Broccoli Loses! Oh teh Humanity!
Posted: June 28, 2012 Filed under: Affordable Care Act (ACA), SCOTUS, U.S. Politics, Women's Healthcare | Tags: Brocoli Mandate 61 Comments
It’s one of those Bizarro World days where you get to see “liberals” cheer over an American Heritage invented, Romney inspired, aka Dolecare private insurance scheme while conservatives moan that it’s
Alas poor Scalia! His revolution has stalled. It seems Justice Roberts either cares about his name or precedent after all. He managed to shift grounds but still worries about the ‘Broccoli Horrible’.
The majority opinion written by Chief Justice John Roberts bluntly insisted that the clause does not vest Congress with “police powers … to regulate an individual from cradle to grave.” It also explicitly embraced the conservative argument regarding health care and broccoli.
In oral arguments three months ago, Roberts and Justice Antonin Scalia famously demanded that Solicitor General Donald Verrilli explain why, if the government can compel someone to buy health insurance, it can’t also compel them to buy broccoli.
That comparison outraged progressives and horrified health care experts, because it seemed to trivialize the enormous societal significance of health care.
Roberts, however, enshrined the broccoli-related concerns in his opinion, writing:
According to the Government, upholding the individual mandate would not justify mandatory purchases of items such as cars or broccoli because, as the Government puts it, “[h]ealth in-surance is not purchased for its own sake like a car or broccoli; it is a means of financing health-care consumption and covering universal risks.” Reply Brief for United States 19. But cars and broccoli are no more purchased for their “own sake” than health insurance. They are purchased to cover the need for transportation and food.In their concurrence, the four liberal justices, led by Ruth Bader Ginsburg, nevertheless took issue with some of Roberts’ conclusions — including the one about broccoli.
Ginsburg tried to explain some of the ways in which broccoli (or a car) are different from health care:
Although an individual might buy a car or a crown of broccoli one day, there is no certainty she will ever do so. And if she eventually wants a car or has a craving for broccoli, she will be obliged to pay at the counter before receiving the vehicle or nourishment. She will get no free ride or food, at the expense of another consumer forced to pay an inflated price.And she even seemed to poke fun at Roberts for swallowing such an argument:
As an example of the type of regulation he fears, The Chief Justice cites a Government mandate to purchase green vegetables. Ante, at 22–23. One could call this concern “the broccoli horrible.” Congress, The Chief Justice posits, might adopt such a mandate, reasoning that an individual’s failure to eat a healthy diet, like the failure to purchase health insurance, imposes costs on others. See ibid.Consider the chain of inferences the Court would have to accept to conclude that a vegetable-purchase mandate was likely to have a substantial effect on the health-care costs borne by lithe Americans. The Court would have to believe that individuals forced to buy vegetables would then eat them (instead of throwing or giving them away), would prepare the vegetables in a healthy way (steamed or raw, not deep-fried), would cut back on unhealthy foods, and would not allow other factors (such as lack of exercise or little sleep) to trump the improved diet.
Be prepared to eat thy Broccoli or Move to Canada for that horrible Universal Health Care you all fear Teabots! Meanwhile, I’m trying to imagine all those governors actually opting out of a huge amount of federal funds to make a point about their Medicaid programs. Yes, death panels are okay as long as its for poor people. Don’t you just love those sociopaths cum libertarians?
A rejection of health care egalitarianism, namely a recognition that the wealthy will purchase more and better health care than the poor. Trying to equalize health care consumption hurts the poor, since most feasible policies to do this take away cash from the poor, either directly or through the operation of tax incidence. We need to accept the principle that sometimes poor people will die just because they are poor. Some of you don’t like the sound of that, but we already let the wealthy enjoy all sorts of other goods — most importantly status — which lengthen their lives and which the poor enjoy to a much lesser degree. We shouldn’t screw up our health care institutions by being determined to fight inegalitarian principles for one very select set of factors which determine health care outcomes.
Like I said, welcome to the new Bizzarro world. It sounds strangely like a Dickens novel. Bless their little hearts, every one!
peej
Carissa
bostonboomer
ecocatwoman
mablue2
peggysue22
quixote
skydancingguestblogger
Mona (aka Wonk the Vote)
Sky Dancing 
.”Now that poors can get health insurance because the demon Supreme Court sided with that commie muslin NOBAMA fella, the only way to defend our freedom is armed insurrection! Mount up and ride to the sound of the gun says former Michigan Republican Party spokesman Matthew Davis.”
http://wonkette.com/476747/michigan-republicans-ex-spokesman-wants-you-to-shoot-the-government-for-giving-you-health-care
Oh Jeez 🙂 I don’t know whether to be entertained or frightened by the right wing craziness over the ACA. I’m gonna go with entertained.
