[jeffkrol]

Rough draft of a few thoughts. Since I obvious have a vested interest I need some thoughts on clarity and content..
Whack away.......

Open Letter to the Supreme Court of the United States of America.

You honors,

For thirty years I have been following the degradation of our health care insurance system, and for 30 years had hoped that the US would eventually make strides in an issue at least as old as the Truman Administration.

Unfortunately it still seem muddied in politics and a lack of understanding of what a great nation can do for it's people.

The deliberations in the SCOTUS seem to have obsessed on the “forced to buying a private product” aspect of the individual mandate. I also believe that the perception is that many have made a decision and now making the facts suit that decision instead of the more just way of looking at the facts and adjudicating.

The reasons I believe this are as follows.

Working Americans are forced every day to buy a product ie. Social Security and Medicare.
Social Security, a non-opt out pension plan. And a good one at that. Some even want this to be more in tune with “modern day realities” and be put into private hands.
Now you can argue that this is different since it is a government program. But is it really?
What does Medicare funds buy. First it pays the salaries and benefits of private industry providers which I as a “purchaser” have no choice in picking. It also pays for services and drugs supplied by “private industry”.
Moving on to the military my taxes bought the services of the likes of “Blackwater” and a whole host of private industry from national companies to indigenous to the foreign country suppliers, none of which I had any control over. You could even make the argument that if the army wanted broccoli I, in the form of my tax dollars, had to buy them broccoli, even if I was a cauliflower grower.
Of course you can say that that's different but it is a security issue. Many, and a growing number feel health care is also a National Security issue. We used to feel so inclined, and most developed foreign countries would agree.....The health of their citizens is tantamount to their security.

Using this line of reasoning.. what private services do my tax dollars pay for with or without my knowledge nor agreement? I suspect the list is quite long.

I would like to argue the only difference between the above and the insurance mandate is the mandate is actually more honest and transparent, unlike the innumerable “private industries” my taxes support which could or could not go against my wishes or moral background. I directly have to buy a product instead of letting the Federal Government decide for me. More honest.

All that being said you would think that I was a supporter of the individual mandate, but that would not be the whole truth. I support universal “Medicare for all” coverage but have been forced in these “do-nothing” times to support the least socially disruptive approach to our Health Care Emergency.

On a closing note a sobering thought, have we progressed as a society or has societal stagnation truly started us down the path of Rome?

Truman Library - November 19, 1945: Truman Proposes Health Program
President Truman's health proposals finally came to Congress in the form of a Social Security expansion bill, co-sponsored in Congress by Senators Robert Wagner (D-NY) and James Murray (D-MT), along with Representative John Dingell (D-MI). For this reason, the bill was known popularly as the W-M-D bill. The American Medical Association (AMA) launched a spirited attack against the bill, capitalizing on fears of Communism in the public mind. The AMA characterized the bill as "socialized medicine", and in a forerunner to the rhetoric of the McCarthy era, called Truman White House staffers "followers of the Moscow party line".* Organized labor, the main public advocate of the bill, had lost much of its goodwill from the American people in a series of unpopular strikes. Following the outbreak of the Korean War, President Truman was finally forced to abandon the W-M-D Bill. Although Mr. Truman was not able to create the health program he desired, he was successful in publicizing the issue of health care in America. During his Presidency, the not-for-profit health insurance fund Blue Shield-Blue Cross grew from 28 million policies to over 61 million.** When on July 30, 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Medicare bill into law at the Harry S. Truman library & Museum, he said that it "all started really with the man from Independence".**

---

Last edited by jeffkrol; 03-29-2012 at 04:44 AM.

[kswier]

A few thoughts. First, I think sending a letter like this is a good idea. I have my doubts as to whether it will actually make it to the Justices, but it is the best we can do.

I think the letter itself probably speaks to a broad claim that has no legal history to back it (the broad claim is that telling people to purchase a private service under penalty of a fine is the same as collecting taxes and spending that money for a private service). I am not saying it is a poor argument, but that I do not believe there is much legal precedence.

I also believe that the perception is that many have made a decision and now making the facts suit that decision instead of the more just way of looking at the facts and adjudicating.

I would leave this out just in case this does get to the justices. Again I think it is a fair point, but telling somebody they are doing something wrong will often cause them to ignore the rest of the argument. I would write the entire letter in the tone that says you are concerned about the nations healthcare and are wondering if the following argument has been looked at.

