As news of the on President Obama’s Healthcare Reform Act broke, many official California supporters were quick to release official statements, excerpts of which are reprinted below:
Los Angeles County Democratic Party Chair and California Democratic Party Vice-Chair Eric C. Bauman
I applaud the Supreme Court's ruling this morning to uphold the Affordable Care Act, the signature piece of legislation of President Obama's first term. More than 44 million Americans without insurance will not lose their opportunity to get health care or be denied coverage due to a pre-existing condition, and those who are insured no longer face the threat of losing their coverage if they get sick.
Rep. Ed Royce (R-Fullerton)
I am extremely disappointed in today's ruling. The president's health care bill, one of the most intrusive bills this nation has ever seen, was a huge step toward a Washington-controlled health care system.
L.A. County Board of Supervisors Chairman Zev Yaroslavsky
Providing health care services to the community is among our highest priorities as County officials…For the last two years Los Angeles has been preparing to transition to health care under the Affordable Care Act. With the Supreme Court decision behind us, we can now turn our attention to full implementation of the law in 2014."
Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, (R-Huntington Beach)
It's now time for the American people to speak out and reject the job killing, massive tax increasing government takeover of health care that is Obamacare by electing a president and representatives willing to fully repeal and replace this monstrosity.
Los Angeles County Department of Health Services Director Dr. Mitchell Katz
As a result of today’s decision by the Supreme Court to uphold the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), over 80% of the 2.2 million people who are currently uninsured in Los Angeles County stand to gain access to affordable insurance coverage.
In addition to those who will be newly eligible for Medi-Cal, three-quarters of a million additional County residents will be able to purchase affordable health insurance through the state’s health insurance exchange, take control of their health, and reduce pressure on our strained County-run health care system.
Rep. Howard "Buck" McKeon (R-Santa Clarita)
Obamacare is still a dangerous collaboration of bad legislating, smoke
and mirrors calculations and dangerous policy...Born from
intensely partisan, back-door deals and closed-room meetings, Obamacare is a boondoggle of historic proportions.
California Gov. Gerry Brown
Today's dramatic Supreme Court ruling removes the last roadblock to fulfilling President Obama's historic plan to bring health care to millions of uninsured citizens.
Elizabeth Benson Forer, executive director of Venice Family Clinic
With 7 million uninsured residents in California and 2.7 million people in Los Angeles County alone with no heath insurance, the Court’s decision means California can move forward with fully implementing the Affordable Care Act and providing a health care system that truly works for all Californians. We thank President Obama for his leadership on this issue and applaud the Supreme Court for upholding the fact that health care is not a political or social issue—it’s a basic human right.
Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa
Today’s ruling by the Supreme Court to uphold the basic provisions of the Affordable Care Act is a historic step forward for our country. Healthcare for each and every individual is not a privilege; it’s a right. This morning’s decision is a victory for all Americans, and I could not be prouder.
By upholding the Affordable Care Act the Supreme Court ensured 3.1 million young people – including 435,000 young Californians – will maintain their coverage. The Court’s ruling protects Americans with preexisting conditions and provides them with access to the safe and secure healthcare options that were once out of reach. By ruling that those people who can afford to buy insurance have an obligation to do so, the Court has reaffirmed the bedrock principle of personal responsibility. And most importantly, the Court’s ruling moves our nation one step closer to the ultimate goal of providing healthcare for all. More than 30 million Americans will gain affordable health care with the enactment of this bill. This is a momentous achievement that should be rightly celebrated.
—City News Service contributed to this report.
Well good luck to THEM - but they would have a better case if they did it as the people of the Several States of the Union, than as citizens of the District of Columbia (and other conquered territories). I'm staying here in the California Republic state, so enjoy your status as a subject, if you happen to RESIDE here.
Your point on the Insurance Industry is valid - they are in healthcare to make a profit, not to provide benefits. That is why the ACA places limits on how much profit they can make. Single-Payer healthcare (or socialized medicine as right-wing ideologues like to put it), would be far preferable to the ACA - but Obama took that off-the-table, because he didn't want to fight the backlash that would have resulted, as the posts here, on the more tepid ACA, would indicate. The STATE of CA pays less than a quarter on every dollar, to physicians, under the current Medicare/Medical scheme. That is the real reason that costs are so high. Those who can afford insurance (a number that increases under the ACA), are paying the costs of those who can't - and yet still require medical care (often sought at addtional cost in Emergency Rooms, because they wait until much later to receive treatment - having no GP care). What can't be debated is that things as they were, weren't working. Hospitals were shutting their ER's and trauma care, all across the southland - because of the STATE and County's failure to provide for the indigent.
