As the Supreme Court hears the arguments on the Obama healthcare plan...

[Syrinx]

My opinion remains ambivalent.

I repost in its entirety, my post from Wednesday March 24, 2010.

It was a historic day, as the President signed health-care reform into law. And I'm pleased, overall, with the results. I'm very happy that health-insurance rescissions and "pre-existing conditions" will become things of the past. Elated in fact.

I'm not so happy about the government mandating that private citizens buy a product or service (I'm not sure which category insurance would be classified as) from a private, for-profit corporation.

To be clear, I hope the legislation stands. There is more good to be gained from it, than evil to be endured, and hopefully the evil parts can be eliminated by an administration and congressional majority with newly-gained traction.

My mind is twisted up in a knot as I contemplate how the courts will rule on the lawsuits being filed by state AG's.

Regarding the falsely-labeled "conservative" majority on the Supreme Court, I'm sure that John Roberts, Sam Alito, Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, and maybe Anthony Kennedy, are in a state of apoplexy at the very thought of poor Americans being more able to obtain needed medical coverage. "It's just un-American" for such a thing to happen, I'm sure they are thinking.

At the same time, I'm sure the undies of those same justices are bulging at the seams at the idea that billions upon billions of hard-earned dollars will be ripped out of the pockets of ordinary Americans and delivered unto the cottony-soft palms of the "private sector," represented by the pampered, overfed executives that are the very embodiment of the "America" that they all love so much.

I hope the legislation stands, until it can be improved. But I think the most interesting thing to watch going forward may be which way the largely right-wing judiciary rules on the matter. Will they rule in favor of their mantra of "states' rights," or will they cave to their bizarre and perverted infatuation with corporate power? I think that's the most interesting question.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8003917

[vi5]

1. I'm of much the same frame of mind....

I want it to stand. I need it to stand. I have a fair amount of pre-existing conditions, minor as they may be (high blood pressure, high cholesterol, etc.) and I have a son who was born with a metric ton of medical issues. If the law doesn't stand and my wife or I lose our jobs, getting insurance would be near impossible. So if only for the pre-existing condition clauses, I need it to stand.

On the other hand I not only think the law was largely flawed in it's basic concept (going out of it's way to keep private insurer's the main source of coverage) but also in how poorly it was sold and how badly they judged the situation.

How many times did we hear "Yeah, it's not great but once it goes into effect it will be so popular that the opposition would never dare to repeal it or try to reverse it!!!"

Well, yeah that might have been true if the Democratic party had better strategic vision and salesmanship. Instead they did what they always do. Pass it, and then put it in a drawer, and go curl up in a ball in a corner and hope the problems go away and they don't have to actually do any hard work or take any risks.

Every single Democrat, to a number should have been out there selling this thing like their lives depended on it. Not pivoting to the deficit like they got suckered into doing.

[ananda]

2. Agreed.

It's far from the perfect bill, but it's certainly better than nothing.

Much better of course would be universal single payer.

[vi5]

3. Honestly, what they needed

was they should have hired some sort of marketing group to help get out there and sell this (obviously not the president, but maybe the DNC or something). There are enough ways in which this thing is good and people need to realize just how and why this benefits them and just how and why the mandate is essential in this thing. I consider myself a pretty high information voter, who reads/watches a lot of political coverage on every subject, and as a democrat I'm naturally inclined to support this law, and even with that I can't se I've seen a lot of straight up coverage and explanation of why the mandate goes hand in hand with all the other stuff that people like. So if I haven't seen it, then I don't know what chance low information voters who aren't political junkies would have seen anything clear and concise explaining this law and the most basic important tenets of it.

[Syrinx]

4. I suspect I have high blood pressure myself, it runs in the family

I haven't been to an MD in years.

My best wishes to you and your son.