Yup…entertaining to a point: Rush Limbaugh Deems ObamaCare ‘Largest Tax Increase In The History Of The World’ | Mediaite
What was that saying, say it loud and often and it becomes fact? Or something….
The Republicans are claiming that they’ll be scheduling a vote any day now, as Roberts’ ruling will permit a straight up or down vote with no possibility of filibuster. If they actually go through with the repeal an American Heritage invented, Romney inspired, aka Dolecare private insurance scheme, then we’ll know we’re in Bizzaro World 2.0 to stay.
The repeal vote is already scheduled for July 11. Of course they know the Senate won’t pass it, so it’s just political theater. Let them keep harping on their conspiracy theories. I think Americans are really starting to tire of the Republican foolishness.
It won’t survive a cloture vote. It’s about damned time that the Dems turned the filibuster trick back on the GOP’ers
The ones yammering the loudest just want attention. Point is that even with welfare to the health insurance corporations and no price controls — there will still be people not covered by this law. No safety net — dying in the streets no care.
Some opinionaters wanted the Supremes to terminate this law cobbled together by the insurance companies & pharma industries in order to bring forth Universal Health Care. That would be the ideal — but we all know that once killed there would be no more attempts at any sort of useful health care legislation.
With no cost control and allowing the propping up bloated Insurance companies rather than single pay — which is what the majority of Americans want — this law is still better than nothing. As it is many people are either going to be able to afford to pay the insurance bill and forget about going to the doctor — or they will self insure. Lots of articles are being written about how it is cheaper to pay for the medical care directly, rather than fighting with insurance companies and paying more in the long run.
This law is typically American — we support the parasitic 1% and get little or nothing in return. Sort of like re-living the middle ages with the upper class and the serfs.
There is some cost control after all, because the law forces insurance co’s to use 80% of the health care bill to pay for care or else send a rebate to the consumer. Obviously it would make much more sense to just have Medicare for all and no middle man insurance co’s. I’m hoping this is a step toward that goal.
“This law is typically American — we support the parasitic 1% and get little or nothing in return. Sort of like re-living the middle ages with the upper class and the serfs.”
Thank you. A voice of sanity on the so-called “liberal” blogs. How on earth anyone calling themselves liberal can buy into this crap is mind-boggling. This is another win for the corporate overlords. The serfs, as usual, will pay more and get less.
Let’s have a pool regarding the next industry that we’ll have the “choice” to buy into or pay a penalty tax on. I’ll put my money on Wall Street and their 401K scams. It’s the perfect excuse to do away with Social Security.
Ginsburg is brilliant. She is my Shero.
Mine too, I love her use of Broccoli logic to stick it to Roberts.
If you want to see something really scary, watch the Congressional Debate concerning the Contempt vote against Holder.
I’m having Clinton Era Deja vu.
What’s wrong with this moron who’s speaking right now? Rep. Gowdy? He looks like how I imagine Boo Radley. His hair is truly strange.
Nancy Pelosi is going to join the walkout.
17 House Democrats Crossed Party Lines To Hold Attorney General Eric Holder In Contempt by @brettlogiurato http://read.bi/MYBKEk
Did you hear Pelosi speak? She was impressive and she’s not a great public speaker imo. She drove it home that this is nothing but a sham and complete political theatre.
Well good for her.
Now that the investigative reporters have started to do their jobs — we know that this whole deal is a set up. Repeating the facts — the NRA inspired laws got in the way in Arizona. Is the NRA a tax exempt organization — if so — why?
We live in a crazy world — Bullies are in control.
Erin Gloria Ryan @morninggloria
The Daily Caller: “Congratulations, Americans: the Government owns your bodies.” Spoken like someone who doesn’t know anyone with a uterus.
Retweeted by Echidne
Bill O’Reilly promised to apologize for being an idiot of the health law was upheld.
You aren’t holding your breath — are you??
Mega-stupid …
That’s the quote I used up top …
If you look at twitter, he got some good responses. 🙂
They’re mixing their Dred Scott dogwhistles, we’ve survived decades of baby killing, being forced to buy crappy insurance plans is what does us in? That’s not really the pioneer spirit that colonized the prairies.
Then there’s Mike Pence …
http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-congress/2012/06/pence-likens-health-care-ruling-to-127628.html
All hail the next governor of Indiana {{gag!}}
What an asshole!