When Mitt Romney and John McCain put forward the "individual mandate" idea, no one made a peep. Now that Obama adopts their program, suddenly this is anathema to "freedom" ??? Cubans have a greater freedom to receive medical care than poor Americans do. What does that tell you? As we can see from Jo's regurgitation of right-wing talking points and Glenn Beck's misguided diatribes below - this is an emotional issue, being used to focus upper- and middle-class 'white' rage against a 'black' President. The fact that the same propagandists had no problem with our Nation's debt when we were engaging in two simultaneous wars of aggression, while using "emergency" supplemental funding solutions (off-the-books accounting) shows exactly the level of hypocracy and delusion that we are dealing with. And since the debt is based on your-ass being collateral, and you're willing to keep working for "America" - what difference does it really make. All Federal Reserve Notes are debt-instruments. Our entire economy is based on debt now (since 1933). Banks trade debt as an asset (that's what tanked our economy BTW - credit default swaps and other exotic debt instruments), so I can't see what difference a few trillion makes between friends.
So you get the ACA (because Obama conceded on single-payer, before the fight began). If you can't afford health insurance under the ACA (admittedly, on an abitrarily determined criteria created by Congress) - then you aren't subject to the penalty (which the Robert's Court upheld under Congress' "power to tax"). Personally, I found the "Commerce"-clause argument (for U.S. citizens), to be at least as convincing - but the Administration and Court both used the easiest justification, to justify the ACA. We pay for Government workers healthcare for the same reason that we pay for their pensions - we agreed to do so - and that constitutes a contract. And it makes sense, too. While Government workers don't (usually) have the opportunity to make the kind of exhorbitant salaries that private industry provides to the lucky 1% - they do get a certain amount of job security - and significant benefits, including healthcare and pensions. The POTUS gets the healthcare which Congress made part of the job-package.
I'm sure that as a former police officer that you've been trained to ignore the protests of people who are state Citizens, and are hence 'Sovereign' (within THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA - by STATE Consitution and Code), and hence entitled to their Inalienable/Constitutional rights and the benefits of the Common Law (at least here in the California Republic). When you've pulled people over for violations of some statute, where none have been harmed, and there are no actual damages, you've been a party to the same type of governmental overreach. In California, the STATE CODES require PERSONs to buy insurance (enter into contracts on a non-consensual basis, with private corporations), for their cars. But as a people of California, not engaging in interstate commerce of anykind, while travelling upon the roads - I get swept up routinely (and wrongfully) by this type of interaction, to which RESIDENTS (US subjects/PERSONs) are justly and legally bound. I find it ironic that you now complain about what is a lawful application, of a type of interaction which you've no doubt participated in (or at least have been trained to do so), on an unlawful basis.
First: The U.S. is not, and never has been, a "democracy." The U.S. is a constitutional republic, with representatives elected by democratic means. Second: No police officer I know of is "trained to ignore the protests" of anyone, citizen or not. Third: Congress does not "grant" civil rights, it merely recognizes, codifies and seeks to protect and defend them for all who are in the U.S., citizen and non-citizen alike. Fourth: Enforcing duly-enacted laws, however inconvenient those may be for some, is not a de-facto example of "government overreach." It is primarily through our duly-elected representative government that our society enacts and enforces its laws. When a given law proves immoral (e.g. slavery) it is our duty as citizens to abolish such laws *through* government, not in spite of it. Fifth: When California enacts a law requiring auto insurance it is doing so under its authority under the 10th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Were the general (federal) government to enact such a requirement, it would, in fact, be in *violation* of that very same Amendment, because requiring auto insurance is not among the enumerated powers we have granted to Congress under Art. 1 Sec. 8 of that same constitution. I find it ironic that you persume to instruct others on topics of which you, yourself, appear to have so little understanding.
I would agree on tort reform if limits on defense Atty fees was part of it, but no way that will happen! PS --> Most litigation is business v. business not PI or med malpractice....
"First: The U.S. is not, and never has been, a "democracy." The U.S. is a constitutional republic, with representatives elected by democratic means." You are confusing the United States with the United States of America. The US has a constitutional definition (the D.C. and conquered territories, Federal installations etc.), as does the USA. "Second: No police officer I know of is "trained to ignore the protests" of anyone, citizen or not." Good point - you are no doubt trained to make notes and recount them, in a MONOTONE, even when they were uttered ironically and with sarcasm. "Third: Congress does not "grant" civil rights, it merely recognizes, codifies and seeks to protect and defend them for all who are in the U.S., citizen and non-citizen alike." So, the "Voting Rights Act" and various Civil Rights Acts (186? and 1968 for instance) recognized rights inherent and recognized in all, prior to their passage? Then why bother? US citizens (citizens of the D.C. and territories) lacked any right to vote, upon the Constitution's initial passage. Those who RESIDE in the STATES, were granted that right. Bush V. Gore discussed this somewhat. "Fourth:...." You are assuming (incorrectly) that everything done since the Civil War is DeJure and not merely De Facto actions taken on an "Emergency" basis. Think about Slave Codes/"Jim Crow Laws" and Brown V. Board etc..
