In less than 24 hours, Eric and the Planet Waves team of researchers, writers, proofreaders and fact-checkers have turned out a thorough, engaging and relevant article on the astrology, history and possible implications of yesterday’s landmark SCOTUS decision on health care. You really won’t find this level of professional journalism elsewhere in the world of online astrology. In fact, you might as well become a subscriber already, since world and cosmic events aren’t going to wait for you to catch up. We’re in this moment now — and we invite you to participate fully with us as the rest of this year unfolds.
To read today’s entire premium subscriber issue on its own — including your Full Moon horoscopes for all 12 signs, plus astro-news briefs — use this link here. Or, try a one-month free trial subscription here, and travel with us for a while.
One thing to remember is that most participants in the 60s were so caught up in the events, the changes, the drugs, the party, the sense of liberation from the 40s and 50s that there was not a heck of a lot of thought put into things — with some exceptions (The Diggers, Leary and other social leaders) but most of them were not thinking things through to the next level. It was an in-the-moment, deal with whatever is in your face (or not) kind of time. There was no sense of consequences — at all. Always remember that the promoters of the Woodstock festival promised attenders “hotdogs and Cokes” as the culinary fare.
Thank you Eric, for your response. Glad I asked, since I had not really thought about how modern astrology, in itself, has grown.
In “defining the theme of events for ourselves” and “co-creating it” I am curious to see how it unfolds; eager to learn how we can look into our individual charts, pull out information and apply it to grow.
Also, thanks for the interview on civics. Being a rolling stone most of my life, although I do volunteer, it did not occur to me to “be part” of any community the way you described. I loved the idea of kids coming out of school and working for a local paper. Such a great way to become interested in a community’s future.
I’m having a giggle over the broccoli references — does anyone remember Pappy Bush’s issues with broccoli? When he said he didn’t like broccoli, the world came unpinned; broccoli growers pouting and vegetable lovers everywhere were miffed! And here it is, suffering another attack! It does seem to be a vulnerable bit of green; much maligned and perhaps born under an unlucky star. LOL!
Gwind,
“This has me curious. You have lived through and have witnessed the results of the last Uranus/Pluto encounter of the sixties, as an astrologer do you think you will be able to see common threads throughout the seven transits with decisive clarity?”
We can do our best.
During the Ur/Pl conjunction in Virgo, astrology was not much known (or known about) outside the relatively small circles of astrologers. I have not looked through popular astrology magazines like Dell Horoscope of that era, though even if they discussed the conjunction it would still have been a boutique item. I don’t think that enough people knew about astrology or the conjunction when it was happening for it to have been a conscious factor in events.
While more people have heard of the Red Sox than the Uranus-Pluto square, there are fairly large constituencies who are aware of what is happening; it’s in the database and part of the discussion. What happened in the 60s is documented today, and what’s happening now is to some extent being documented as it happens. That awareness is not a large influence but it’s a conscious one.
So I think it’s going to be more possible to see the influence of the astrology as it happens now, though it helps if you know a little of what to look for. I think more significant is knowing the energies are available to utilize. We get to do what we cannot do in retrospect — define the theme of the events for ourselves, or at least co-create it. Understanding the conjunction and what it influenced helps. And then there is Chiron in Pisces.
ef
Great issue, Eric. “That unpredictability factor is the Uranus piece of the Uranus-Pluto square. Whenever Uranus is in the equation, you can expect the unexpected. And whenever Uranus and Pluto are working together (which is not that often), that’s an indication of progress or at the very least significant change. Keep that in mind as part of the background. Also remember that Sunday’s exact contact of the Uranus-Pluto square was the first of seven of them that will happen through March 2015 — so this is only the beginning.”
This has me curious. You have lived through and have witnessed the results of the last Uranus/Pluto encounter of the sixties, as an astrologer do you think you will be able to see common threads throughout the seven transits with decisive clarity? Will one or more themes be obvious or do you think is will be more of a wave of evolutionary change that touches us at the core? I am not suggesting prediction, but understanding. Do you think it will take us years to ruminate and look back to truly grasp what we have encountered?
It seems that that is how our culture often operates, after the fact, as if we have to catch up to what really went down. How do we embrace, utilize that unknown, expected energy of Uranus to its highest potential? Just wondering….
