.

Affordable Care Act and Republican Objections

Why the Affordable Care Act must not be repealed.

As I hear and read the rants coming from the Republicans about the Supreme Court upholding the Affordable Care Act, I’m amused by much of their so-called argument. First, they scream that government should not be able to make anyone buy something they don’t want. What’s amusing about this argument is that they are perfectly content with requiring hospitals, nurses, doctors, and other health professionals to provide care to these very people who refuse to buy insurance. Why is it, according to them, truly unconstitutional to require someone to buy health insurance, but perfectly constitutional to require professionals to provide their services for free? Interestingly, the Republicans carefully dodge this question.

Second, they talk about how much this program will cost. From what I’ve read, it will cost about a third what the tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires cost. And as we approach the election, how to pay for the Affordable Care Act is clearly spelled out, while the Republicans have not offered any explanation for how to pay for the tax cuts. It’s interesting, though, how they always manage to find the money when the rich benefit, but have major problems when the rest of us do.

Third, Justice Thomas did not recuse himself from considering this Act even though he has profited from fighting it all along and stood to profit even more if it had been defeated. If you recall, Justice Kagan recused herself from considering the Arizona immigration law because of her previous positions on the issue. It was disappointing, but not surprising, that Justice Thomas did not have enough integrity to do the same thing. Fortunately, Justice Roberts, unlike most of the other justices, based his decision on the law, not political ideology.

Going forward, the Republicans have pledged to do all they can to eliminate the Affordable Care Act. So as you consider the upcoming election, look at what you stand to lose: exemption from preexisting conditions, children allowed to remain on parents’ health insurance until age 26, funds to help offset the costs of the donut hole in Medicare for senior citizens, free essential health screenings, and more. These will disappear if the Republicans have their way. Their win would seriously damage millions of Americans who are now receiving coverage under the Affordable Care Act. Learn the facts about this ACT, commonly called “Obamacare.”  Read about it and learn the truth. Then make your decision about the upcoming election.

Chuck Teeter

This post is contributed by a community member. The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Patch Media Corporation. Everyone is welcome to submit a post to Patch. If you'd like to post a blog, go here to get started.

Marie July 12, 2012 at 07:51 PM
COB, the process to pass the ACA was deliberately hidden, partisan, presented dishonestly to the public, and used taxpayer money in the form of bribes to garner votes. The approval process of the ACA was so bad that it had to be crafted out of sight of the very people it will affect - the nation's citizens. I do not have confidence in it or in the individuals who took part of passing it or the government agents who will execute it. As I stated earlier, had this been done by Republican ideologues rather than Democrat Ideologues, I would be just as disgusted. Health care reform is definitely needed in our country. A health care reform act debated with full transparency and a knowledge of what is in it before voting on it, without lying to the citizens about the funding, and with bipartisan support, would be a good start. Unfortunately, career politicians from both sides have created a political cesspool, and nothing good can come from it at this point. I wouldn't think God looks too kindly upon "trusted" elected officials who lie to their constituents and the country for political gain, either.
Chronicles of Bob July 12, 2012 at 10:50 PM
Much of what you just said i would support and agree with. Especially the career polititian on both sides. We have public servants that are paid a moderate salary for their sacrifice to the people who leave as retired fireman, teachers, and soliders. Then you have public servants who are paid a moderate salary that leave as millionaire's with agendas and favors that they filled for the few, not the many.
Bob July 15, 2012 at 02:03 PM
Stuart, you obvioulsy have no sens of history ifyou really think that people were paying 91% rates back in the 50s. While that was the MARGINAL rate, there were so many deductions and exclusions back then that the ACTUAL rates they were paying were far lower, and the "Rich" who could afford tax shelters paid far lower rates than those with rising incomes but not million dollar assets. This is why JFK took a leadership role in reforming the tax code by reducing the MARGINAL rates and adjusting deductions and exclusions to increase investment in growing industries and encouraging capital gains which grow the economy. This was probably the greatest legacy of his Presidency.
Bob July 15, 2012 at 02:03 PM
This worked so well that in fact the vast majority of Presidents since his tenure has followed that trend, and the result was growing the GDP, increasing jobs, and increasing tax revenues. Whenever a President deviated in this path, GB I, the results have been negative. Clinton was something of a unique, and very lucky, case. During his tenure the productivity of the American worker exploded, allowing for an increase in real wages and creating world leadership of the world in this high value commerce. By 1999, this productivity growth was maxing out, so we needed to go back to growth fundamentals. GDP growth, even after the disaster in 9/11, was testament to the correctness of the tax cuts and economic policy. Obama is trying to reverse this decades long trend for growth. He needs to go!
Stuart Kurtz July 15, 2012 at 09:33 PM
Bob, Note that I referred to various tax rates as "marginal personal income taxes for high-income," so your "corrections" speak to your lack of reading comprehension and generosity rather than to any historical misunderstandings on my part. Of course there were deductions then, just as there are deductions now. There are also differences in capital gains taxes, which are extremely low today by historical standards. It's a bit harder to document effective income tax rates. There's a 2007 graphic from the NYT, which claims effective tax rates for the upper 0.01% of about 70% in the early 60's, vs. about 35% in 2004. For the upper 1%, it was about 45% in the early 60's, vs. about 32% in 2004. Obama's proposals would be expected to raise these effective rates to roughly 40% and 37% respectively, which is less than the average of the comparable rates during the Reagan administration. Your claim of a significant linkage between GDP growth and effective tax rates is not supported by the evidence. If anything, average GDP growth in the 60s was higher than average GDP growth subsequently, and yet tax rates were higher then than subsequently.

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »