A. Macarthur

"Repeal Obamacare?" Hey ... Whaddya got to Lose? Oh ... I'm Glad You Asked.

  
By:  A. Macarthur  •   •  10 years ago  •  4 comments

"Repeal Obamacare?" Hey ... Whaddya got to Lose? Oh ... I'm Glad You Asked.

Not that it matters, but for all its right-wing detractors who likely have no clue about what it offers or, IT'S ACTUAL NAME which is NOT "Obamacare," for those interested in knowing something about that which they oppose (don't ya' just hate those little f'n details?) ... it's ACTUAL NAME Is THE PATIENT PROTECTION AFFORDABLE HEALTH CARE ACT (PPACA).

How many didn't know that? Raise your hands ... come on ... let's see the hands.

And for those who oppose it, but, who (prior to, and possibly even after this article) can not cite one actual provision of the Act, allow me to impart some information that Mitt, Newt, Rick, Rush et al ... could not fit on your bumper-sticker of a miseducation.

PPACA includes numerous provisions that began to take effect in 2010 and will continue/expand over several years.

* Require insurers to offer the same premium to all applicants of the same age and geographical location without regard to most pre-existing conditions (excluding tobacco use). {That means insurers can't discriminate!)

* A shared responsibility requirement, commonly called an individual mandate, requires that all persons not covered by an employer sponsored health plan, Medicaid, Medicare or other public insurance programs, purchase and comply with an approved private insurance policy or pay a penalty, unless the applicable individual is a member of a recognized religious sect exempted by the Internal Revenue Service, or waived in cases of financial hardship. {That means no one can game the system -- go to an emergency room uninsured and have those of us who purchase insurance pay an additional $1100/year on our premiums)

* Medicaid eligibility is expanded to include all individuals and families with incomes up to 133% of the poverty level along with a simplified CHIP enrollment process. {That means A CHILD of poor parents doesn't necessarily have to die of cancer!}

* Health insurance exchanges will commence operation in each state, offering a marketplace where individuals and small businesses can compare policies and premiums, and buy insurance (with a government subsidy if eligible). {That means if you move or change jobs you can still have health insurance}

* Low income persons and families above the Medicaid level and up to 400% of the federal poverty level will receive federal subsidies on a sliding scale if they choose to purchase insurance via an exchange (persons at 150% of the poverty level would be subsidized such that their premium cost would be of 2% of income or $50 a month for a family of 4). {That's like the old favorite ... Christian Charity ... hmmmmm ... then why does the religious right hate this?}

* Minimum standards for health insurance policies are to be established and annual and lifetime coverage caps will be banned. {That means if you run out of money you don't have to die because of it}

And contrary to the Right-Wing Hype

Health care law repeal: Why would it increase the deficit?

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/The-Vote/2011/0107/Health-care-law-repeal-Why-would-it-increase-the-deficit

So ... as the U.S. Supreme Court is about to hear arguments brought against the PPACA by the plaintiffs - 26 states, two individuals, and the National Federation of Independent Business ... in case you might ask, "AND WHO MIGHT THEY BE?" -- I'm here to help.

On its website, the National Federation of Independent Business states that it is a "nonprofit, nonpartisan organization founded in 1943" and "represents the consensus views of its members in Washington and all 50 state capitals."

Its PAC is called Save America's Free Enterprise Trust (SAFE). The organization's donations tend to strongly favor Republicans.

I n 2010, 25 of its members, all Republican, were elected to the 112th Congress. A number of them, such as Rand Paul, Jeff Duncan, Paul Gosar and Kristi Noem, are affiliated with or endorsed by the Tea Party movement.

One other point.

The wife of one of the Supreme Court Justices, that would be Mrs. Clarence Thomas ... has been a Tea Party Activist lobbying against ... Obamacare!

Justice Thomas is not likely to recuse himself!

Tags

jrBlog - desc
[]
 
A. Macarthur
Professor Expert
link   author  A. Macarthur    10 years ago

If ya' don't know what's in it ...

Why do ya' spin it?

 
 
 
wmolaw
Professor Silent
link   wmolaw    10 years ago

A.Mac:

Hope all is going well, and those issues come up roses!

I would like to note, however, who cares about the "name?" Anyone can call any group/law, whatever, anything they want. We see it every day. Jut because it is called X, doesn't mean it accomplishes X, or even has anything to do with X.