Eric,
I think you’re right to point out that the outcome of the health care law may still be up in the air. Certainly, a great deal depends upon the outcome of the 2012 election. But I think what you said is true in a much larger sense. Consider: here we are almost 80 years later and Republicans are still fighting to get rid of Social Security and more recent achievements like Medicare and Medicaid. Policy wars almost never end. Indeed, very few things in politics are ever settled with genuine finality. The Supreme Court’s decision was one among many major battles over health care reform that have already been fought and have yet to come. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is not the policy I would have come up with, but I would argue that it’s still a hell of a lot better than the health care system we had before it became law. If we want to keep it and hope to make further advances toward health care policy that is more progressive and humane, then we’ve still got a long, hard fight ahead of us.
astrodem
I just read the New York Times article regarding the rest of the decision. I don’t understand the ‘broccoli argument,’ but I’m sure we will in the coming days. Looks like a win for the libertarians, which might be a good thing. What it appears to mean is, the law can’t make us not drink a sugar sweetened cola, but they can add a tax if it is proven to be an unhealthy beverage, or something like that. Lawsuits galore coming down the pike. I wonder if that will be the tipping point to legalize marijuana too.
== Patty, the broccoli argument is a red herring; I guess that’s what’s for dinner. It’s to make it sound as if nobody has ever been forced to buy something by the government. This has been held constitutional or lawful over and over again through American history. The parallels are not exact but this isn’t unprecedented. I think paying a pre-tax on one’s failure to be able to have insurance is as reasonable as it is to expect society to cover the bill, the way our system is structured now anyway.
Very nice article, well worth the postponement of the blog today. It’s interesting that you’ve confirmed with the analysis that strange tickle in the back of my brain that says “but wait there’s more”, like the whole story is a lot bigger than what we’re seeing and the other shoe has yet to drop…
You’re right, Eric – it’s a ‘global shame’. Your friend sounds like an incredibly brave and amazing woman. Only had time to read part of your fantastic coverage, really look forward to reading the rest of it. But want to thank you immedately for the wonderful horoscope, and extra birthday bit – am just about ready to get on that horse and ride off into the fray! (though the crab in me is still sorely tempted to crawl behind a rock and wait until it’s over…).
Thank you for outstanding coverage of this pivotal issue for all of us.
Starting with the personal story (where thankfully she did not die, as many,many have during this tenure of the intentional demise of true health “care” in this country)
and ending with (sorry for such a long sentence) the thorough consideration of the “decision chart”.
My vote is for intent with chicanery.
However, I believe that with Chiron’s involvement (even a sort of oversight) and with Neptune’s inherent idealism that still lives in the Occupy Movement’s heart there will be an upset to the “Chicanerists” Cart.
Dissolving, backfiring, big time upsetting to the best laid plans of mice and and rat-men, so to speak,.is what could potentially be afoot, perhaps.
And it is the Royal Star, Regulus, (THANK YOU! Patty) that I am hanging my idealist’s hopes on for that.
Absolutely STELLAR coverage, Eric. YES. And Thank You.
Great coverage of this huge event – thank you! My two cents – the rising sign and transpoluto are conjunct regulus. Quote from Rob Tillet, Regulus -“The most Royal Star. Raphael, the Healing Archangel, the Watcher of the North. Nobility, ambition, alertness, great power, status, leadership, sudden downfall, accidents, violence. Said by some to be the most benefic star in the universe.” I want to believe that Chief Justice Roberts is quite the noble these days, displaying the leadership that so many in congress lack.
The decision upheld the Mandate but also made participation in the Medicaid reforms optional. Under ACA those whose income is less than 133% of the federal poverty level (133% of FPL is about $15K per year for a single person) would receive their health care through an expansion of the Medicaid program. The court ruled that states are allowed to opt out of this expansion and keep their current Medicaid programs and still receive federal support for their existing programs. Right now, states have different eligibility thresholds. For example, many states do not uniformly cover single adults. ACA would make the Medicaid eligibility requirements uniform–anyone below 133% of FPL would be covered. If a state elects to keep its current programs, those who now don’t qualify for assistance would not have access to Medicaid–thus the potential gap is created. It is not clear whether those same persons (less than 133% FPL) would qualify for premium and coverage support on the Exchanges.