Beach Peanuts

Bill Nelson Endorses Gay Marriage

Bill Nelson, with President Obama, Prior To His Election

Sen. Bill Nelson finally endorsed gay marriage today, saying he will add his name to the petition asking the Supreme Court to "declare the law that prohibits gay marriage unconstitutional."

Nelson's statement, given to the Tampa Bay Times:

"It is generally accepted in American law and U.S. society today '... that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.' I believe that. The civil rights and responsibilities for one must pertain to all.

"Thus, to discriminate against one class and not another is wrong for me.

"If we are endowed by our Creator with rights, then why shouldn't those be attainable by Gays and Lesbians?

"Simply put, if The Lord made homosexuals as well as heterosexuals, why should I discriminate against their civil marriage? I shouldn't, and I won't.

"So I will add my name to the petition of senators asking the Supreme Court to declare the law that prohibits gay marriage unconstitutional."

(Photo: Sen. Bill Nelson, Senate.gov)

 

Let This Sink In For A Moment

(Photo: The White House)

On the same day when President Barack Obama unveiled the Rosa Parks statue in Statuary Hall at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C., The Supreme Court heard arguments that could throw out the Voting Rights Act.

I write "could," when it looks more like "will."

If you didn't think Conservatives wanted to take the country backwards before now, you shouldn't have any questions after this comment made by Justice Antonin Scalia in court today on Sec. 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965:

Scalia attributed the repeated renewal of Section 5 to a “perpetuation of racial entitlement.” He said, “Whenever a society adopts racial entitlements, it is very difficult to get out of them through the normal political processes.” 

Let that sink in for a moment.

A shocking statement to be sure, but considering the source, it shouldn't be.

(See the transcript here, and for context, see a more detailed discussion here.)

 

U.S. Supreme Court To Rule In Case That Could Roll Back Protections In The Voting Rights Act

What a coincidence?

This afternoon the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear a case that would determine if parts of the Voting Rights Act are unconstitutional:

Acting three days after the nation’s minority voters showed that they have increased and still growing power in U.S. elections, the Supreme Court agreed on Friday to rule on a challenge to Congress’s power to protect those groups’ rights at the polls.  The Court said it would hear claims that Congress went beyond its authority when it extended for another twenty-five years the nation’s most important civil rights law, the Voting Rights Act, originally passed in 1965 and renewed four times since then.

Specially at issue is the constitutionality of the law’s Section 5, the most important provision, under which nine states and parts of seven others with a past history of racial bias in voting must get official clearance in Washington before they may put into effect any change in election laws or procedures, no matter how small.   The Court came close to striking down that section three years ago, but instead sent Congress clear signals that it should update the law so that it reflects more recent conditions, especially in the South.  Congress did nothing in reaction.

Florida has five counties that are protected by the Voting Rights Act. Florida Governor Rick Scott tried to get parts of the law thrown out in 2011 as part of his voter suppression efforts.

With President Obama's reelection, it's more than likely there will new justices in the next couple of years that could change the current makeup of the court that has become a five-four conservative leaning majority.

Any ruling the court makes would now come well before any new justices are appointed.

Rick Scott Wants Sick, Poor And Uninsured Floridians To Stay That Way, Refuses To Implement "Obamacare"

Once Again, Rick Scott Thinks The Law Doesn't Apply To Him

Contrary to what he said just days ago, Florida Governor Rick Scott said last night he refuses to comply with President Obama's Affordable Care Act, which was upheld by the Supreme Court this week. He says he won't expand it's Medicaid program which largely benefits the poor and the elderly, the most vulnerable people in need.

This will hardly come as a surprise to many in Florida as Scott has made a practice of cutting nearly everything that would help the poor, the sick, the homeless, children, homeless veterans, and the elderly, just to name a few. It's also no shock that he would turn down money and anything that creates jobs just because it comes from President Obama.

What may cause you to take a step back, think for a minute, think for a few more and then attempt to twist your mind into the equivalent of a brain pretzel in order to see it is his reasoning for doing so.

