The Supreme Court can make one of three basic decisions in the case before it about the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA). It can:
- Decide that the law passes constitutional muster, or at least that the constitutional challenge is premature, and let it stand.
- Decide that the individual mandate is unconstitutional and leave much of the rest of the law in place.
- Decide that the individual mandate is unconstitutional and strike the entire law.
Revealing in these three possibilities is the revelation of who is really in support of PPACA. According to Moody’s Investor Service, a SCOTUS decision that decides the individual mandate is unconstitutional will have negative implications for particular commercial segments of the health care market.
If the individual mandate is unconstitutional, but much of the law remains intact, then Moody’s says hospitals, pharmaceutical companies and medical device companies will all be negatively affected.
If the individual mandate is unconstitutional and the entire law goes down with the mandate, then Moody’s says hospitals would be affected negatively both in the short term and long term, and pharmaceutical companies and medical device companies would be negatively affected in the long term.
I have a simple question to ask all who read this missive, who was PPACA written to benefit?
In the words of the Watergate scandal’s Deep Throat, “Follow the money.”
For all of you who have already been infected with the virus that is slowly turning you into a zombie, I’ll go ahead and answer it for you. The PPACA was passed for the benefit of the commercial hospitals, the pharmaceutical companies and the medical device manufacturers. Aside from a few bones thrown to the consumer health lobby, this law was never intended to benefit Americans or our societal health. It is a Trojan Horse of sorts, with a veneer of social fairness, but filled with goodies for special interest groups harmful to society and to the health of individual citizens.