Blogging Bayport Alameda

June 28, 2012

At least you have your health

Filed under: Alameda — Lauren Do @ 7:34 am

Just wanted to share the breaking news that the US Supreme Court has upheld in a 5-4 vote the individual insurance requirement, Chief Justice Roberts was the surprise swing vote.

I’ll update with links to some more articles but here’s a start:



  1. Liked the one paragraph explanation….

    The bad- it’s a secret tax just like the Republicans said, and the Demos denied, and has done nothing to bring down health care costs. The good- who doesn’t think everyone should have health care? I think I read that 80% of bankruptcies are because of health care costs. And with this tight job market, it’s great you can keep your kids on your plan to age 26. Please, no one use the phrase “European style socialism” because if you like/accept Social Security, you are already there.

    Comment by commonsense — June 28, 2012 @ 9:12 am

  2. If the mandate is a tax instead of being embedded within the Commerce clause as part of the Constitution (which is what Obama wanted), it can be controlled or destroyed.

    Comment by Jack Richard — June 28, 2012 @ 10:10 am

  3. From dkos:

    As president, Mitt will nominate judges in the mold of Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito,” reads the ‘Courts & The Constitution’ section of Romney’s campaign website.

    So to recap, Republicans nominated the Father of Obamacare, and has pledged to nominate justices in the mold of Chief Justice Roberts, who upheld Obamcare.

    It’s enough to almost feel sorry for the wingnuts, cough cough Jack Richard. Almost.

    Comment by alameda — June 28, 2012 @ 11:54 am

  4. “It’s enough to almost feel sorry for the wingnuts, cough cough Jack Richard. Almost.”

    cough cough it’s alameda who’s being walked on so feel sorry for yourself

    Comment by Jack Richard — June 28, 2012 @ 12:08 pm

  5. SCOTUS essentially called Obama a liar, by defining it as a tax, when Obama said it wasn’t. And a huge number of new jobs have just been created..with the IRS.

    Comment by vigi — June 28, 2012 @ 12:09 pm

  6. Just some interesting thoughts from other blogs ;

    No one , of course, is asking the obvious question of those hammering in the Tax! Tax! Tax! message: in invoking the “tax” power, wasn’t the Court referring strictly to the mandate?

    So if there’s a “tax increase,” doesn’t it only apply to people who refuse to buy health insurance? Isn’t it an optional tax? And aren’t most of the people risking it also offered tax cuts (credits) if they do buy insurance?

    Comment by Donalda — June 28, 2012 @ 12:36 pm

  7. It’s also a clever way of getting folks to file tax returns who aren’t filing them now. If your health insurance premiums exceed 2.5% of your income, you’ll have to tell the gov’t what your income is to get the refund. Just another way of making everyone accountable to the govt. Should call it the Accountable Care Act.

    Comment by vigi — June 28, 2012 @ 12:48 pm

  8. Whoa, I didn’t realize we had a lot of Rush-bots lurking in Alameda.

    Comment by alameda — June 28, 2012 @ 4:17 pm

  9. #8. That’s a good thing, right?

    Comment by Dave — June 28, 2012 @ 4:29 pm

  10. Now, now, Mr.Liberal Loonytune Leftist “alameda”. Let’s not go putting labels on other bloggers…What would Thom Hartmann think of you?

    Comment by vigi — June 28, 2012 @ 4:44 pm

  11. Alameda, we don’t have a lot of Rush-bots lurking in Alameda , just a few on this blog.

    What warms my heart is that some day when my ashes have been spread under my favorite Fig tree, every one in this country will call it Obama-Care, not health care.

    Comment by John P.(L) — June 28, 2012 @ 4:46 pm

  12. P.S. Vigi, I’m a Liberal and proud of it. That’s what that (L) stands for after my name.

    Comment by John P.(L) — June 28, 2012 @ 4:50 pm

  13. “What warms my heart is that some day…”

    John P.(L), in that case, I hope Hussein gets relelected. We sure don’t want to lose you before Sunday Jan 20 2013.

    Comment by Jack Richard — June 28, 2012 @ 5:33 pm

  14. “..everyone in this country will call it Obama-care, not health care.” That’s right-because it ISNT Health Care! Not even close. Free contraceptives-which were $1.98 day before yesterday…More “preventive” services? Those cancer screenings don’t prevent cancer, they just identify more people to treat earlier for longer at much greater expense..and more false positives. It’s not “single-payer”. It’s not “free health care for all.” And are you really so naive that you believe the conservative movement began with or is led by Rush Limbaugh? Well, of course you are! You’re a Liberal.

    What do you suggest for all the people who will [still] be unemployed in 2014-no employer to provide health insurance-but who still own their homes & have to come up with property taxes & homeowner’s insurance, Mr. Liberal Genius?

    Comment by vigi — June 29, 2012 @ 9:46 am

  15. Vigi, thank you for the compliment “Mr. Liberal Genius” I like it. Yes Vigi, I do believe that Rush is your leader, mainly because you sound just like him.

    I know it sounds really dumb to believe that a country like ours should have medical coverage for its citizens, and yes I realize that it is very expensive, so whats your plan, just let em die.

    Comment by John P.(L) — June 29, 2012 @ 10:17 am

  16. actually I am on board with JohnP(L) on this one. I am proud to be a progressive and yes, since one sees many republicans bow down and kiss the ring of radio people like Rush – it would be hard not to wonder, who is in charge? You can literally see them flip their opinions sometimes.
    no- I don’t worship at the shrine of Rachel Maddow- I listen and I decide.

    Calling ourselves the greatest nation on earth while we let other countries surpass us on this issue is sad.

    no one on the progressive side said that this was free heathcare. I am not clear why women should have to spend @700.00 a year for birthcontrol but men get Viagra at a copay rate? Or pay higher rate for health insurance just for the privilege of being a woman. Or why babies should be left without coverage because of pre-existing conditions.

    Or why you would think that finding cancer early is worse than finding it later? would you prefer that we just let folks die if they fall in the unlucky group? Would that not be akin to not helping heart attack patients when they have an attack? Or when someone gets hurt in an accident- just let them suffer- I mean, after all- they are not going to be completely whole any more so why help them. Or so only some diseases get treated (the cheap ones? are there cheap ones?) too bad- so sad. As far as I can tell- life is a pre-existing condition- we are all going to die of something-
    Speaking for my friend is struggling with stage 4 IBC at age of 44 because she could not afford a mammogram until she got re-employed so that she would not have a pre-existing condition and many others who are trying to survive what is happening in their bodies – your comments seem pretty unkind and I believe that you would not want us to leave you (or anyone) on the side of the road because of your physical issues and we would not.
    Of course, that is just my opinion.

    Comment by Donalda — June 29, 2012 @ 11:28 am

  17. John P.(L) be careful, you just admitted you listen to Rush else how could you say this, “…mainly because you sound just like him.” Shame on you (L), you’re a Rush-baby at heart just like you’re a Stossel (Fox News) watcher…don’t worry I won’t tell.

    Comment by Jack Richard — June 29, 2012 @ 11:32 am

  18. “…would you prefer that we just let folks die if they fall in the unlucky group?”

    Gee, Donalda, I guess we’re all in the unlucky group. Even Fig trees die.

    Comment by Jack Richard — June 29, 2012 @ 11:36 am

  19. Perhaps Vigi believes physicians should only treated wealthy patients, and recommended that those who could not pay simply cease to live, since libertarians do not believe the government should have safety nets. I wonder if she gets Medicare?

    Comment by BarbaraK — June 29, 2012 @ 11:38 am

  20. Sorry, Jack the only place I hear Rush is on the Daily Show or MSNBC. So Jack for me my Fig tree won’t die because it will be here long after me. Matter of fact sometimes I wish I was a Fig tree, except for those damned Racoons.

    Comment by John P.(L) — June 29, 2012 @ 11:47 am

  21. Jack- my point exactly (your snidish comment aside )- life is a pre-existing condition that ends in death from something and hardly anyone gets the luck of a quick painless pass in their sleep. So you have never seen or had a friend or family struggle with the pain or suffering or had to deql with death yourself? I doubt that seriously? Death is never to be treated with disdain – it comes to all and rarely is pretty and neat and easy. Everyone deserves the right to have a fighting chance and healthcare is part of the process.
    I am also amused because whenever a person wants to be left to die (or their family wants them to- multiple cases spring to mind) – the same team screaming let them die is the one screaming “how dare you want to die!) –

    Based on some of the comments being expressed here – what would work- eliminate heathcare entirely and we all just hope that we beat the odds and drop dead quickly? Or only the priviledged live but then who will serve the them? How very French revolution.