This is what he told Greta Van Susteren last night on FOX-GOP-TV:

"We're not going to expand Medicaid because we're going to do the right thing."

Scott doesn't go on to elaborate what the "right thing" would be, just assures you he'll do it. Which means "doing the right thing" is basically telling the poor, sick and the elderly they can die destitute before he'll comply with "the wishes" of President Obama no matter what the Supreme Court says. Rick Scott seems to think laws don't apply to him when he disagrees with them. Just ask judges. Instead Scott makes use of mythical math, magical thinking, and his overblown ego combined wtih good old fashioned arrogance to thumb his nose at the President, the Supreme Court, Floridians and the law.

"We're not going to implement Obamacare in Florida, we're not going to expand Medicaid because we're going to do the right thing," Scott said Friday night during an interview on Fox News. He also said the Medicaid expansion would cost Florida taxpayers $1.9 billion a year, but it's unclear how he arrived at that figure. Emails sent to Scott's staff were not immediately returned Saturday.

Scott said the state will not expand the Medicaid program in order to lower the number of uninsured residents, nor will Florida set up a state-run health exchange, a marketplace where people who need insurance policies could shop for them.

"We care about having a health care safety net for the vulnerable Floridians, but this is an expansion that just doesn't make any sense," he told Fox host Greta Van Susteren.

What doesn't make sense are Scott's excuses. Never mind that the state could get around $2 billion. Never mind that it would extend coverage to those with low incomes. Never mind that Florida is third in the nation with the highest percentage of the uninsured and drives costs higher for all of us. Never mind that along with that federal money comes job creation.

Never mind that it would save lives.

The former Columbia/HCA hospital chain owner, who should understand all this quite well, says Florida "can't afford" to implement the Medicaid expansion:

"I don't know how we're ever going to be able to afford it," Scott said. "Look at how tough our budgets are."

"Look how tough our budgets are" says the man who makes budget cuts with such relish that he has personalized red Sharpies made just for the occasion, surrounding himself with human shields in the form of the very school children who are some of his biggest victims. Every time Rick Scott merely says the words "tough and budget" the neediest among us is sacrificed as funds are shifted elsewhere.

It must take great deal of self control for Scott to keep a straight face to say "we just can't afford it" on camera. But hey, budgets are tough and numbers are even harder for Scott. Especially the ones that don't add up. There would be a lot more money in the budget if Scott didn't hand out $1 billion contributions in corporate welfare on our behalf tax cuts for "job creators" for jobs he can't justify, while cutting unemployment benefits at the same time.

Nope. Scott has his own "math" and in part controls the numbers, but says "we can't afford" the Medicaid program. Instead, he'll just "do the right thing." He can give tax cuts for the next three years to a business in exchange for jobs that may never materialize, but won't give a penny to the poor even if their lives depend on it.

Well, guess what Governor Scott? Their lives depend on it.

Just as he ignores numbers he doesn't like, Scott seems to think laws that everyone else has to live by don't apply to him and his "kingdom." When the Affordable Care Act became law, Scott said he wouldn't implement the law in Florida. He said "It's not the law of the land. I don't believe it will ever be the law of the land."

It was the law then and it's the law now, and what's Scott doing about it? He's sitting there in Tallahassee with his Rick Scott Sharpies wearing his Rick Scott custom made alligator big boy governor boots, pretending he's "Supreme Executive" of "the land" where laws don't apply and where people die every day without health insurance, talking tough saying he won't implement the Affordable Care Act and you can't make him! And why?

Because it's "Obamacare" that's why!

Supreme Court Upholds The Affordable Care Act

 

President Obama Signs The Affordable Care Act, March 23, 2010

 

"Whatever the politics, today’s decision was a victory for people all over this country whose lives will be more secure because of this law and the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold it."

- President Barack Obama, June 28, 2012

Full transcript:

Good afternoon.  Earlier today, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act -- the name of the health care reform we passed two years ago.  In doing so, they've reaffirmed a fundamental principle that here in America -- in the wealthiest nation on Earth – no illness or accident should lead to any family’s financial ruin.

