William Thien

A Observation on Trends in The Supreme Court and/or Money is Not Speech!

Posted on: July 16, 2012

It was interesting to hear the ruling of The Supreme Court on Obamacare. A sizable majority of Americans were against Obamacare yet The Supreme Court ruled in favor. I agree that Democracy is often not the answer and the ruling on Obamacare is a prime example that democracy is not always a solution, but a tax is a tax is a tax, as The Supreme Court said that Obamacare was legal under Congressional Powers of Taxation.

In the not too distant past The Supreme Court also ruled essentially that money was speech and that limits under certain circumstances on campaign donations were legal. Of course we can all agree that such a ruling does not favor the public as now we are flooded with massive and constant political media campaigns that are impossible to verify. Now we have no honest, unbiased way to pick a candidate anymore. Who knows who or what organization is running the ads? Who has time to look into it all, the media? The ads are running on their stations and the media are making out like bandits. Do you think the media want the ads to stop? Not that we had it any better in the past, it is just that it is much worse with the ruling from The Supreme Court. Money is not speech.

Back to Obamacare. The problem I have with Obamacare is the mandate. Much of the rest of Obamacare is merely sensible legislation, such as the “No Pre-Existing Conditions Exclusions” clause, proper regulation of an industry, the health insurance industry, that has been behaving like a sociopathic monster running rampant amidst the population since the health care industry was de-regulated. The mandate requiring everyone to have employer sponsored health care or buy it was a gimme to health insurers and employers, plain and simple. Who is to say employers will now be free of conscience and start relieving themselves of the responsibility of providing health care to their employees? Some may do just that.

In essence with regard to the “money is speech matter,” it appears to me that The Supreme Court is complicating the lives of Americans who aren’t “extremely” wealthy or the poor and the rest of us have to sit there and let our country be governed from the bench while the two sides pull and yank at us for more taxes. Money is not speech.

It would appear that in terms of money matters, The Supreme Court has not been ruling in favor of the general public, the middle classes, and favors only those who are very wealthy or very poor. The general masses, to The Supreme Court, are inconsequential.

With regard to Obamacare, obviously The Supreme Court sees no problem with taxing the public beyond its capacity to pay taxes.

Obamacare and the “money is speech” ruling are two crucial rulings having significant impact on the quality of life and the cost of living in The United States. Both rulings do not favor the middle classes.

Final Ruling: The Supreme Court is not on the side of the general public.

Copyright © William Thien 2012

Sign up to receive updates. It’s easy and safe. Just go to the upper right hand corner of this page and add your email address. We will never sell your contact information to anyone.


2 Responses to "A Observation on Trends in The Supreme Court and/or Money is Not Speech!"

I’m not solid on all the details, but my interpretation is that the “mandate” does two things: it guarantees that enough payees are contributing to the pot that makes the care available to all at a manageable price; and it ensures that those who would otherwise not opt in, can get care in the case of emergency medical need.
I think one aspect of this law is —– and what the pro-obamacare contingent could use as an argument is —— that while it would be in closer accord with the constitution to not REQUIRE every person to buy health insurance, the country is not at a place consensually in which the masses could not countenance the concept of literally not treating those who become sick or injured but who did not opt in to an optional plan and have no resources to pay on the fly.
That reluctance to not treat such cases—– and I believe that contingent of the country would make for a strong, nearly overwhelming majority —-is the best argument pro-obamacare advocates have for being in favor of ‘the mandate.’

I’m pretty much stuck on this issue, unable to fully commit to either position: I hate the idea of a mandate; and in general the overall concept of creating yet another humongous bureacracy that goes with a national entitlement program, to guarantee coverage for all —— yet, we pay huge amounts now, because we do pay for those who don’t have insurance, in terms of emergency treatment and surgeries, etc.

My ideal would be something most libertarians would like: a competitive market, unhindered and uninfluenced by lobbyists, paid-off politicians and corporate collusions between physicians, hospitals, insurance co.’s and Big Pharma —— like that could really happen!

You offer some excellent insights into how the legislation may effect the country. We shall see if your somewhat undecided perspective changes as the time for implementation of the legislation approaches and we can see how it will effect the country more clearly. It’s new ground for America. Whether it is solid ground or shaky bureaucratic quagmire remains to be seen.

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

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Find by month

Find by date

July 2012
« Jun   Aug »
Follow William Thien on WordPress.com
%d bloggers like this: