January 21, 2010 is a day that just might live in infamy, to use Pres. Franklin Roosevelt’s words, and may become as important in American history as the day to which he referred: December 7, 1941. The United States Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, effectively changed America’s type of government from a Republic to an Aristocracy.

It really should come as no surprise to those who follow politics and governing on a regular basis. America has been headed in this direction for quite some time, and the Supreme Court has played a part, especially since 2000 when they chose the President of the United States. For those who didn’t pay attention in Civics class, an aristocracy is a government run by the wealthiest people.

The significance of the January 21 ruling in Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission is that corporations now have the same free speech rights as an American citizen and that those rights include being able to make unlimited campaign contributions for both candidates and issues.

As pointed out in a previous article, Americans are a diverse people who have been forced into two economic classes: those with lots of money, and those with little or no money. Those with little money reared their heads in the 2008 Presidential Election with hundreds of thousands contributing both money and time to help Barack Obama win the presidency. Corporations were limited by campaign finance laws from squashing "the people" – but, now – the limit is gone.

How SCOTUS Voted

SCOTUS, for those who don’t know, stands for Supreme Court of the United States. Four justices voted on the side of the big corporations: Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Anthony Kennedy. Four justices voted on the side of the people: Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, Stephen Bryer and John Paul Stephens. Chief Justice John Roberts sided with the corporations.

If ever there was solid evidence what the Supreme Court decision to make George W. Bush president in 2000 did to America, this is it. Imagine two appointees by the candidate who got the most votes that year, Al Gore, instead of those two Bushies. The decision on January 21 would probably never have happened. Aristocracy might have been held in check a little longer. It’s time to turn America back to the people, and that’s exactly what The American Beer Party is all about.

If ever there was a reason to elect moderate Democrats and Independents, and to keep Republicans away from the presidency for as long as possible, yesterday’s display of party politics on the Supreme Court is it.

What Others Are Saying

Justice John Paul Stephens, in his dissent, said, "The court’s ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions around the nation."

Eric Lotke, Research Director at the Campaign for America’s Future, said, "Today’s decision, Citizens United v. FEC, comes down decisively on the corporate side. It gives advertisers more power than voters, and tilts the balance of power even farther towards wealthy and corporate interests. The newly composed conservative court upset decades of precedent and settled expectations." Click here to read what else he said.

Miles Mogulescu, entertainment attorney, writer, and political activist, wrote, "in a radical act of judicial activism, five Supreme Court Justices overthrew 103 years of American statutory and judicial law going back to the Presidency of Teddy Roosevelt by ruling that corporations have the Constitutional right to make unlimited campaign contributions. This is in effect a bloodless judicial coup which turns the American government over to the biggest corporate interests, to the degree that hadn’t happened already." Click here to read what else he said.

Jason Linkins, writing for the Huffington Post, said, "In one swoop, the court did away with nearly everything in federal campaign finance law, allowing corporations free reign to inject as much money as they jolly well please into federal campaigns." He, in fact, was much more animated in his article, invoking the F-word to describe "concise way of capturing today’s Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission." Click here to read what else he said.

Keith Olbermann of MSNBC likened the ruling to the Dred Scott decision of long, long ago and said, in fact, the January 21 decision put Chief Justice John Roberts in First Place as the worst Chief Justice in history. Click here to read what else he said.

Republican Response to Supreme Court Ruling

As you might imagine, not everyone was displeased with unlimited corporate campaign contributions. Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Senate Republican leader, said that the court had restored proper rights to corporations. House Republican Leader John Boehner of Ohio called the decision "a big win for the First Amendment. Let the American people decide how much money is enough."

"I am pleased that the Supreme Court has acted to protect the Constitution’s First Amendment rights of free speech and association," said Senator John Cornyn of Texas, chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee. "These are the bedrock principles that underpin our system of governance and strengthen our democracy."

The President Responds

"With its ruling today, the Supreme Court has given a green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics. It is a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans. This ruling gives the special interests and their lobbyists even more power in Washington – while undermining the influence of average Americans who make small contributions to support their preferred candidates. That’s why I am instructing my Administration to get to work immediately with Congress on this issue. We are going to talk with bipartisan Congressional leaders to develop a forceful response to this decision. The public interest requires nothing less."

We can only hope.

Learn more about The American Beer Party Movement.

Click here to read American Beer Party – Marriage Equality.

Click here to read about The American Beer Party.

Arkansas Congressman Mike Ross, chair of the Blue Dog Democrats said recently, "We cannot create a public option that puts all the other private insurance companies out of business." The compromise was announced Wednesday, and it is one that will be loved by the health insurance industry.

The Blue Dog Bandits struck hard at the American people. For example:

Employers with a payroll of less than $500,000 will not be forced to offer health insurance to their employees nor will they pay a fine. Before the compromise, the figure was $250,000.

Need help paying your health insurance premiums. Under the compromise, the government will help IF your premium exceeds 12% of your income. In other words – if your total family income is $50,000, the government will help you if your health insurance premium is more than $500.00 per month. How many uninsured Americans will jump on that? Yeah, right!

Bandalero Ross said this would save $100 billion to the government. Sure it will, and that $100 billion will either come out of the pockets of the lower and middle classes, or it will stay in their pockets (if they have any) and they will remain uninsured.

Threats from the Health Insurance Industry

Wendell Potter is a former executive at CIGNA, a major health insurance company. He explained in an interview with Bill Moyer on PBS a simple strategy for dealing with Congress. Members of Congress would simply be told, "we can make things tough for you…by running ads, commercials in your home district when you’re running for reelection, not contributing to your campaigns again, or contributing to your competitor."

Here’s a portion of the PBS interview when Moyer questions Potter about the Michael Moore movie, Sicko.

I would recommend you visit Bill Moyer’s page and see the whole interview with Wendell Potter.

The health insurance companies are getting what they paid for. Meanwhile in America…

More About Health Care Reform

Sen. Blanche Lincoln Co-sponsors SHOP

Single Payer Health Insurance for America

Public Insurance Option is Not Optional

Medical Bankruptcy Shows Broken Health Care

Sen. Blanche Lincoln Opposes Public Option

"This is precisely why we need a public option," Representative John Dingell (D-MI) said on Tuesday, June 16 at a Congressional hearing with top insurance executives about the health insurance company practice of cancelling policies retroactively to avoid paying claims.

The insurance executives were: Richard A. Collins, chief executive of UnitedHealth’s Golden Rule Insurance Co.; Brian Sassi, president of consumer business for WellPoint Inc., parent of Blue Cross of California; and Don Hamm, chief executive of Assurant Health.

Dingell, however, falls short of pushing for the single payer health insurance program favored by a majority of Americans. In a statement released June 24 Dingell said, "This discussion draft is NOT an attempt to create a single payer system nor is it a first step towards a single payer system."

On June 16, Representatives Bart Stupak (D- MI) and Joe Barton (R-TX) pressed the health insurance officials for more information about cancellation procedures.

Representative Barton said, "I think a company does have a right to make sure there’s no fraudulent information. But if a citizen acts in good faith, we should expect the insurance company that takes their money to act in good faith also."

Stupak, the committee chairman, said, "When times are good, the insurance company is happy to sign you up and take your money in the form of premiums. But when times are bad … some insurance companies use a technicality to justify breaking its promise, at a time when most patients are too weak to fight back."

The Los Angeles Times reported, "An investigation by the House Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations showed that health insurers WellPoint Inc., UnitedHealth Group and Assurant Inc. canceled the coverage of more than 20,000 people, allowing the companies to avoid paying more than $300 million in medical claims over a five-year period."

A few American citizens who were victims of retroactive cancellation presented the following facts. A lady from Texas lost her health insurance coverage after she was diagnosed with breast cancer. The reason for cancellation was that she had failed to disclose a visit to a dermatologist for acne. Another lady was cancelled for failing to report that she had once taken weight-loss medication and had irregular menstruation.

The executives found themselves on the defensive with a very, very weak defense.

(Continued below)

Would you offer coverage to people to have preexisting conditions?

Health Insurance Employees Rewarded for Cancellations

The committee discovered employee performance documents that showed Blue Cross employees were rewarded for cancelling health insurance policies. One employee received a perfect 5 indicating exceptional performance for cancelling thousands of policies and saving the company over $10,000,000 in claim payments. Unfortunately, this is not new.

In 2007, HealthNet was fined $9,000,000 for such practices. At the time, it was discovered that HealthNet had avoided paying $35,000,000 in claims by retroactively cancelling health insurance policies. At the time, Blue Cross stated they did not tie employee performance to policy recission, a fact turned on its ear with the 2003 employee evaluations that showed Blue Cross had lied.

This is the system Congress thinks it can fix with a bandaid approach? No, this is the system that demands a government sponsored single payer health insurance option is the only option to true health insurance reform.

More About Health Insurance Reform

Sen. Blanche Lincoln Co-sponsors SHOP

Sen. Blanche Lincoln Opposes Public Option

Single Payer Health Insurance for America

Public Insurance Option is Not Optional

Medical Bankruptcy Shows Broken Health Care

Single Payer Health Insurance in Trouble

Single Payer Health Insurance Ignored

What others are saying about Single Payer Health Insurance

Last Left Turn Before Hooterville: Single-Payer Health Care – Can … – Single-payer health care is a term used in the United States to describe the payment of doctors, hospitals, and other health care providers from a single fund. It differs from typical private health insurance where, through pricing and …

The Indypendent » Fighting to Cure a Sick System – Single-payer healthcare advocates argue that only by having the federal government provide business-and taxpayer-funded health insurance can everyone receive guaranteed healthcare access. This system would also save money by eliminating …

See How Well That Healthcare Reform Worked Out? Mass. Health Plan … – Single payer off the table? Most countries use a social health insurance model (i.e., we’re all in, nobody out) model based upon Germany’s system. Read this about Germany and then tell me this isn’t what we should be working for: …

Single payer health insurance is being ignored – or not even considered- by many in Congress who show little respect for the wishes of the American people.

More and more people everyday are facing life without health insurance due to costs and job loss. Some are keeping their jobs but taking pay cuts. How can you make health care more affordable for millions of Americans without money to pay for it? There must be a single payer public option health care program and it must be supported by taxes.

Senator Claire McCaskill says there will be no public option.

So Where’s Obama?

More About Health Insurance Reform

Sen. Blanche Lincoln Co-sponsors SHOP

Single Payer Health Insurance for America

Public Insurance Option is Not Optional

Medical Bankruptcy Shows Broken Health Care

Single Payer Health Insurance in Trouble