Thirdly, I do not quite get how the Trueman paragraph fits with the main theme of the letter. I would opt to drop it to make the letter shorter and more concise (to increase the probability it will be read).

Lastly, I am unsure if writing a letter whose subject is a legal argument (without all the research of previous cases that often goes into these arguments) will hold much sway. I would write it as if you are a citizen who is concerned that getting rid of the mandate will effect many provisions that you find important, and that they should do everything in their power to keep the bill as intact as possible and provide congress with the opportunity to fix the bill if the mandate is found unconstitutional. Include the argument above, but I personally would not make it the main subject.

Hope this helps, and of course feel free to write whatever letter you deem appropriate in the end.

[jeffkrol]

Truman fits in in my mind because his attempt at "socialized medicine" or gov. mandated health coverage goes back nearly 70 years with the same rhetoric being used over and over.
One stop short ob broccoli and death panels...

I think the letter itself probably speaks to a broad claim that has no legal history to back it (the broad claim is that telling people to purchase a private service under penalty of a fine is the same as collecting taxes and spending that money for a private service). I am not saying it is a poor argument, but that I do not believe there is much legal precedence.

so let me put it this way.. hey we are going to take 10% of your money to do w/ as we please. We will pay people and buy stuff off the private market. trust us we will do the right thing vs take your money (which we could collect in taxes, pretend to spend it on the military but actually pay doctors bills for poor people) and buy insurance.

It's not so much the legal precident but the smoke and mirrors of one vs the other .

I give the gov. a dollar, They give my dollar to Blackwater. therefore I was just forced to pay Blackwater one dollar w/ the gov. as nothing more than an intermediary in the transaction..

Gov says hey take one dollar and send it to Blackwater.. I yell "unconstitutional!!
If you send your Medicare premiums to the Fed it's OK but not to Blue Cross (which in the old days "administered" the benefits so in fact you "paid" the employee at BC)?? Remember you HAVE to pay for Medicare (except for a few opt outs) Isn't that more on the line of racketeering??
Not only that you have to pay into Medicare AND not get any services for decades.....

Where am I missing the "real" difference? It's OK IF I don't know what I'm actually buying except some broad concept of national security. Which needs to be tied in w/ health care is a national security issue. They just aren't seeing it yet.

I would leave this out just in case this does get to the justices. Again I think it is a fair point, but telling somebody they are doing something wrong will often cause them to ignore the rest of the argument. I would write the entire letter in the tone that says you are concerned about the nations healthcare and are wondering if the following argument has been looked at.

This can apply to anyone, and since most will think the "other side" is doing it.. rather harmless, and well open. The broccoli part is a stick in Scalia's eye though..
I'll think about that part more.

Thanks... keep me thinking!!!

[mikemike]

I think you should threaten to vote them out of office the next time they are up for election. I think you might be more successful if you install a windmill in your backyard so that you can bust out your sword fighting skills.

[jeffkrol]

I think you should threaten to vote them out of office the next time they are up for election. I think you might be more successful if you install a windmill in your backyard so that you can bust out your sword fighting skills.

Sarcasm is cheap.. intelligence is priceless..........
I would have welcomed an intelligent rebuttal.. but that does take some effort...

Next vote I get on the Supreme Court justices I will do just that........

[mikemike]

Sarcasm is cheap.. intelligence is priceless..........
I would have welcomed an intelligent rebuttal.. but that does take some effort...

Next vote I get on the Supreme Court justices I will do just that........

If I recall correctly from my high school civics class what you want to do is file an amicus curie brief. It is an unsolicited legal opinion or testimony and I am sure google could help you more with the mechanics of this fool's endeavor you which to take.

[jeffkrol]

If I recall correctly from my high school civics class what you want to do is file an amicus curie brief. It is an unsolicited legal opinion or testimony and I am sure google could help you more with the mechanics of this fool's endeavor you which to take.

So writing to a Congress person or using the "heavens" new tech of social media doesn't play well w/ the "witchdoctors" in the SCOTUS.. old fashioned paper how 40's.
thanks for the encouragement though....

[Parallax]

Once you get the letter finalized, I'll give you my address, Jeff. Send it to me, I'll proof read it and then send it on. I promise!