I know there will be a lot of discussion today about the politics of all this, about who won and who lost.  That’s how these things tend to be viewed here in Washington.  But that discussion completely misses the point.  Whatever the politics, today’s decision was a victory for people all over this country whose lives will be more secure because of this law and the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold it.

And because this law has a direct impact on so many Americans, I want to take this opportunity to talk about exactly what it means for you.

First, if you’re one of the more than 250 million Americans who already have health insurance, you will keep your health insurance -- this law will only make it more secure and more affordable.  Insurance companies can no longer impose lifetime limits on the amount of care you receive.  They can no longer discriminate against children with preexisting conditions.  They can no longer drop your coverage if you get sick.  They can no longer jack up your premiums without reason.  They are required to provide free preventive care like check-ups and mammograms -- a provision that's already helped 54 million Americans with private insurance.  And by this August, nearly 13 million of you will receive a rebate from your insurance company because it spent too much on things like administrative costs and CEO bonuses, and not enough on your health care.

There’s more.  Because of the Affordable Care Act, young adults under the age of 26 are able to stay on their parent's health care plans -- a provision that's already helped 6 million young Americans.  And because of the Affordable Care Act, seniors receive a discount on their prescription drugs -- a discount that's already saved more than 5 million seniors on Medicare about $600 each.

All of this is happening because of the Affordable Care Act. These provisions provide common-sense protections for middle class families, and they enjoy broad popular support.  And thanks to today’s decision, all of these benefits and protections will continue for Americans who already have health insurance.  

Now, if you’re one of the 30 million Americans who don’t yet have health insurance, starting in 2014 this law will offer you an array of quality, affordable, private health insurance plans to choose from.  Each state will take the lead in designing their own menu of options, and if states can come up with even better ways of covering more people at the same quality and cost, this law allows them to do that, too.  And I’ve asked Congress to help speed up that process, and give states this flexibility in year one.

Once states set up these health insurance marketplaces, known as exchanges, insurance companies will no longer be able to discriminate against any American with a preexisting health condition.  They won’t be able to charge you more just because you’re a woman.  They won’t be able to bill you into bankruptcy. If you’re sick, you’ll finally have the same chance to get quality, affordable health care as everyone else.  And if you can’t afford the premiums, you'll receive a credit that helps pay for it.

Today, the Supreme Court also upheld the principle that people who can afford health insurance should take the responsibility to buy health insurance.  This is important for two reasons.

First, when uninsured people who can afford coverage get sick, and show up at the emergency room for care, the rest of us end up paying for their care in the form of higher premiums.

And second, if you ask insurance companies to cover people with preexisting conditions, but don’t require people who can afford it to buy their own insurance, some folks might wait until they’re sick to buy the care they need -- which would also drive up everybody else’s premiums.

That’s why, even though I knew it wouldn’t be politically popular, and resisted the idea when I ran for this office, we ultimately included a provision in the Affordable Care Act that people who can afford to buy health insurance should take the responsibility to do so.  In fact, this idea has enjoyed support from members of both parties, including the current Republican nominee for President.

Still, I know the debate over this law has been divisive.  I respect the very real concerns that millions of Americans have shared.  And I know a lot of coverage through this health care debate has focused on what it means politically.

Well, it should be pretty clear by now that I didn’t do this because it was good politics.  I did it because I believed it was good for the country.  I did it because I believed it was good for the American people.

There’s a framed letter that hangs in my office right now.  It was sent to me during the health care debate by a woman named Natoma Canfield.  For years and years, Natoma did everything right.  She bought health insurance.  She paid her premiums on time.  But 18 years ago, Natoma was diagnosed with cancer.  And even though she’d been cancer-free for more than a decade, her insurance company kept jacking up her rates, year after year.  And despite her desire to keep her coverage -- despite her fears that she would get sick again -- she had to surrender her health insurance, and was forced to hang her fortunes on chance.

I carried Natoma’s story with me every day of the fight to pass this law.  It reminded me of all the Americans, all across the country, who have had to worry not only about getting sick, but about the cost of getting well.