Also the STATE OF CALIFORNIA is (according to the most recent version of its "substitute" for the state Constitution [see 1849]) is a part of the United States, encompassing the same territory described by the boundaries in the 1849 constitution - "as amended by statute" to include the D.C., apparently. I'll let your parting shot go without responding - because you were clearly confused in your answer, and because it is beneath the dignity of the Sovereign to do so. If you want to brush up on your education regarding Rights and Citizenship vs. citizenship, I think that you could do much worse than talking to Citizen Richard James: MacDonald, who also has an enormous amount of citations and research available, for you to digest, before responding so glib-ly. see: http://www.state-citizen.org/ . If you are willing to respond honestly after considering the information which he has there, I'm always more than willing to have an intelligent discussion - with you or any other participant in the system, or "Law Enforcement".
I deny no one anything. No person should be deprived of any of their natural, civil, legal, or political rights except through due process. I desire that the general government remain completely and entirely constrained to the powers specifically enumurated in the constitution and that if we seek to expand those powers to any degree, that we do the politcal heavy-lifting necessary to amend the constitution accordingly. You are free to continue to quibble over language all you like. I suggest, however, that your readers might be far better served were you to employ more critical thought and less disingenuousness.
I'm sorry that you refuse to avail yourself of the opportunity to expand and rectify your understanding about these issues. It's still not too late, however. While he is getting older, I'm fairly certain that Mr. MacDonald would admit you to one of his monthy seminars on state Citizenship vs. US citizenship. But that would be up to you. With as much energy and time as you seem to have, you would no doubt be a worthy ally in the struggle to create (for the first time), a truly just and lawful society upon this continent. If you wish to ensure to the people those rights, which you claim the desire not to deny to any corporation (person) - we could ceratinly use your help. But I won't hold my breath.
I find it interesting that when confronted with your erroneous assertion that the United States is a "Democracy", you immediately grow silent on that score. Likewise your failure to distinguish between State law and Federal law. Likewise your erroneous implication that a duly-enacted legal statute that either commands or prohibits an act or an omission during which, allegedly, "none have been harmed, and there are no actual damages" is somehow not worthy of enforcing. I have heard this argument before, it goes something like this: "It's 4am. There's no one around in any direction. Why should I wait for the red light to change to green? I am not actually harming anyone by proceeding. I am not causing anyone any actual damage." The damage in such an offense, is to the common good and the harm is to good order within a community. At some point, the People of California, through their elected legislative representatives saw fit to require, with a few exceptions, that drivers stop for a steady circular red signal. They did not include an exception for whether the driver personally felt anyone else would be harmed or any actual damage done. The common good and good community order require that folks obey our duly enacted laws. It's not that complex.
If enough of our citizens desire to see the federal government's powers expanded to include healthcare and/or health coverage, then they should do the political heavy lifting necessary to amend the constitution so that it will say as much. What productive purpose is a federal constitution if we refuse to follow it?
But If you believe, as 5 of the 9 justices of the Supreme Court do, that the Commerce Clause in Article 1 of the Constitution gives Congress the authority to mandate health care insurance for citizens, then you are incorrect.
SCOTUS did not find that ACA was lawful under the Commerce Clause (or under the Necessary and Proper Clause). SCOTUS found ACA to be lawful under Congress' taxing authority. While I agree that Congress has the constitional power to lay and collect taxes, I think that authorizing the individual mandate in ACA under the dubious justification that it is a tax, is a tortuous stretch of jurisprudence.
Yes we have our poor, but our poor are the wealthiest poor on the planet. Yes we have crooked politicians, but we have regular opportunities to remove them from elected office, even though in far too many cases we fail to do so. Yes there is a lot of money (corporate and otherwise) that is pumped into our elections every year in blatant attempts to mislead and otherwise influence us as voters, but come election day it is we, and no one else, who has the individual power to cast our votes. The degree that our political system is or remains corrupt is the degree that the electors -and no one else- permit it to be.
Well, you both make excellent arguments & each in your own way are correct. On a few occasions I have had the opportunity to perform volunteer work here, in the US & in other countries, so, John I understand your point. And ERMom, there is nothing in your comments I can disagree with. I would suggest though that you eliminate the foul language. This will give greater power to your arguments. And, for the record, I agree with the court's decision--I just do not understand why it is considered a tax (I am severly business handicapped). Can't we say it is in Congress's power to pass such legislation?
Congress has no authority under our constitution to take any action on healthcare or health coverage whatsoever. Neither of those areas are enumerated in the constitution and I believe Amendment 10 is quite clear in this regard that the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. If government is to be involved in healthcare or health coverage at all, it should be at the State or local levels. Either that or we need to amend the constitution.
Nor do any of the subsequent constitutional amendments in any way negate the 10th. Nor does the Commerce Clause do so, we have simply expanded the Commerce Clause far, far beyond what the framers ever intended.