Dear Friend,The Supreme Court decision on Obamacare is obviously an extremely disappointing ruling. But I am more committed than ever to repealing Obamacare outright.Obamacare may have been judged constitutional in this clumsy way, but I think it's also been proved a bad idea since its passage that's making things worse. It continues to increase the cost of health care services and puts the federal government between patients and doctors.
I’m sure President Obama and his liberal allies that forced this law through Congress will try to spin the Supreme Court ruling as a major victory, but the bottom line is Obamacare is a disaster.Dear Sen. Vitter,
This decision is misguided - it rewrites the Obamacare mandate as a tax in order to uphold it. But that also makes clear that President Romney and a Republican Congress can repeal this all through reconciliation - with a simple majority in the Senate. That's what I'll demand, what I'll fight tirelessly for.
At the beginning of this Congressional session I introduced leading bill in the Senate to fully repeal Obamacare, and I’ll continue to work tirelessly to get that passed.
Sincerely,
David Vitter
United States Senator
I am not your friend, nor have I ever voted for you.
A member of my family has a job that provides no health insurance benefits Greater numbers of people are finding themselves in a similar situation. What you call the Obamacare disaster is already helping her buy health insurance. What would you offer to replace Obamacare? You have your safe government health care plan for you and your family. Would you call your health insurance socialized medicine? The government pays. Why should not every American citizen have access to the same health care benefits as you and your family?
Shame on you and your fellow Republicans and your announcement of your intentions to repeal the Affordable Care Act. Where is your compassion and concern for the common good of your fellow citizens?
Your constituent, but not your friend,
June Butler
Tell him, Mimi!
ReplyDeleteWhat the Republicans want to repeal is actually Romneycare, which Mitt signed into law when he was governor of Massachusetts.
ReplyDeletePreach it, Grandmère!
ReplyDeleteWell done, Grandmere! This is the sort of response that all constituents should be sending Representatives and Senators who send out similar letters. I really believe that most of the "majority" who oppose the Affordable Health Care Act have been misled and misinformed by those who would love to see President Obama fail in his efforts to lead this country. When pressed, most people strongly support the major components of the program; it's as if they don't have a clue what's in the plan at all. Excruciatingly frustrating.
ReplyDeleteThanks Linda and Prairie Soul. Any Republicans (or Democrats) who go along with the nonsense of repeal should hear from their constituents, and we should mention often that the ACA was modeled on Romney's plan for Massachusetts.
ReplyDeleteAdult diapers should be more freely available.
ReplyDeleteJCF, I will!
ReplyDeleteLapin, you'll have Vitter's honchos after me yet.
How desperate is he?
ReplyDeleteSome of those who oppose the plan think of it like TEC's insurance plan, it sounds good until you start trying to apply it and discover huge groups of people it hurts. Right now I pay only $25/month for better insurance than the local hospital workers have, but I suspect my employer is going to discover it's cheaper to pay the fine than pay for my insurance. My state is one of those that sued not to increase Medicaid for those singles without kids(like me) etc. That won't be an option. My state can't afford what Mass. has. We're too poor.
ReplyDeleteI suspect that even many who are shouting with joy now are going to fall silent when they see how much it costs. It took time for people to realize the problems in TEC's insurance plan and it'll take time to find them all here too. And like the people who voted for TEC's insurance and then discovered it's going to require people getting fired or require an extra million in the bank. Perhaps those who disagree with you really aren't evil, just not as lucky as you are in this battle?
And 33 million people will have health insurance. They don't now.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you, June. I have two sons who are in that boat, and both have chronic medical conditions. It just shows that those with money are more than a bit eager to not share the American dream because it will cost THEM!
ReplyDeleteIf the employers can be forced to provide decent insurance, then fine. I won't go into my objections, because I've stated them here, already. I am willing to see what happens, but I fear it won't be as glorious as people think. Whenever there's a "blow for equality" that is less than total (and I have NO problem with draconian moves against employers, who already have more protections and rights than individual workers), somehow it is always the one at the bottom who suffer - the costs are passed on to us.
ReplyDeleteMark, Vitter is so desperate that there is talk that he will run for governor next time around.