Natoma is well today.  And because of this law, there are other Americans -- other sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, fathers and mothers -- who will not have to hang their fortunes on chance.  These are the Americans for whom we passed this law.

The highest Court in the land has now spoken.  We will continue to implement this law.  And we'll work together to improve on it where we can.  But what we won’t do -- what the country can’t afford to do -- is refight the political battles of two years ago, or go back to the way things were.

With today’s announcement, it’s time for us to move forward -- to implement and, where necessary, improve on this law.  And now is the time to keep our focus on the most urgent challenge of our time:  putting people back to work, paying down our debt, and building an economy where people can have confidence that if they work hard, they can get ahead.

But today, I’m as confident as ever that when we look back five years from now, or 10 years from now, or 20 years from now, we’ll be better off because we had the courage to pass this law and keep moving forward.

Thank you.  God bless you, and God bless America.

(Photo: The White House)

Pam Bondi Is Confident And Thrilled That The Supreme Court May Take These Health Care Benefits Away From You Tomorrow

Head Cheerleader For The Real Death Panel

Tomorrow the Supreme Court will announce their ruling on the Affordable Care Act, which Florida's Attorney General Pam Bondi hopes will be thrown out entirely, and says she's confident will happen. Bondi based her belief on the number of hours the Supreme Court spent on testimony and the questions asked (Not to mention the font size used in the bill to make it so long!), and she spoke about it with utter glee (see video) Monday on FOX-GOP-TV:

“The main questions that they asked made me feel very confident that they saw our point of view, that they took this very seriously and that they realized this would be the greatest over reach of federal power in our entire history if this act is upheld," the attorney general said.

When asked how the Supreme Court would rule -- whether it would uphold all, part or none of the "Obamacare" law -- Bondi predicted the states would come out on top.

"We're very confident that they're going to rule in our favor," she said.
The states are challenging the "individual mandate" in the law requiring adults to purchase insurance or pay a penalty. If the court strikes down the mandate, Bondi said, the rest of the law should be invalidated too. "If the mandate falls then the entire health care act falls."

Actually, no. If the mandate falls that doesn't mean the entire thing falls, but Bondi didn't argue before the court, she hired other attorneys at our expense to do that. She was just an observer but quick to get in front of the cameras to take credit for it.

Regardless, if the ACA is thrown out, which Bondi clearly hopes it will be, Floridians stand to lose a lot, while insurance companies will be free to go back to denying coverage for pre-existing conditions, bumping children off their parents' insurance, and naming their price, making insurance unaffordable and out of reach for many. It could also turn already expanded Medicaid coverage into a nightmare. Florida would see more than 500,000 people lose access to Medicaid or subsidized private insurance.

No matter. This is what Bondi and Republicans want, and they have absolutely no plans of their own to do anything to change the health care nightmare in this country.

These are immediate benefits you stand to lose in Florida:

Seniors:

Closing the Medicare Part D donut hole

Free preventive services for seniors

Coverage Expansions:

Affordable insurance for uninsured Americans with pre-existing conditions

Small business tax credits

Extending coverage to young adults

Support for health coverage for early retirees

New Medicaid options for States

Stronger Consumer Protections:

New consumer protections in the insurance market when families renew or purchase coverage on or after September 23, 2010:

• Insurance companies will no longer be able to place lifetime limits on the coverage they provide, ensuring that the 8.8 million residents with private insurance coverage never have to worry about their coverage running out and facing catastrophic out-of-pocket costs.
• Insurance companies will be banned from dropping people from coverage when they get sick just because of a mistake in their paperwork, protecting the 1 million individuals who purchase insurance in the individual market from dishonest insurance practices.
• Insurance companies will not be able to exclude children from coverage because of a pre-existing condition, giving parents across Florida peace of mind.
• Insurance plans’ use of annual limits will be tightly regulated to ensure access to needed care. This will protect the 7.7 million residents of Florida with health insurance from their employer, along with anyone who signs up for a new insurance plan in Florida.
• Health insurers offering new plans will have to develop an appeals process to make it easy for enrollees to dispute the denial of a medical claim.
• Consumers in new plans will have coverage for recommended preventive services – like colon cancer screening, mammograms, immunizations, and well-baby and well-child care – without having to pay a co-pay, coinsurance, or deductible.

