The Shameful Truth behind Gov. Jindal's Rejection of Health Care Reforms

By Nomad

When it comes to Obamacare, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal's position is clear. He will have no part in it. However, his decision will come at a great cost to the welfare of the people of his state. Louisiana, more than most states, will benefit from affordable health care. 

The Quality of Care

Following the Supreme Court's decision, ruling that the Affordable Care Act was, after all, constitutional, all across the land one could hear the sound of the frying of the tiny shriveled brains of right wing conservatives. (It was no doubt made worse by those marvelous screw-ups from Fox and CNN.) 

Yet it was the reaction from Governor Bobby Jindal from Louisiana seemed the most insincere.

Immediately following the announcement of the court's decision, a flustered Jindal surely must have tweeted his fingers raw. He tweets:

Today’s decision is a blow to our freedoms.

He didn't even use all of his 144 characters to explain how our freedoms had precisely been blown. He left that to our imaginations. And later:

The Court should have protected our constitutional freedoms, but remember it was the President that forced this law on us.

As one blog writer noted, how the president forced the law on the American public was by passing it in Congress by majorities. That sly fox. 

However the most galling tweet of the day happened to be this one:

Americans oppose it because it will decrease the quality of care, raise taxes, cut Medicare, and break the bank. All of this is still true.

As we shall soon see, this tweet is, by far, the most obscene.

Mainstream Media Misreports Supreme Court ACA Decision

by Nomad

Finally, Americans got some good news today. (At least, Obama did.)

Against expectations, the Supreme Court ruled that the individual mandate- a key component of the Affordable Care Act- is after all constitutional. It was really a 50-50 call because with the recent decisions by the court, even the most preposterous result was quite possible.

Of course if you were a devoted viewer of CNN and Fox News, you might have never known what the Supreme Court ruled. Here are screen shots (courtesy of ThinkProgress) of what those so-called news organization reported.

When the Supreme Court Struck Back at Roosevelt 1/2

by Nomad
In the past I have written about Roosevelt’s forgotten battle with the Supreme Court in 1933 but I’d like to return to this lost bit of history for a closer look. It isn’t all about our grandfather’s history because at this time, in these days prior to the Supreme Court ruling on the constitutionality of President Obama’s healthcare reform program, the parallels, I think, are striking. 

It isn’t the first time the executive and the judicial branches have been at loggerheads and perhaps lessons can be learned from history.

Action Now

The 1932 presidential election was not even close. President Herbert Hoover’s failed policies and his apparent detachment from the trials of his own people during the Great Depression won his few votes. At no time in American history had the conditions been quite as unforgiving as this and yet Hoover seemed out of touch with the average Americans. 

Like most economists of his age, Hoover on the other hand had warned against "mindless experimentation" in established government policy. He felt that the best policy was to wait things out, the national economy would recover on its own. It always had before.

Supreme Court Reviews Obama's Health Care Reform: A Question of the Character of A Nation

by Nomad

As the Supreme Court begins a long review of the health reform plan with a final decision sometime around June, many on the Right are already predicting trouble for Obama. In particular, the justices are giving special attention to the constitutionality question of the individual mandate, a key feature of the program. Without a mandate, the problem of the uninsured citizen will likely continue. As author Rick Newman, writing for USNews, reports:

At the eye of this gathering storm is the "individual mandate," a key part of the law that will require most Americans to buy a minimum level of health insurance by 2014, or ask the feds for an exemption. Those in violation will have to pay a penalty fee that could be as high as the annual premium on a basic insurance plan. The mandate, which some people consider highly intrusive, generated court challenges almost as soon as Obama signed the law, with the Supreme Court now due to decide whether it's constitutional. If not, the whole reform scheme could unravel.