ReplyDeleteChris H. and Mark, let me be clear. I am not shouting for joy; the ACA is far from perfect, but we cannot let the perfect be the enemy of the good. We need a single payer health plan for the country like the rest of the developed world, but the ACA is the best that Obama could get through the Congress. As IT says more people will be covered; no person will be excluded on the basis of preexisting conditions; the insurance companies will not be allowed to drop people when they become ill.
I have Medicare, a government program. I wish everyone could have what I have and what David Vitter has. The ACA is a step in the right direction to provide more people with health insurance, which is for the common good. Right now, we have people getting sick and people dying because they cannot get the health care they need. We must have coverage for more of the citizens of the country.
I fail to see why any entity should make a profit off people getting sick. We don't need the middle man. Make no mistake: the ACA is a boon to the health insurance companies. If that were not the case, it would never have got through Congress at all. What I'd like to see is Medicare for all, without the profits for the middle man, even if I had to pay more in taxes. Every person has a right to health care.
Now you're really talking, Mimi! I couldn't agree more that illness should not be a means for profit making. Docs, nurses, techs, etc. (the ACTUAL healthcare providers) deserve good wages commensurate with their training, expertise, and performance. And, of course, we need to have an efficient administrative structure. But we definitely don't need the middle man.
ReplyDeleteI, too, am disappointed with many aspects of ACA. There will be loopholes, weasel room, new opportunities for grift, and other unintended consequences. But there had to be a start. The system is so huge and complicated that it will take a series of legislative actions to make a real difference. The intentions behind ACA make it worthy as the first step to true reform. The alternatives (what are they again?) from the opposition do not seem as well intentioned.
"All Americans deserve the same health care as you" - PRECISELY! AMEN!!
ReplyDeleteObamacare at present is a real dog's breakfast - way too complicated and way too many cracks for people to fall through - and you can believe the profiteers will be shoving them into those cracks with a stick.
But - as I see it, now that the Supremes, and God bless the Chief Justice especially, have given the total green light - the more people who are all under the big umbrella, the more political pressure there will eventually be to sort everything out sensibly and fairly. Congress makes sure to toe the line on Social Security and Medicare, for the most part - why? - because there's millions of constituents who would scream their heads off if they didn't! Which in the course of time will be the same with the ACA thing - though it may work everybody's nerves till we get to that point.
Medicare for ALL! It's just so damn simple.
Medicare for ALL! It's just so damn simple.
ReplyDeleteReally! It is simple. And for all the misguided folks out there who think Medicare is free, think again. Medicare recipients pay premiums and co-pays, but the insurance is affordable, in most cases, and there is help for those who can't pay.
Did you hear the wonderful remark this week - maybe by Pelosi? - "Now, being a woman will no longer be a 'pre-existing condition.'" Delicious.
ReplyDeleteBTW, you might appreciate the New Yorker's collection of articles on the healthcare ruling, including one on the unsung hero in all this - "tough as nails" Ruth Bader Ginsburg. It's at their website, newyorker.com.
You go, Nancy!
ReplyDeleteI read the quote from Ruth Bader Ginsburg in which she mentioned Scalia's "broccoli" in her written opinion. He must have been livid. I'll check out the New Yorker website.
I just don't understand why it is that there are still people who, apparently, cannot grasp that caring for all means betterment for all - and that means even caring for those who take advantage of everyone else caring for them. It's not superstition. It's not magical thinking. It's not simplistic. It's not theologically motivated.
ReplyDeleteI think the real problem is that they do realize that, by holding out a hand to support another, you insure a hand to support yourself, but that they are damaged and terrified that they'll hold out a hand, help another up, and that other will push them over in return. Sometimes, they will. What they fail to see is that there's still someone on the other side to catch them when they're pushed, and the one doing the pushing will walk out of the circle anyway. Not a great analogy, but the best image I can come up with to simplify it.
Grandmére, these are all the same lies the bastards were telling in Saskatchewan 50 years ago. We are two days away from the anniversary of the date the Medicare system was implemented - and the majority of doctors went on strike.
ReplyDeleteI have actually talked to a couple of Docs today and they are really looking forward to the implementations.