Improved Access to Care:

Patients’ choice of doctors

Strengthening community health centers

More doctors where people need them

Read more details on these benefits here.

If the Affordable Care Act is thrown out, Think Progress compiled this list of ten things you will miss about "ObamaCare":

1) Access to health insurance for 30 million Americans and lower premiums.

2) The ability of businesses and individuals to purchase comprehensive coverage from a regulated marketplace.

3) Insurers’ inability to discriminate against people with pre-existing conditions.

4) Tax credits for small businesses that offer insurance.

5) Assistance for businesses that provide health benefits to early retirees.

6) Affordable health care for lower-income Americans.

7) Investments in women’s health.

8) Young adults’ ability to stay on their parents’ health care plans.

9) Discounts for seniors on brand-name drugs.

10) Temporary coverage for the sickest Americans.

See more details on each over at Think Progress.

These are the real benefits of "ObamaCare" that insurance companies, Pam Bondi, Rick Scott, Mitt Romney, Republicans and their generous donors, are fighting so hard to take away from you. (Never mind that Mitt Romney's health care plan for Massachusetts was similar while he was governor there. He now feels you have no right to this, and sees affordable health care, and health care in general as an "entitlement," something Bondi conveniently doesn't mention in her argument.)

Given that the Supreme Court has become a radical, partisan court favoring right wing ideologies, it's likely they will succeed.

Their decision could literally kill people, and it appears that Pam Bondi is absolutely giddy about it.

Photo: From The Florida Attorney General's Office

If Conservatives Kill The Affordable Care Act, They Own It

The Real Death Panel?

(Photo: Beach Peanuts)

While the Supreme Court continued hearing arguments on the Affordable Care Act this morning, Think Progress mapped out the disaster that will result if the conservatives get their way and the ACA is thrown out entirely. Given that the Court, in my opinion, is now a political and partisan one it was never intended to be, it isn't hard to imagine that the conservative majority will do just that.

Recall the Florida 2000 election.

Recall Citizens United.

Recall the commingled special interests, lobbyists and conservative justices, including Clarence Thomas and his wife's involvement with the cause of killing health care, among other conflicts.

Does anyone really think this will be any different? I don't. I sincerely hope I'm wrong.

From Think Progress:

If they ultimately decide to throw out the entire law, however, the result will be bedlam. Much of the Affordable Care Act has already taken effect, and cannot simply be stopped on a dime tomorrow:

• Stripping Young People of Care: At least 2.5 million young people now have insurance because of the Affordable Care Act. All of them would be cast back into the wilderness if the whole law were struck down
• Blowing Up Medicare: Approximately 100 million Medicare claims are processed each month using a formula that was altered by the Affordable Care Act. If the entire law were struck down, new rates could not be calculated under the old, pre-ACA formula until after a rulemaking process that can take months before is completed. The result would be massive delays in payments to health providers throughout the country.
• Pulling The Rug Out On Retirees: The Affordable Care Act also provides thousands of Americans the opportunity to retire early and still remain insured until they become eligible for Medicare. Striking down the entire law could yank insurance away from many near-elderly Americans who retired solely because of the promise that the Affordable Care Act would be there for them.
• Ungrateful States: Many of the states that are currently challenging the law have nonetheless accepted millions of dollars worth of grants under the Affordable Care Act. If the law is struck down, it’s likely that this money would need to be returned immediately, further stressing already tight state budgets.

And then there's the fact that people will die.

For all their scare tactics about "death panels," the true death panels; the Republicans, are now bare for all to see, and that won't be forgotten anytime soon.

If the ACA goes, the conservatives will own this nightmare.

The Fight For The Affordable Care Act Is A Fight For Our Lives

Yesterday a report came out that showed the Affordable Care Act is saving millions for Florida seniors, and they're happy with the new law when they see the results and the benefits actually play out.