Democrats who voted for the Holder contempt resolution
Jason ALTMIRE (D-PA)
John BARROW (D-GA)
Dan BOREN (D-OK)
Leonard BOSWELL (D-IA)
Ben CHANDLER (D-KY)
Mark CRITZ (D-PA)
Joe DONNELLY (D-IN)
Kathy HOCHUL (D-NY)
Ron KIND (D-WI)
Larry KISSELL (D-NC)
Jim MATHESON (D-UT)
Mike McINTYRE (D-NC)
Bill OWENS (D-NY)
Collin PETERSON (D-MN)
Nick RAHALL (D-WV)
Mike ROSS (D-AR)
Tim WALZ (D-MN)
Two Republicans voted no:
Steven LATOURETTE (R-OH)
Scott RIGELL (R-VA)
So much for Joe Donnelly who is running for the Senate seat in IN.
Have ya’ll seen this about who was funding the challenge to ACA? http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/06/27-7
Very interesting and not at all surprising. The damned oligarchy is funding all this wingnut crapola.
I’ve been busy with real life (and glad, for once, that I’m old and will be out of this worldly mess before the entire planet implodes), so I didn’t read the last thread, and I’m too depressed to read any positive words about the ACA decision. There is nothing positive. Here’s my take:
The decision is an unmitigated disaster. For anyone who cares about people falling sick and having no access to medical care. For anyone who cares about the preservation of the New Deal programs. And Obama is a disgrace not only to New Deal Democrats but to humanity itself. Had he pushed for – and gotten when he had enough votes in both houses – Medicare for All, he could have avoided this ode to corporations. But he didn’t. He gave this gift to the corporations himself. Now he has opened the floodgates to pure fascism.
1. Roberts says the ACA is not constitutional under either the Commerce Clause or the Necessary and Proper Clause. And, IMO, he happens to be right. There was no commerce. The ACA creates commerce and then seeks to regulate it, by ordering everyone (with some exceptions for the truly poor) to buy a product from a private corporation – with no real controls over cost or quality. And, now, any new social welfare programs will essentially be unconstitutional under this ruling, unless they are classified as a tax! The fact that Roberts is right is a slap in the face to this man in the White House who thinks he’s smarter than everybody else, a real “Constitutional scholar.” Hey, Obama, how about crafting a bill that would be constitutional – oh, like Medicare for All, you know, something that involves the government, not private business?
2. Roberts says the mandate is a tax, no matter what Obama says. And Roberts has the last word, of course. A tax! Well, not so farfetched. Tax or penalty – we gotta fork over to the insurance companies (if we’re out of a job or work someplace that doesn’t have employee coverage [soon to be the vast majority of employers]) or pay a fine. But look at the impossibility: you have no coverage, you’re just about making ends meet, and now you HAVE to shell out $400-$1800 per month for coverage with a huge deductible and all sorts of escape clauses or you can head off to debtors’ prison. We’re taxed if we don’t buy this crappy crappy product from a totally unnecessary middleman!
Roberts is as pure a corporatist as you’ll ever find. While an individual does NOT have the right NOT to buy a product from a private corporation, an entity (a state) CAN opt out of the new Medicaid requirements – with no penalty at all. Just setting the table for further cuts to social safety-net programs that have already been cut not only to the bone but halfway through the bone. So Roberts has entirely opposing views on persons and companies: persons can be regulated, companies cannot. I despise the man. I despised him during the confirmation hearings. He is a cold, cold human being.
This is a complete win for the corporations. Total win. Draconian cuts will now proceed at will.
As for the ACA itself, it basically sucks. Like I said, no price controls, no quality controls, no appeals process; it’s a mess. I wanted the mandate struck down. If we had Medicare for All, a government-run program, that’d be fine to pay into, like we do now. I hate insurance companies. I don’t even have Medicare Part B or a supplemental plan. I choose to die sooner than I would have to under a decent healthcare system rather than give those bastards (they are “people” after all) one red cent.
As for the campaign (an issue I do not give a fig about since there isn’t a bit of difference between these two front men as to how we will be further picked to the bone), Obama loses there too. What a buffoon he is. Yes, the government argued, as their third argument, that the ACA was constitutional under Congress’ right to tax, but the Dems did want to win ON THOSE GROUNDS. Good work, fellas. Now, it is clear that Obama is taxing us all, a new tax when we’re already strapped. Tax – and corporate welfare – that’s our leader. As cold as Roberts; just not nearly as clever.
Correction: but the Dems did NOT want to win on those grounds. (A Freudian slip: maybe they didn’t give a hoot.)
Every one is reacting on a my team or your team level right now. It’s being totally viewed through the looking glass of you either love or hate Obama. I’m glad you mentioned this is more than a lot of people bargained for …
Read this if you get a chance. Oh, and it’s great to see you!
John Roberts, Traitor to the Conservative Cause? Nope.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-06-28/john-roberts-traitor-to-the-conservative-cause-nope.html
That’s the way I read it (though I’m seriously challenged at this legal shite). The feds can’t force you to buy (into) something. But they can tell you that they’ll tax the shit out of you if you don’t do what they say. So the people who couldn’t afford health insurance (or health care) in the first place, those teetering on the edge of poverty (which is, sadly, a lot of people) will not only not have health insurance (or health care) but they’ll get hit with a penalty tax too. That’s the my take. I would love to be wrong.
These folks are supposed to go into the Medicaid pool under the expansion but now it is only if their state adopts it. Roberts giveth and he taketh away with a pen stroke.
Yep. And this hits on something that has bothered me about the Obamacare support song from the start. Sadly, Ruth Ginsberg even touched upon it in her remarks. This idea that people who don’t pay for health insurance are slackers who are making the rest of us pay more in health care costs. It reminds me of that reprehensible caricature, the “welfare queen,” that rightwingers created in the 80s. There is such a surprising lack of compassion for people who can not afford a minimal quality of life. For me, it’s too similar to the “privatized” fire departments that will let a house burn down if the owner hasn’t paid their don’t-let-my-house-burn-down “tax.”
It’s not good and I agree with mjames. This is going to get worse, much worse. The middle class may very well hang on by their teeth, but the poor and those folks treading the edge of poverty are really going to take the brunt of this awful decision.
People without insurance do freeride and it does drive rates up. It also causes public expense. That is not a caricature. It is a provable statistic. I certainly think that the extreme right wing is riled up about this but the majority of people poll well on the features like there are now no uninsurable babies and my youngest gets to stay on her dad’s insurance. I am no longer uninsurable either. My family has already been positively impacted by this. I would much rather have the Canadian system but this plan isn’t what the right wing paints it to be. I think the hysteria over taxes in this country is limited to them. Every one else believes in paying their fair share.
I agree, kat. I work for a small non-profit & employees pay 15% of their health insurance premiums, the company pays 85%. I had a former employee, who always worked, never married, had 3 children & never had health insurance. She turned down our health insurance plan because she didn’t want to pay her small portion of the premium. Needless to say, she didn’t pay anything to doctors/hospitals when she had those children. Her children received insurance either through Medicaid or the state’s healthcare for children. She received food stamps & no child support from her children’s fathers. She, at least in my opinion, was one of the “free healthcare” people out there gaming the system. And, she was a dumba$$ Republican. I hate the government, but fork over the benefits for my conscious choices to take advantage of all the ‘free” stuff the government will provide. Then you have folks who try their best to support themselves, but the costs of insurance premiums are out of reach. They have to go to emergency rooms for the flu, broken bones, etc. Obviously going to a hospital that is required to treat them is much more costly than going to a family doctor or specialist. Some go without treatment until they are on the brink of death, leading to even higher costs to the taxpayers/insured. That’s why, imho, that healthcare is a right, not a privilege & there must be affordable, comprehensive coverage for everyone. In the long run, it’s not only more humane, it’s less expensive.
Sorry, I don’t see a whole lot of difference between the demonization of the dumba$$ Republican unwed mother and the welfare queen unwed mother. And why is it always women with children who are “scamming” the system?
Poor Women are about 70% of the population that needs medicaid. Again, it’s not a stereotype if the numbers show that it’s happening. Plus, the moral hazard issue is there. It’s a well researched topic and the costs are clear and documented. It’s only because right wingers turn it into a personal “responsibility” thing other than a rational decision because of the set up. Just don’t embrace the right wing canard and look at it as efficient decision making. Why pay for something if you can go to the hospital and not be liable for the bill? A huge number of folks are making a smart decision doing that. The deciding factor is that it’s economical for them. It has nothing to do with moral character unless you embrace the whacky memes of the likes of Bill O’Reilly. The insurance-provided-by-employer model forces that outcome. It’s the way we do insurance in this country that makes it a wise decision for some folks.
^ This!!! ^ Thank heavens for sanity, mjames.
Roberts is one sneaky snake. A despicable man. This ruling is a disaster but the two ends of the parasite are so busy spinning this ruling in their favor that those folks who don’t look past the headlines (which is most of America) don’t see the shit sandwich we’ve just been handed.