    Comment by Donalda — June 29, 2012 @ 12:06 pm

  22. 20
    “…libertarians do not believe the government should have safety nets”
    You’re not right. The government should have a safety net which protects it from enemies both foreign and domestic. The citizens also need a safety net, to protect them from government.

    Comment by Jack Richard — June 29, 2012 @ 12:17 pm

  23. Donalda, I honestly do not understand your #22. What ‘team’ are you speaking of? What makes you think most people suffer dying? Who is treating death with disdain (whatever that means)?

    Comment by Jack Richard — June 29, 2012 @ 12:25 pm

  24. The “team’ that I was speaking of was those people (most often conservatives but not always) who proclaim that life is sacred but also favor the position that anyone not wealthy enough or lucky enough to have certain resources is SOL. These are the same people who want to get in the middle of personal life choices that others wish to make like not choosing medical treatments or having procedures.
    Not sure what is confusing my comment about “death and suffering”? A person can suffer a long time before they die but given some of these commenters- that seems to be ok- no healthcare because a person can’t afford the rates will certainly lead to suffering before it leads to death.
    Your throw-away comment about the unlucky group came off as far less humorous than you intended if that what your intent. Sometimes yukking it up about people dying or rude comments because they can’t afford help strikes me wrong but that’s just me. My humor tends to be more dry and ironic.

    Comment by Donalda — June 29, 2012 @ 12:52 pm

  25. So you find it humorously ironic that someone proclaims life sacred but won’t pay for keeping others alive?

    Comment by Jack Richard — June 29, 2012 @ 2:02 pm

  26. We all pay one way or another- either through higher premiums to cover losses because of people who can’t get or afford insurance or through the down time due to poor insurance that causes people to work when they shouldn;t and spreads the joy or a dozen other un-intended ways. . But the new improved healthcare does not ask others to pay, it tries to give people a chance to get and keep fair insurance so they can do it themselves and in many cases prevent complete financial ruin even for those who were fortunate enough to have insurance in the beginning. Everyone deserves a level playing field- what they do with it is their business. Viagra should not be cheaper than birth control and non- smoking women should not pay more for insurance than men who smoke in some cases.
    I object to people who object to a society trying to take care of it’s members in some form (like fair and available insurance) then proceed to object to the choices that those members make even though they have no financial stake in it. I also object to people who say things like early detection of cancer is a bad thing. Especially when I am watching someone die because of a lack of early detection tied specifically to not being able to afford decent health insurance and also being bankrupteded at the same time which probably won;t matter in the end but sure matters right now. Good times!

    Comment by Donalda — June 29, 2012 @ 3:02 pm

  27. What does Viagra have to do with birth control? Sounds like it’s the exact opposite of birth control.

    Comment by Jack Richard — June 29, 2012 @ 3:57 pm

  28. Donalda, its Obamacare which has “death panels”-known as IPABs-which let people die who might want to live. You’re confused.

    Comment by vigi — June 30, 2012 @ 4:48 pm

  29. No, no no, vigi, the Board is tasked with reducing medicare costs so they are within budget constraints. So if the top group of needers has to be lopped off it’s all for the best of the rest.

    Comment by Jack Richard — June 30, 2012 @ 7:37 pm

  30. At least no one with cancer will have to die pregnant, with all those free contraceptives available! Everyone will be screened for cancer, so we’ll know when we are gonna die and of what. But with so many pharmaceutical resources devoted to cranking out more, new, & better methods of birth control, there are already dangerous shortages of cancer chemontherapeutic agents, which will only worsen under Obamacare. Not to mention the aggressive tactics of Obama’s DEA curtailing production of oxycontin & other cancer pain control agents so those scofflaw Kentucky hillbillies don’t get their hands on ’em! Life & death with cancer under Obamacare sounds so much better, doesn’t it?

    Comment by vigi — July 1, 2012 @ 1:26 pm

  31. Comment by mp — August 1, 2012 @ 6:31 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Blog at