opinion web
Conservative Opinion General Opinion
Joe Conason
Joe Conason
29 Jan 2016
Is There Only One True Progressive?

In our polarized politics, the Democratic Party is trending leftward — not as sharply or as rapidly as … Read More.

22 Jan 2016
The Man Who Drowned Democracy With 'Sewer Money'

This week marked the anniversary of the Citizens United decision, which exposed American democracy to … Read More.

15 Jan 2016
New York Values: What Tiny Ted Will Never Get About the Big Town

Exactly what does Ted Cruz mean when he sneers about "New York values" as a reason to reject Donald Trump? … Read More.

If Obamacare Goes, Will America "Let Him Die"?


Despite significant negative signals, the final outcome of this week's arguments over the Affordable Care Act will remain unknown until the Supreme Court issues a ruling in June. What is painfully obvious today, however, should have been clear enough long before any of the lawyers opened their mouths. The five Republican justices represent an ideological bloc as adamantly hostile to universal health care — no matter the cost in lost lives or squandered trillions — as in 1965, when Medicare passed.

If the high court voids the law's insurance mandate (once promoted by the same politicians and policymakers who now scorn it), we know how tea party Republicans would cope with the financial problem posed by ill and injured people who show up at hospitals without coverage. They told us last fall during the presidential debate in Tampa, Fla., when they cheered for, "Let him die!"

Neither the Republican justices nor the lawyers challenging the law were nearly so crude in court. Indeed, Michael Carvin, the eminent attorney representing the National Federation of Independent Business, specifically rejected the notion that overturning health reform could result in denying care to the uninsured, during a crucial exchange with Justice Sonia Sotomayor.

"What percentage of the American people who took their son or daughter to an emergency room and that child was turned away because the parent didn't have insurance," asked Sotomayor, "... do you think there's a large percentage of the American population that would stand for the death of that child — (who) had an allergic reaction and a simple shot would have saved the child?"

In his response, Carvin scolded, "One of the more pernicious, misleading impressions that the government has made is that we are somehow advocating that people be — could get thrown out of emergency rooms, or that this alternative that they've hypothesized is going to be enforced by throwing people out of emergency rooms."

But the alternative proposed by him and Paul Clements, the attorney for the states challenging the law, was astonishingly absurd (much like their repeated claim that the health "market" is like the market for any other commodity and should be treated as such).

The problem of the uninsured receiving uncompensated care paid for by everyone else could be eliminated, they argued, by requiring them to buy insurance when they need it — that is, when they show up at the hospital.

How many needless, cruel deaths such an alternative might cause is something we may yet learn if the court majority accepts the plaintiffs' callous position. Serious illness or injury doesn't magically make insurance affordable to families that could not afford it before — and only someone prepared to let people suffer would pretend that it does.

If the Affordable Care Act is voided, and Americans must start over again on a project completed decades ago in all the other advanced industrial nations, then perhaps we should look forward in the direction indicated by Carvin himself, a leading member of the right-wing Federalist Society.

"I want to understand the choices you're saying Congress has (under the Constitution)," inquired Sotomayor. "Congress can tax everybody and set up a public health system."

"Yes," replied Carvin. "I would accept that." In fact, he probably wouldn't — and certainly the Republicans wouldn't without losing an enormous struggle first — but at least now their chosen advocate is on the record suggesting that "Medicare for All" would pass constitutional standards. And considering how popular Medicare remains, even among many elderly voters who identify with the tea party, that might be the right place to begin again.

Joe Conason is the editor in chief of To find out more about Joe Conason, visit the Creators Syndicate website at



3 Comments | Post Comment
Two points, first charging the uninsured did just happen for the first time. HCA, the largest US hospital corporation just announced it will start charging $150.00 to be seen in their ER's. If it is deemed life threatening, you will be seen regardless, if not, if you don't have $150.00 you will be turned away. God forbid the wrong assessment by the ER Dr. who thinks you are fine, doesn't do any tests and sends you out the door. HCA doesn't want loser business they only want the cream. Better hope that chilidog was indigestion as the Dr. thought, and not a really a heart attack. And all poor people and homeless people, you better keep a $150.00 dollars in your sock.

Second point, Medicare works great, managed care companies compete for your business, even with Medicaid, which also can competer for your business. So with either program you can choose your providers, hospitals, etc. Why not Medicare for all? Too bad we can't eliminate all of the obstructionists and solve our healthcare problems, you know who you are.
Comment: #1
Posted by: Bloom Hilda
Wed Mar 28, 2012 6:29 PM
From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. Tax the rich, feed the poor, 'til there are no rich, no more. Gimme your money so I can spend it on others (after I get my cut of course). Joe, still, doesn't understand the difference between healthcare and health insurance.
Comment: #2
Posted by: David Henricks
Thu Mar 29, 2012 2:35 PM
Yup...Medicare and Medicaid "work great." Well, unless you're a doctor trying to keep your practice above water.

The only way a "Medicare for everyone" scheme would work is if we took the inevitable next step and made all the doctors government employees, like the UK's National Health Service.

Oh, well...I'm sure we'll be able to scrape up enough semi-literate Pakistanis willing to come here and practice...
Comment: #3
Posted by: Jeff Gunn
Sun Apr 1, 2012 1:09 AM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right: comments policy
Joe Conason
Jan. `16
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
27 28 29 30 31 1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31 1 2 3 4 5 6
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
Marc Dion
Marc DionUpdated 8 Feb 2016
Mark Shields
Mark ShieldsUpdated 6 Feb 2016
Susan EstrichUpdated 5 Feb 2016

4 Dec 2015 Will Corporate America Confront GOP Climate Denial?

8 Sep 2011 How Texas Medicaid Wasted Vast Sums, Lethally

7 Jun 2007 Reaganite Rudy's Bad Memory