It never was about Health. It never was about universal coverage. Access does not equal care and certainly not quality care. Yes, one side "won." But this is not a victory for you.
It is not a left-wing agenda. It is not socialized medicine. This is the first time the Federal Government has mandated the purchase of a private party product. And from the very racketeering group that is the root cause of the problem in the first place. What a travesty. Another government subsidy. Effectively amounts to another "government bailout.."
As Michael Moore wryly said:
The larger picture here is that the private insurance companies are still the ones in charge. They're still going to call the shots. And if anything, they've just been given another big handout by the government by guaranteeing customers. I mean, this is really kind of crazy when you think about it.
This is not the same as a state mandate for auto insurance.
The State of California is unrelenting on this point. Driving is a privilege! It is not a right. If you do not drive, you are not mandated to purchase auto insurance. Furthermore, the reality is auto insurance does not cost $5000-12,000 annually.
This is the first major landmark piece of legislation in American history that was passed by such a narrow margin without a single Republican vote. Social Security passed with bipartisan support in 1935 -- 81 Republican Congressman and 16 Republican Senators. In 1965 Medicare passed with bipartisan support -- 70 House Republicans and 13 Senate Republicans. In 2010 there was not one single Republican vote. And the margin in the House was razor thin -- 220 to 212.
It also violates a well-tested political strategy -- sell it first to the American people who will then pressure Congress to pass new legislation. The public is not aboard. The latest Quinnipiac and Washington Post polls show the public still opposes this landmark Act.
AT&T has already made plans for a $1 billion write-off in advance of cost shifting. And legal staff is hard at work looking for technical loopholes. This just in from Robert Peer at the New York Times:
William G. Schiffbauer, a lawyer whose clients include employers and insurance companies, said: "The fine print differs from the larger political message. If a company sells insurance, it will have to cover pre-existing conditions for children covered by the policy. But it does not have to sell to somebody with a pre-existing condition. And the insurer could increase premiums to cover the additional cost."
Everyone is giddy about "the win." This is only the end of the beginning.
Remember the Telecommunications act of 1996? It was enacted to guarantee local competition amongst the major carriers. It never happened.WATCH: Interview with Michael Moore