That's common for those who are facing health problems and working with their insurance companies. It makes perfect sense. Throughout the entire health care reform process, and even now, Americans are fed a steady stream of Republican anti-reform talking points. Republicans who benefit from big contributions from the health care industry want to protect big profits for those same companies, so they come up with catchy terms like "death panels" and "ObamaCare" to scare people while telling you that the President's ACA must be repealed for any number of nonsensical reasons.

Not included in those reasons of course is the real one: Health Insurance means big business and huge profits that feed the Washington revolving door. That translates to millions of Americans who can't afford health care because of the staggering costs. The Republicans want to repeal the ACA, and those in states like Florida are throwing up roadblocks along the way because they know what reports like that show: Once people see the real benefits, they like the health care law. 

If you've watched any of the Republican debates, you know that killing the ACA is a big rallying cry, and their base seems to relish in it. Note early on, when Ron Paul got a hypothetical question about a man in his thirties who has no health insurance but faces an illness. Paul said that choosing to have health insurance, or not, was "what freedom is all about." When the moderator followed up his response by asking: "But congressman, are you saying that society should just let him die?" the audience beat Paul to an answer by cheering, laughing, and shouting "Yeah!" Hypothetically they cheered the potential death of an adult, but in reality, those cheers include children as well.

You could parse this reaction several ways. That these are simply Paul fans who value "freedom" at any cost, that they have indeed fallen for the GOP scare tactics, or they're simply people who could care less if someone lives or dies and have the "I've got mine, so screw you" mentality.

Regardless of the reason for the reaction, this is today's GOP. No health insurance? Tough. Or as former Democratic Congressman Alan Grayson put it in a floor speech in 2010:

“The Republican health care plan: don’t get sick,” he said. But, he added,”The Republicans have a back up plan in case you do get sick … This is what the Republicans want you to do. If you get sick America, the Republican health care plan is this: Die quickly!” 

Grayson was harshly criticized for his comments, but ask yourself, isn't this exactly what Republicans are striving for? Again, all the Republican candidates for President, not to mention all Republicans currently in Washington have vowed in one way or another to kill or weaken the ACA. Rep. Grayson hit the nail on the head, or perhaps the coffin: If you get sick but have no insurance, too bad.

You. Lose.

Unless you're someone who has faced a major illness without insurance, or someone who pays around say $1,000  a month  (not a hypothetical) for health insurance that covers little of your medical bills, Republicans have largely been able to convince many Americans that the ACA is almost as bad for them as the socialist, communist, Kenyan (fill in the blank with any ridiculous GOP label) President in the White House. But as the report I cited above shows, when you see true benefits as a result of the new law, you see the Republicans for what they are: Shills for the insurance companies. Your life meas little to them.

The ACA is facing an upcoming battle in the U.S. Supreme Court which gave us Citizens United, allowing mountains of cash from undisclosed sources that will make it easier for the Republicans to fight against President Obama and Democrats in the next election. Some of those justices who'll be making decisions in the challenge to the ACA are those who ruled in favor of Citizens United. They're also justices who attend fundraisers and speaking engagements with the very lobbyists and groups like the Koch brothers who are fighting against ACA in lockstep with the Republicans. One of those is Justice Clarence Thomas whose wife Ginni has actually earned a nice income by working towards the defeat of health care reform, yet Thomas has no plans to recuse himself from the case.

All these desperate attempts by Republicans show what many who supported health care reform during the battle thought would result: Republicans would begin to lose their message war. It would seem they already are. The proof is in parts of the ACA that are already helping many who would have been out of luck had it not passed. There are real people with names and faces, not hypothetical red meat for debate fodder. 

Take the words of a woman named Spike Dolomite Ward who wrote an Op-Ed last week in the Los Angeles Times. She was one of those Democrats who were disillusioned by the Obama health care battle and was angry enough at the President to change her party registration to Independent. She didn't understand the details of "ObamaCare" until she found herself uninsured, and diagnosed with stage three breast cancer just weeks ago. That was when she was saved by the Pre-existing Condition Insurance Plan, part of Obama's ACA. You can read the entire Op-Ed piece here, and I would encourage you to do so.