For anyone who genuinely cares about health care for all, send Jill Stein money now. She only needs to secure five more states for matching funds. Saturday is the deadline for filing. Health care for all…for real.
Jill Stein has a statement up on her website, in part:
My only hope is that Congress will gradually improve the bill, but it’s definitely not that great right now. I’m very fortunate that I’ll soon be eligible for Medicare. That’s what everyone should have.
Okay, I just want to say that I have been writing about this SCOTUS decision for tonight’s evening reads…and I have not yet read this post Kat…or the comments. Hmmm, guess I will think more about it and read this one after I make dinner and see if my post is worth publishing.
We’ve been talking about this for the last two posts. I still don’t think we’re done. Just reading teh stupid coming from people like Rand Paul, Michelle Bachmann, and Sarah Palin is enough to make you think they shouldn’t be walking the streets let alone making decisions for any one. There’s just this complete disconnect that in the 1990s that this WAS the republican plan and ROMNEY enacted it in MA. The world really is upside down.
My personal take is that they’re just playing their part in the uni-party charade. I can’t imagine that any Republican is anything but privately overjoyed at this decision. However, they will use the Obamacare tax as a means to push Romney over the finish line, so they play their part and beat their chests and pretend to actually care about the riffraff.
There is no tax.
BB, that’s what SCOTUS calls it. A tax.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/supreme-court-announces-decision-obamas-health-care-law/story?id=16663839#.T-0bBXDv1gc
“The court ruled 5 to 4, wiith Chief Justice John Roberts siding with the majority, that the mandate is unconstitutional under the Constitution’s commerce clause, but it can stay as part of Congress’s power under a taxing clause. The court said that the government will be allowed to tax people for not having health insurance.”
As I understand it, they upheld the commerce clause but Roberts allowed the mandate to stand as a tax. IOW, they can’t make us buy health insurance but they can tax the hell out of us if we don’t do what we’re told. This will be disastrous for people teetering on the edge of poverty, those who can’t afford health insurance but make too much money to qualify for financial aid. And for those of us who can afford insurance, I predict that our premiums will go up and our benefits will go down, just as they’ve been doing since this horrible legislation was first passed.
This is a win for the corporations. It is a loss for the people and anyone who believes in health care for all.
Brava on this post Dak! Just finished reading it, now to catch up on the comments.
bb, Roberts has defined the mandate as a tax. It is now officially a “tax.” The Republicans will call it what it is, and IMO it will help their 2012 campaign.
And, the IRS will find a way to get their money—they always do—and real people will be penalized because they can neither afford health insurance or medical care.
I’m well aware of that. But there is no enforcement of the penalty in the bill. And that is what Roberts was talking about–the mandate. If you don’t buy insurance and you don’t pay the fine, there is no provision for collecting it or in any way enforcing it.
It’s not a great bill, but some people are really going off the deep end into hysteria over it.
brilliant move – now they’ll solidify those against the ACA and insure that Romney wins in Nov.
I think Romney is just about cooked at this point.
I hope that’s true, My concern is that the Dems continue to commit political suicide, They never seem to know how to write good campaign ads. Apparently all the marketing/public relations folks are working for the Repubs, and it’s been going on for years. Seriously, Romney seems to me to be laughable & should be to any sane person & even most who are only marginally sane – but the polls say something different. I’ll remain scared until the final votes are certified.
Really? The latest polls showed that the anti-Bain ads are working very well. Obama is leading overall in the swing states right now. Other recent polls show that people don’t trust Romney, don’t like him, and don’t think his business experience is good preparation for the presidency.
I don’t know what polls you’re referring to. Do you have links? It’s also quite a long time until election day.
PS – sadly I would really like to vote for someone that I mostly agree with. The difference between Obama & Romney, in many ways, is minimal but we’re stuck with the fact that either one or the other will be the next president. There will never be enough people who will vote for a 3rd party candidate to make that a viable alternative – at least not in my lifetime.
“There will never be enough people who will vote for a 3rd party candidate to make that a viable alternative – at least not in my lifetime.”
As long as people believe that, you’re right. People need to stop believing in the uni-party’s omnipotence. It’s that belief that keeps them in power.
I strongly disagree that the differences between Romney and Obama are “minimal.” On a day like today, I’d think most people would see that their differences on the SCOTUS alone are huge.
I don’t know which are worse, teabaggers or firebaggers. Hard to tell them apart without a scorecard.