Like millions of working Americans across the country, and millions more 
Americans who are covered under existing Medicare and Medicaid care, the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act has absolutely no impact whatsoever.
I’m covered by my employers health care plan, and millions of Americans are covered by Medicare or Medicaid.
What the ACA does do however is strongly encourage young, healthy people, who otherwise do not have health insurance, and who have, until now, had higher priorities on how they spend their money, to consider purchasing qualifying health care plans and entering the risk pool, thus bringing down the cost of health care for all Americans.
The penalty for not being covered by some sort of qualifying health care plan is a tax penalty, paid when you file your tax return. For someone making about $100,000 a year in 2015, this penalty would be about $2400, or $200 a month, or about 1/2 the expected cost of purchasing a qualifying health care plan.
Another part of the law, not often discussed by the news media, is that the Medicaid program will be expanded to include all persons who make up to 133% of the federal poverty level. Currently, only certain people, often making far below the poverty level are covered by Medicaid. This will allow single people without children, who are riding the poverty train, to be covered in their state if that state elects to adopt the new Medicaid programs.
The Supreme Court today ruled that the ACA, for the most part, is indeed constitutional, and the law stands.
Many people, led by Mitt Romney, want to repeal the law because they say it goes to far and places an unfair burden on the American People. I’m confused by this approach.
Sure, the United States has the best health care on the planet, as many claim. However, most of us can’t afford it, and settle for something considerably less than the best, just as we don’t purchase first class airline tickets, or attend sports events in a private box seat.
“ObamaCare”, or the ACA as I prefer, will allow more of our citizens to access at least some level of health care that is more sophisticated than a band-aid bought at the corner drugstore.
Some people say that we will see ‘death panels’ formed, where decisions must be made about who gets health care, and who is allowed to die. This is myth, traceable to a bunch of malarkey published in The New Republic as far bas as 1994
There is a provision of the bill that requires employers with more than 50 employees to provide health care as an employment benefit. That employers of that size do not already provide health care is a puzzle to me, how do they attract employees now? I would think any reputable larger employer would offer health care as a benefit in order to attract the best qualified employee. I would think this requirement would level the playing field, and employees who now work at large companies where they are just another number might now be attracted to work at a smaller company, where they can really make an impact.
The Congressional Budget Office has actually estimated that in a a ten year period after the law takes effect, the ACA will lead to a direct reduction in the Federal Deficit of 138 billion dollars. Any argument that the bill would increase the Federal Deficit has already been shot in the foot.
There are all kinds of benefits that we, as a country, stand to gain by having a National Health plan that covers a majority of our citizens, and I fail to see why so many conservatives are against this, even on principle.
Yet, today, Mitt Romney is still sticking to his guns and states that his first act in office would be to begin the repeal of the 2010 Health Care Act. That it would be even possible for him to achieve that is in serious doubt, since several attempts to do just that have already failed. Even should Romney win the Presidency in 2012, it is unlikely that he would also have both houses of Congress along with him.
What bothers me most about Romney, and the Republicans of 2012 in general is the same thing that I’ve commented on many times here before. It isn’t enough for me to be against someone or something, you must also state what changes you would make and how you would make them.
All I’ve heard Mitt Romney say in the past few months is that he is against Obama, and that he is against the Health Care Plan, and that he would repeal much of the progress we’ve made recently under President Obama. What he isn’t saying to date is what he would do instead. In fact, on pretty much any issue at all, you cannot get Romney to say where he stands. His entire campaign now consists of “Vote for me.”
His reputation is that he downsizes and outsources. You cannot do that with the Federal Government and still be a responsible leader. Sure, cut waste where you find it, stamp out corruption where you find it, replace inept employees with talented ones, but you can’t reduce the number of policemen, or firemen, or customs inspectors or border guards or teachers we employ when our population gain alone requires that we add more of these people. You can, and should replace bad teachers, corrupt border guards, lazy policemen just as you would a private employee who isn’t up to the job at hand.
You also cannot eliminate entire departments within the Federal Government as some claim they would do. If you eliminate the Department of Housing and Urban Development, what will you put in its place to take over the vital jobs that it performs, or the vital oversight it performs? Many current Republicans or unaffiliated conservatives want to reduce the size of our government, but do they truly want to revert to an era when corporations were allowed to pollute our rivers and streams to their hearts content? When corporations could set up a mine and drill on the hillside that you see out your kitchen window? Yes, our government is huge, but lets not cut it with a dull axe – I think a wiser route would be to surgically trim waste with a sharp scalpel.
I’m as startled as anyone that Chief Justice Roberts sided with the liberal side of the court in upholding the ACA today. It gives me hope that the court is more impartial than we have been giving credit. I’m also pleased that even the 4 dissenting judges agree that there is no way that the HCA was constitutional under the Commerce Clause of the constitution as the Government tried to assert. That put all 9 of the Supreme Court justices in agreement on many things about this law.
I hope it stands.
While I agree that Mr. Obama has not done the best job that he could have as President, that he has failed to lead in some instances, I still think that among the choices we have for president in 2012, continuing with him is better than a new road with Mitt Romney as the driver.
This was driven home by an article I read this morning at The Daily Beast where I learned that in the 51 years since President Kennedy was president, with Democrats and Republicans in office for approximately equal periods of that time, the economy produced nearly twice as many jobs under democrats than under republican leadership. Twice as many? Wow.
I learned that in just the past 3 or 4 months the private sector has produced more new jobs than the private sector in the seven years of the Bush administration before the financial crisis .
The portions of the HCA that are already in effect have slowed the growth of inflation in health care costs to 4 percent, the lowest in 50 years.
Why aren’t we hearing these numbers in the media? Not even Rachel Maddow is touting these numbers. I think people need to hear them.
Yes, to be honest, it’s Bill Clinton producing these numbers, but he isn’t making them up out of thin air. As “the shrewdest mind to occupy the Oval Office in our time”you have to give the man some credit. OK, so he tended to think with his dick a couple of times, how is he so different from most men in that respect? During his time in office we enjoyed some of the best financial growth in our history. He had to have done something right.
I’m just saying, ya know?
1 comment