It's a real life example of how the ACA is saving lives NOW.

Who among us hasn't either faced an illness like cancer ourselves, have family members or friends who have? How many of those are lucky enough to have insurance that covers it? How many have none at all and could lose their battle (or already have) simply because insurance company profits and scoring political points for power are more important to Republicans in Washington who are fighting against them every step of the way? How many could be saved like Spike Dolomite Ward? Aren't her life and others worth saving? Should Americans have to settle for the likes of those who would cheer over letting an uninsured person die?

Show me a person who does, and I'll show you a person who never had to face what those they condemn are facing.

The Affordable Care Act may not be the best it might have been had it not been for the mountains of opposition from the health care industry and the politicians who did their bidding, but it's one heck of a good start and it'll be improved on in the future. In spite of all that, it's saving lives now.

That's why we have to keep fighting and support the law going forward, because this shouldn't be a fight about politics.

This is a fight for our lives. 

Scott Says ACA Is "Not The Law Of The Land" And "He Won't Allow Florida To Implement It"

Rick The Dictator: Neither Laws, Nor The Constitution Apply To Him?

It's no secret that Gov. Rick Scott isn't a fan of affordable health care for not just Floridians, but for all Americans. He's spent a great deal of his life, and his millions to prove it. Despite the fact that he ran the company that went down in the record books for Medicare fraud, he hasn't stopped fighting  for the health care industry and against Americans getting a fair shot at it. 

Now that the Affordable Care Act is the law, Scott's latest move in that fight is this: he has no plans to implement it in Florida. Why? Because as far as he's concerned, the Affordable Care Act "isn't the law of the land." Scott says so. He's proven time and time again that laws and the constitution mean one thing to him, and yet another to the rest of the country. Just look at his record.

From the Palm Beach Post:

"It's not the law of the land," said Scott, an attorney and co-founder of the Columbia/HCA hospital chain. "I don't believe it will ever be the law of the land."

Scott's statements, made in West Palm Beach during a Palm Beach Post editorial board meeting on Nov. 17, have caused a stir. While they may resonate with an estimated 47 percent of the U.S. population who tell pollsters the law should be repealed, they put him at odds with the U.S. Constitution, argued Timothy Jost, a law professor at Washington and Lee University.

"If this is his position, then he is violating his oath of office, and that is a serious thing that I think the voters of Florida ought to be concerned about," said Jost, co-author of a widely used health law textbook. "His position is ridiculous and he should (and probably does) know better."

The health law does not force states to do anything but "get out of the way and let the federal government enforce and implement the law," Jost said.

Scott has told state agency heads to return planning grants they received before he became governor, and that they should not apply for tens of millions more.

And so Florida is not preparing to open an insurance exchange in 2014 for individuals and small businesses. He has refused more than $37 million that would have helped pay to keep disabled seniors in their homes and out of nursing homes by paying for support services.

And he has turned away money for monitoring insurance companies.

Furthermore, it's not just Gov. Scott taking that "I will ignore the law" stance.

House Speaker Dean Cannon, R-Winter Park, feels that given the legal and political challenges, there's too much uncertainty to invest precious state resources into implementing the new law now. He's especially concerned that the health law will double the number of Floridians on Medicaid, said Cannon's spokesman, Ryan Duffy.

Florida's insurance commissioner, Kevin McCarty, maintains that his agency cannot enforce any part of the federal law unless the Florida Legislature passes what's called "enabling legislation," because the federal government delegates the power to regulate insurers to the states.

And so Florida consumers can't turn to McCarty's office if their insurer refuses to insure a child under age 19 who has a pre-existing medical condition.

Nor can they turn to him if their insurer says coverage denials cannot be appealed.

Likewise, consumers can't expect help from McCarty's office if their insurance company spends less than 80 percent of their premium on benefits, as opposed to overhead, salaries and administrative costs.

