating this nonsense, you are still wrong. I am embarrassed for you. Please dont continue to make yourself look silly, you are better than that.
Yes, it is. And it does so as stated by clearing teh first hurdle to such a system, breaking the people of the idea that the State cannot compel you to do as it wishes on the issue of Healthcare/Insurance.It does NOT make it one step closer to a single pay system. How does it do that?
Empy words warrant to response.Stop repeating the same broken record nonsense that you post with regards to Obamacare. No true socialist is happy with it. Not one
Agree to disagree. I would not expect a self-professed Socialist (remember?) to be honest about the political steps and gamemanship and social engineering required to move a free capitalist society to an unfree socialist one.Your constant linking Obamacare to socialist ideology is pathetically wrong. No matter how many times you keep repeating this nonsense, you are still wrong. I am embarrassed for you. Please dont continue to make yourself look silly, you are better than that.
No matter how many insults you may choose to include, at a basic level I simply disagree with your premise, and do not trust your intentions, given your obvious desire for a fully socialist State-controlled Universal/Colelctivist Healthcare system.
P.S. No need to be embarssed for me Ken. I am perfectly capable of being embarassed on my own when warranted. It simply isn;t here, and claims to the contrary are just more diversionary language meant to move off the topic of the mandate vs. the previous system, and what the next step i in the eyes of Democrats, Liberals, progressives, Socialists and Communists (i.e. The Political Left, as once defined by DailyKOS).
Put simply, you take offense at the term "Socialist" not because you do not in fact support Socialist Policy, but because you know that specific word does not poll well in America. Hence, to enact socialist ideas, it must be branded somethign else in order to succeed and pass. Basic Politics 101, control the message.
The only ones who absolutely benifit is large Hospital corporations.