The vote of the Supreme Court is interesting in other ways. The credibility of the court has plummeted in recent years from over 80% to between 40 and 50%. This outfit of unelected capitalist stooges is very important for US capitalism. It is there to regulate and hold down the pressure of the masses for change and to implement the interests of the capitalist class. At times the pressures from below can threaten to get out of whack and destabilize things, at other times the pressures from above can get out of whack and threaten to destabilize things. The Supreme Court is wheeled out on such occasions to balance and keep the lid on. Recently the capitalist offensive had pushed the Supreme Court much more to the right. As such it was in danger of becoming less effective in playing its role of balancing and controlling and keeping the capitalist class in power. The decision of Roberts to go with the liberal wing of the court on this occasion is motivated to a great extent by his desire to bring some credibility back to the court. To, as some commentators have said "restore the integrity of the court" after their blatantly extreme right wing positions and their pro Republican actions such as putting Bush in power in spite of him losing the election.
The other thing worth noting in relation to this decision is what it signifies in relation to the class balance of forces and mood in the USA. US capitalism have been carrying out a war against women. In the past few months this has begun to go to lengths where millions of women are now fighting back. We also have had the Trayvon Martin killing where forces against racism have gained strength and the local racist cops have been moved against. We have also had the Occupy movement which spread across the movement taking with it its 1% 99% idea. The signs are that US capitalism are getting close to going too far and provoking a major movement that would halt its offensive and throw it back and open up a new offensive of the working class. When this happens the capitalists will need the Supreme Court to have some credibility. This is also involved in the decision on the Affordable Care Act.
The organizers of this blog believe the Supreme Court should be abolished.
‘Health law upheld, but health needs still unmet’: national doctors group
Although the Supreme Court has upheld the Affordable Care Act, the law will not remedy the U.S. health crisis, physicians group saysFOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
June 28, 2012
Garrett Adams, M.D., M.P.H., president PNHP
Andrew Coates, M.D., president-elect PNHP
Steffie Woolhandler, M.D., M.P.H.
David Himmelstein, M.D.
See Electronic Press Kit with selected spokesperson bios here. For contacts in nearly every state and major city, contact Mark Almberg, PNHP, (312) 782-6006, cell: (312) 622-0996, email@example.com, or see www.pnhp.org/stateactions.
The following statement was released today by leaders of Physicians for a National Health Program (www.pnhp.org). Their signatures appear below.
Although the Supreme Court has upheld the Affordable Care Act (ACA), the unfortunate reality is that the law, despite its modest benefits, is not a remedy to our health care crisis: (1) it will not achieve universal coverage, as it leaves at least 26 million uninsured, (2) it will not make health care affordable to Americans with insurance, because of high co-pays and gaps in coverage that leave patients vulnerable to financial ruin in the event of serious illness, and (3) it will not control costs.
Why is this so? Because the ACA perpetuates a dominant role for the private insurance industry. Each year, that industry siphons off hundreds of billions of health care dollars for overhead, profit and the paperwork it demands from doctors and hospitals; it denies care in order to increase insurers’ bottom line; and it obstructs any serious effort to control costs.
In contrast, a single-payer, improved-Medicare-for-all system would provide truly universal, comprehensive coverage; health security for our patients and their families; and cost control. It would do so by replacing private insurers with a single, nonprofit agency like Medicare that pays all medical bills, streamlines administration, and reins in costs for medications and other supplies through its bargaining clout.
Research shows the savings in administrative costs alone under a single-payer plan would amount to $400 billion annually, enough to provide quality coverage to everyone with no overall increase in U.S. health spending.
The major provisions of the ACA do not go into effect until 2014. Although we will be counseled to “wait and see” how this reform plays out, we’ve seen how comparable plans have worked in Massachusetts and other states. Those “reforms” have invariably failed our patients, foundering on the shoals of skyrocketing costs, even as the private insurers have continued to amass vast fortunes.
Our patients, our people and our national economy cannot wait any longer for an effective remedy to our health care woes. The stakes are too high.
Contrary to the claims of those who say we are “unrealistic,” a single-payer system is within practical reach. The most rapid way to achieve universal coverage would be to improve upon the existing Medicare program and expand it to cover people of all ages. There is legislation before Congress, notably H.R. 676, the “Expanded and Improved Medicare for All Act,” which would do precisely that.
What is truly unrealistic is believing that we can provide universal and affordable health care in a system dominated by private insurers and Big Pharma.
The American people desperately need a universal health system that delivers comprehensive, equitable, compassionate and high-quality care, with free choice of provider and no financial barriers to access. Polls have repeatedly shown an improved Medicare for all, which meets these criteria, is the remedy preferred by two-thirds of the population. A solid majority of the medical profession now favors such an approach, as well.
We pledge to step up our work for the only equitable, financially responsible and humane cure for our health care ills: single-payer national health insurance, an expanded and improved Medicare for all.
Garrett Adams, M.D.
Andrew Coates, M.D.
Oliver Fein, M.D.
Claudia Fegan, M.D.
David Himmelstein, M.D.
Steffie Woolhandler, M.D.
Quentin Young, M.D.
Don McCanne, M.D.
Senior Health Policy Fellow
For a fact sheet on health care access, costs, safety-net and women’s health issues, and the evidence-based case for single-payer national health insurance, click here. For bios and video clips of selected PNHP spokespersons, click here.
Physicians for a National Health Program (www.pnhp.org) is an organization of more than 18,000 doctors who advocate for single-payer national health insurance. To speak with a physician/spokesperson in your area, visit www.pnhp.org/stateactions or call (312) 782-6006.