So apparently to Rick Scott and the legislature, even though the Affordable Care Act is a law, they feel that it's not a law they have to enforce because it will soon go before the U.S. Supreme Court in which there are possible conflicts of interests among a few of its justices who may be inclined to rule the law unconstitutional?

It's either that, or it's just that they feel if they dont like a law, they can just ignore it, or they simply won't follow a law because the President who signed it into law happens to be black, and therefore the law doesn't count?

Regrdless of their reasoning, the Affordable Care Act is a law, and Floridians should be able to benefit from it. If Rick Scott and his minions  plan to stand between citizens and what should be their right by law, perhaps they should go and govern in a country that isn't founded on Democracy.

Allen West And Military Policy: What Would Demi Do?

What's the latest GOP outrage directed against President Obama? That he banned waterboarding and calls it what it is: Torture. (Or, as Republican debate audiences would say: "BOO!")

Who says that the President is raining on his torture parade? Why, that would be none other than Allen "Excuse-Me-While-I-Fire-This-Pistol-Over-Your-Iraq-Detainee-Head-For-Psychological-Purposes" West, (R-FL). Shocking, I know.

After Herman Cain and Michele Bachmann boasted that they would be just dandy with torture for crazy-cred purposes during the latest GOP debate, President Obama addressed the subject durng a press conference in Hawaii yesterday. Cain "preferred" to call it "enhanced interrogation" because that's what Dick-tator Cheney called it, and Bachmann doesn't care if you call it "waterboarding" or not ("enhanced synchronized swimming" perhaps?) just do it already!

The adult we call our President, said this:

"They're wrong. Waterboarding is torture," he said. "It's contrary to America's traditions. It's contrary to our ideals. That's not who we are. That's not how we operate. We don't need it in order to prosecute the war on terrorism. And we did the right thing by ending that practice."

That won't do for Allen West, no siree! Civilized behavior will not stand!

From Politico:

“As the president, you need to do those things which are necessary to make sure that the American people are kept safe....” 

I'll get back to the rest of that quote in a minute, but first, West is a firm believer in "you do what you gotta' do" whether the rest of America does or not. He was never shy about saying so, and apparently he still isn't:

“I used a psychological intimidation tactic to fire a pistol over his head, and it kept my men safe,” West said. “Of course, they took it to an investigative hearing, but I’m here today as a congressional representative, and I still continue to fight for the men and women in uniform.”

No, they took it to an investigative hearing, West was fined, and then he suddenly retired from the military. West is "here today as a congressional representative" because he preyed on the fears of unsuspecting Tea Party followers along with many other members of the GOP. (Psst! Rep. West: They're onto you now. Enjoy it while it lasts.)

Just in case you need further review of West's expertise on torture, here's the rest of that quote from Politico:

“As the president, you need to do those things which are necessary to make sure that the American people are kept safe,” the Republican congressman continued, adding, “and furthermore, in the movie ‘G.I. Jane,’ Demi Moore was waterboarded.”

Oh well, if Demi Moore was waterboarded in "G.I. Jane"....say no more! If we had a dime for every time a general on the ground in Iraq or elsewhere hesitated before resorting to torture, but then said "well, if it's good enough for Demi Moore, who am I to judge?," all of Bush's wars would be paid for, and then some? Seriously Rep. West? Demi Moore also spent some quality time at the pottery wheel with the ghost of her dead husband in "Ghost," and she once appeared in an episode of (cover your ears folks) "Will and Grace!" Oh. My. God. Allen West sees dead people, and is now in favor of gays in the military? Do the Tea Baggies and the evangelicals know? What about Bruce Willis? I thought he was the right-winger's go to guy? Jilted again?

Why, the only thing nuttier than that is West's fellow Koch campaign beneficiary Herman Cain, who was rumored to have gotten the idea for his "9-9-9 Plan" from the computer game Sim City. Cain denied this, but then Cain is also someone who feels the measure of a man is how many toppings he chooses for his pizza. (The more toppings, the more manly.)

What's next GOP, asking gamers and Demi Moore for tips on job creation....?