For example: National Socialist German Workers' Party

Nuff said?

 
 
 
A. Macarthur
Professor Expert
link   author  A. Macarthur    10 years ago

Jut because it is called X, doesn't mean it accomplishes X, or even has anything to do with X.

Terry,

Yeah ... that's often referred to as an alias, facade, front, shadow company ...

Anyway, I appreciate your reference to the home-front; the original issue is still a mystery, and, another family member is being treated for a separate health issue.

We should do a phone call or two; life goes on and I realize that I can't stop being productive because "shit" happens.

I look forward to any time we can hang out in the Poconos (Mike too) and do some fishing and, if you'd like, photographing some of the forests and streams ... we'll work that phone and/or e-mail communication out and, hopefully soon.

Thanks again.

 
 
 
CaptainKidd
Freshman Silent
link   CaptainKidd    10 years ago

* Require insurers to offer the same premium to all applicants of the same age and geographical location without regard to most pre-existing conditions (excluding tobacco use). {That means insurers can't discriminate!)

But, how much is that premium going to be, and how many will be able to afford it? By forcing the acceptance of pre-existing conditions, and by eliminating the consideration of age and existing health status from the equation, even without tobacco use, the overall risk level of the insured pool will rise by orders of magnitude. This risk will be spread throughout the pool, and premiums will rise for those who have, thus far, benefited from these exclusionary tactics, No? In other words, those who are young, healthy, and non tobacco users will pay higher premiums, correct?

If you say no, who will cover the shortfall for the insurance companies? Any answer including money spent by the government is an answer meaning tax dollars or government subsidies.

Government Subsidy=Tax Dollars, Right?

Tax Dollars=My Money, right?

* A shared responsibility requirement, commonly called an individual mandate, requires that all persons not covered by an employer sponsored health plan, Medicaid, Medicare or other public insurance programs, purchase and comply with an approved private insurance policy or pay a penalty, unless the applicable individual is a member of a recognized religious sect exempted by the Internal Revenue Service, or waived in cases of financial hardship. {That means no one can game the system -- go to an emergency room uninsured and have those of us who purchase insurance pay an additional $1100/year on our premiums)

Theres the rub. Why does anyone have the right to force anyone else to purchase insurance, or any other product? And if someone cannot afford it now, how will they afford it then? How is subsidizing their hospitalization with tax dollars any different than paying their bills with tax dollars? And, though it is an unpopular and politically charged subject, why is it my or your responsibility to do so? I have enough responsibilities of my own, taking care of my family. I dont want to have part of my income directed to subsidize someone elses insurance anymore than I want to have the tax dollars I pay go to that purpose. I am told again and again and again that a persons body is his own, and I have no right to tell him what he can or cannot do with it. If this is so, (and the law says it is) I do not want to be held financially responsible for it.

* Medicaid eligibility is expanded to include all individuals and families with incomes up to 133% of the poverty level along with a simplified CHIP enrollment process. {That means A CHILD of poor parents doesn't necessarily have to die of cancer!}

Again, who is paying for this?

* Health insurance exchanges will commence operation in each state, offering a marketplace where individuals and small businesses can compare policies and premiums, and buy insurance (with a government subsidy if eligible). {That means if you move or change jobs you can still have health insurance}

Government Subsidy=Tax Dollars, Right?

Tax Dollars=My Money, right?

* Low income persons and families above the Medicaid level and up to 400% of the federal poverty level will receive federal subsidies on a sliding scale if they choose to purchase insurance via an exchange (persons at 150% of the poverty level would be subsidized such that their premium cost would be of 2% of income or $50 a month for a family of 4). {That's like the old favorite ... Christian Charity ... hmmmmm ... then why does the religious right hate this?}

Federal Subsidy=My Money, right?

Subsidized=Given Tax Dollars, right?

* Minimum standards for health insurance policies are to be established and annual and lifetime coverage caps will be banned. {That means if you run out of money you don't have to die because of it}

Eventually, no matter how loathe we are to admit it, and no matter how desperate those who claim it wont happen are, the question will arise as to best application of available funds. The GDP of the USA is not able to continue to rise on a exponential curve forever, and neither is the cost of medical care able to be sustained on that exponential curve.

Eventually, there is a bottom to the piggy bank. Whether we like it or not, someone is going to face the decision of whether the 95 year old gets the hip transplant, or the 40 year old gets the heart surgery. And who will make that decision?