ReplyDeleteI think the real problem is that they do realize that, by holding out a hand to support another, you insure a hand to support yourself, but that they are damaged and terrified that they'll hold out a hand, help another up, and that other will push them over in return.
ReplyDeleteYou're precisely right, Mark. Socio-economic "conservatism" (usually reactionary, not conservative) is largely a pathological FEAR response. A rational person can easily see, as you do, that "caring for all means betterment for all". But contemporary conservatism ISN'T rational. Ala, every "Big Government Program" means TeaParty Yours Truly is one (jack-booted, black helicopter-flying: Glenn Beck told me so!) step closer to THE ABYSS, for me and my precious, precious babies.
And FOX is mainlining this paranoid cr*p right into their viewers' brainstems. Fire=Bad! Run Away! Attack! Run Attack!
[JCF dreams of a "What Chill-Pill Can We Put In the Water Supply?" Solution again. Le Sigh.]
Best letter of the year. Would that senators read their own mail.
ReplyDeleteMark, all too many citizens of the US have no concept of the common good, that we all do better if few or none of us are completely left out of a stake in the prosperity of the richest country in the world.
ReplyDeleteMalcolm, since Teddy Roosevelt, presidents have tried to get something better for our citizens in the way of health care, but to no avail. LBJ did manage to get Medicare and Medicaid passed.
The idea for Romneycare in Massachusetts came from the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank. A good many Republicans were for the mandate, before they were against it.
susan s., I'm pleased to hear what you say. I'd think doctors would want something better than the mess we have now, but the docs around here are universally against ACA. They're concerned that they may make less money, but I don't know any doctors in the area who are not rich. Just saying.
Out here on the Texas prairie, it's easy to trace the lineage of that conservative cold-heartedness, looking at so many families who have lived in the same place for generations. The pioneer ethos that won the West and tamed the wilderness is still very much in evidence: whatever job it is that needs to be done, do it yourself, or go to hell, damn you!
ReplyDeleteThis individualistic emphasis is a two-edged sword: it produces (speaking in very general terms) people who are strong, capable, and self-sufficient, prospering by their own labor. Nothing wrong with that; it's in fact an admirable ideal. But at the same time it breeds a contempt for anyone who is unfortunate or unable for whatever reason to live up to that unyielding standard.
Someone more clever than I might trace the roots of this attitude back to the Protestant revolt against Rome, with its new emphasis on individual efforts as the key to material and spiritual salvation. The medieval Church, with its ubiquitous monasteries that were often the local social service centers and proto-hospitals for the poor and needy, encouraged a rather different societal attitude, I think. But I'm still on my first cup of coffee this morning, so I can say no more about all that.
Urban sophisticates across the nation, no matter how much they pride themselves on their liberalism and education, are not exempt from this individualistic snobbery and hard-heartedness. In the last two decades, there has been an upwelling of the very same contempt for those who don't conform to the ideal rule: you are sick, and therefore stupid and undeserving of respect, because you eat/drink/smoke/watch TV too much or you don't make enough money, you aren't cool enough, educated enough, hip enough.
This attitude is just as much a rejection of true Christianity as the conservative attitude against the so-called "freeloaders" who can't pull their own weight - but who will believe me, on either side of the divide?
JCF, I agree that much of the reactionary response is a result of fear, especially fear of change, which occurs rapidly these days. I can understand the fear, but don't take it out on your fellow citizens. And the Tea Partiers hearken to a past that never was.
ReplyDeleteRick, thank you. I know Vitter is unlikely to read my email, but sometimes when I post on my blog, his admirers take note and come to pay me a visit, so why not?
Russ, I read the posts on the Supreme Court decision at the New Yorker site. Ruth Bader Ginsburg does not mince words on the opinions of her fellow justices on the conservative side.
...you are sick, and therefore stupid and undeserving of respect, because you eat/drink/smoke/watch TV too much or you don't make enough money, you aren't cool enough, educated enough, hip enough.
I hear that sort of thing a lot around here. The obese people who ride the motorized carts at Walmart come in for special ridicule. So what do you do? Leave those folks out of the system, and let them sicken until they go to the ER, and then we all pay anyway. Or let the undeserving die in the street? What kind of society do we want to be?