Is it Obamacare, Romneycare, O'Romneycare, Rombamacare, or something else? A healthcare reform law identical to the Affordable Health Care Act by any other name would be as constitutional as the one the Supreme Court ruled on this morning.
The most controversial provision of the law, the part that requires people to carry health insurance, caused a bit of confusion in the media and among some law makers. Because the Court ruled that the mandate was constitutional as a tax rather than as part of the authority granted under the commerce clause, both Fox News and CNN initially reported that the mandate had been struck down.
CNN anchor Wolf Blitzer and reporter Kate Bolduan reported the law had been ruled unconstitutional. A graphic on the screen read "Supreme Ct. Kills Individual Mandate." CNN also reported the same thing in its breaking news email and its Twitter feed. It took fifteen minutes for CNN to realize that things weren't quite as they seemed. They changed the story to reflect the actual outcome.
Fox News was quicker to reverse its field. Initially it reported that the Court had held the individual mandate unconstitutional and put up a graphic that said "Supreme Court Finds Health Care Individual Mandate Unconstitutional." Within two minutes the network realized it had made a mistake. Michael Clemente, Fox's executive vp of news and editorial took the offensive on the gaffe. "We gave our viewers the news as it happened...Fox reported the facts as they came in." Well, sort of, just not the reality based facts.
Some members of congress, or, more probably, members of their staff tweeted responses to the ruling based on the incorrect information. Car alarm king Darrell Issa "said," "...a big win for liberty and the Constitution." Perhaps he was more right than he knew. Rep. Tom Rooney of Florida called it "great news for the American people, victory for the constitution." Like Issa's statement, there was enough ambiguity there to cover the ruling regardless of how it came out.
I'm hesitant to say that the mistakes prove Issa or Michael Clemente human, but the media and legislators who got it wrong initially did show that it's possible for anyone to make a mistake. From my experience, and I'm sure others have had similar experiences, news reporting of nearly every event I've been involved in or witnessed generally makes some assertions that don't gibe with my memory of the events. Sometimes it was small details and sometimes bigger things.
In a predictable statement House Speaker John Boehner reiterated his call for repeal of the law. He said the American people want a common sense approach to health care. No doubt he meant an approach like the one we had before the law went into effect. Common sense is a slippery concept. The desires of the American people is another area that's not clearly defined. Obviously members of a certain other major political party are praising the Court's ruling.








Comments: 21
I truly think that this is going to work together for good as time goes on.
I respect the head of the Supreme court for, although not compromising truth, he saw a way to honor his bill in a way to protect the USA. I'm feeling much better than I did yesterday. :)
I do hope Mitt Romney defeats the bill. I want more physicians, hospitals, nurses, pharmaceutical companies, home health care experts etc have a real part in drawing together a realistic plan.
But then I did a bit of introspection. I'd seen the X-ray tech hop in her beat up old rabbit with the soccer stickers, swim club stickers, etc. in the back window. I'd seen my assigned physician hop into his mid-level sedan.
Both of these medicos probably still paying off school loans as they tried to raise families in these tuff times.
Then I remembered each year the kid with the A.A. or Cert in administration would drive up in his beamer, to tell us what benefits had been curtailed, and what our new deductibles would be for the new contract year.
It wsn't aHealth Maintenace Org, it was a Profit Maximizer Org.
The new out fit... about the same.
None of it is about the physician and patient, its about the rise and fall of the stock dividends... so the cost cutting kids with their Associate Degrees trump the 12 years of the Doctor's training.
IMHO