Skip to main content

Healthcare Stress


It’s what Republicans have dreamed of for ten years.

The Supreme Court, at long last, is poised to drive a stake through the heart of the Affordable Care Act. And at a perfect time, too. When better than during a global pandemic? Finally, the gleeful snatching away of health insurance from 20 million people is in their sights.

But it’s worse than that. If the Court votes the wrong way, Covid victims could end up uninsurable for the rest of their lives. It’s already clear that the Covid-based health issues of today are the pre-existing conditions of tomorrow. Without Obamacare, any condition deemed pre-existing might never be covered again.

Of course, when I say the Court, I mean John Roberts. With last week’s Louisiana abortion decision, Roberts made clear that he holds the only vote that counts. The decision was encouraging, but only barely. He held his nose and sided with the liberal wing, citing respect for established precedent. Of course, the Voting Rights Act had plenty of established precedent as well, so how seriously can we take that argument?

But he certainly pissed off a lot of evangelicals and others for whom abortion is the only issue that matters. And he could save Obamacare with a similar stunt, if he’s in the mood. He’s done it before, and there’s precedent there that he might choose to respect. Or not. The truth is we have no idea how he’ll vote. And we probably won’t find out until after the election. But that’s okay. Millions of families can easily stay terrified until then. They’re used to it.

But while the Court can make the healthcare situation immeasurably worse, it can’t make it better. As we watch the virus ravage the south and west in the next few weeks, we’ll start to see just how shaky the entire healthcare system is, especially in states that reopened too soon after closing too late.

The human loss, depressing enough, will be accompanied by a huge test of what’s left of Obamacare. Even if it survives its Court battle, Covid is putting it under more stress than was ever anticipated.

ACA was never anybody’s idea of a great healthcare plan. From the start, it was a cobbled-together, over-complicated approach, tailored to conform to what Democrats guessed Republicans might actually support.

They guessed wrong. Republicans rejected it anyway — even the parts that were their idea — mostly because the president at the time was Black. In their loathing, they labeled it “Obamacare,” a sneering pejorative that Obama turned around on them, taking ownership of it for himself. They’ve been trying to kill it ever since, but it’s still the law of the land. Now, with Covid putting the whole jerry-rigged system under pressure, any weaknesses in ACA will surely be exposed.

Many of those states that are in the crosshairs of the virus — all run by Republicans, not coincidentally — are states that, for no rational reason, turned down ACA’s Medicaid expansion. Never mind that it would have brought billions in federal money into their healthcare systems. Again, it was the Black guy’s idea, so they weren’t interested.

Wouldn’t that money come in handy right about now, what with the virus putting the squeeze on? Do they understand they’ll be paying for their idiocy, both medically and financially, for a generation? Do they care?

As it happens, there’s been some pushback about that. Last week, Oklahoma — a state as red as they come — put Medicaid expansion on the ballot. And won. The electorate basically gave the finger to all the corrupt Republicans they themselves had elected, and said they wanted Medicaid immediately, if not sooner.

But that’s a rare piece of good news. Because the stress on our entire healthcare infrastructure is likely to be severe. Whole hospital systems could go under. Cities and counties could go bankrupt, with ripple effects all through the private sector. Without federal help — which will surely be too little, too late — states and cities will see major layoffs of police, fire, sanitation, and government workers of every stripe. Maybe by fall.

We need to chalk all this up, once again, to Republican malfeasance, which has gone from larcenous to murderous. Their decades of callous disregard for the health of our citizenry — and for our government’s duty to underwrite it — is now costing real lives in real time. They don’t care. Human life does not factor into their thinking.

But even for those stuck in the Trump/Fox alternative reality bubble, you’d think it would sink in that this virus is not messing around. That it thrives on their nonchalance. That masks are about safety, not politics. That Trump rallies are disease vectors. That Republicans do not have their back.

And that the Court they’re counting on to kill abortion, might just kill their health coverage, too. Or instead.


Berkley MI

Friday 06/03/20

Comments

  1. Technical historical point: The 2013 Voting Rights Act decisiĆ³n centered on The failure of Congress to update which states and counties are subject to special oversite by the Justice Department or s federal court. This hadn’t been updated for decades and the Court threw it out. I don’t think the ruling was so crazy on its face. The law itself was not thrown out by the Court. Congress could update the formulas for determining which jurisdictions are subject to oversite. Congress has been unwilling to act. I blame Congress for failing to keep the oversite system alive. They are worse than the Supreme Court.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. While I'm sure you're right, subsequent events have shown that those very states and counties didn't need updating -- they immediately went right back to voter suppression, and with a vengeance. The right side of SCOTUS always seems to tailor its legal arguments to the decision they are predisposed to making. So while those arguments may have validity (you'd know better than I) I think they're made in bad faith.

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Guess Where You Can Find the Real Pedophiles

When political discourse turns to pedophilia — which it should never, ever do — it helps to separate fiction from non-fiction. The fictional narrative, widely disseminated by QAnon-addled propagandists, is that the Democratic Party is a vast conspiracy of ravenous child abusers, who just barely managed to cover up Hillary Clinton’s bloodthirsty coven in the basement of a D.C. pizza parlor. The non-fiction narrative — profusely-documented but with a much lower profile — is that both the priesthood of the Catholic Church and the ministries of the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) have indulged and protected a stunningly large number of child molesters, and allowed them to enjoy long and predatory careers within their respective churches. In the last few weeks, these two stories flew somewhat under the radar, but both are worth looking at, not so much for the staggering hypocrisy of its characters — hypocrisy fatigue has long since rendered us numb — as for its legal and political i

Sex: The Abortion Origin Story

In the next month, five ultra-Catholic ideologues, unencumbered by any rational thought process, will decide that a fetus has more rights than its mother. When that happens, the legislatures in as many as 26 states will likely enact laws, under which a pregnant woman will, in effect, be legally obligated to carry to term every fetus that takes root in her body. Whether or not she was raped by a stranger, or by her father. Whether or not she miscarries. Whether or not the baby dies in her womb. Whether or not the baby is capable of life outside her womb. Whether or not that baby’s survival is likely to kill her. The rights of her fetus will, apparently in all cases, supercede hers. And her partner’s, too. Because for every beer-soaked asshole who will now be empowered to force his battered wife to carry his baby, there will be hundreds of responsible husbands legally barred from responsibly planning a family, or from ending a family-crippling pregnancy, or from choosing the life

The New York Times Is Doing Us No Favors

I am a life-long customer of The New York Times, and generally a satisfied one. For sheer news-gathering firepower, they continue to stand out in a tarnished but still important field. They’ve covered — or uncovered — virtually every major story of the last century and a half. Their investigative prowess is unquestioned. Plus, they have Paul Krugman on their op-ed page, an invaluable source of level-headed insights on a wide range of subjects. He combines a Nobel-level knowledge of economics with an astute political eye that is almost always dead on. He alone is worth the paywall, at least to me. But with all that said, the Times has lately been pissing me off. They’ve become unreasonably invested in what Krugman himself has decried as “false equivalency” — better known as “both-siderism.” They continue to pretend that our two major parties are equally engaged in reasonable discourse, and are equally responsible for the fractious and violent state of the nation. The Times scrup