That the Affordable Care Act (aka “Obamacare”, “Baucus-care”, or “Obamneycare”) survived is indeed huge. But the discussion about the law has been extremely narrow thus far.
The mandate is often described as its “centerpiece”, which has been true politically, but only kinda-sorta in terms of policy. It’s an unlovely way to get to universality, and one that we at BMG were skeptical or contemptuous of when Governor Romney introduced it to the negotiations back in 2005. Yes, let’s remember that not only did Romney sign the law that included the mandate — it was his idea to put it in there.
And yet, the number of people it would actually affect is scant, compared to the many millions who would benefit from subsidies, exchanges, and Medicaid expansion. I’m actually much more concerned that the court’s nixing of mandatory Medicaid expansion by the courts could leave a lot of poor people uninsured and ineligible for subsidies. And some states are wingnutty enough to leave federal bucks on the table to do exactly that, if for no other reason than that Nancy Pelosi said they probably wouldn’t.
In any event, I hope the decision takes some of the emphasis off of the mandate, the most controversial and difficult part of the law. I hope it moves polls and legitimizes the law in some folks’ eyes. But most importantly, I hope it changes the discussion to the wide range of things that the law does, making health care fairer, more available, more accessible and hopefully more efficient as well.
Keep this litany by the bedside:
And here are the President’s very apt remarks:
Discuss
5 Comments . Leave a comment below.“I hope the decision takes some of the emphasis off of the mandate, the most controversial and difficult part of the law” I don’t think this will happen.
The Democrats and Obama will have to answer the taxpayers on what is in Obamacare. Here is just a few new taxes in the bill.
Obamacare is nothing more than a tax hike. The middle class will bear the burden on paying the new taxes. The high court’s ruling leaves in place 21 tax increases in the health care law costing more than $675 billion over the next 10 years. 12 tax hikes would affect families earning less than $250,000 per year. This will include a payroll tax on wages, and self employment income, a 3.8 percent tax on dividends, capital gains, and other investment income. A “Cadillac tax” on high-cost insurance plans, a tax on insurance providers and an excise tax on medical-device manufacturers.
How is Elizabeth Warren going to explain how she supports this huge tax hike on the middle class. My guess is she will run away from it. She can run but she can’t hide.
I understand that families without health insurance will have to choose between buying health insurance and reimbursing the rest of us for their irresponsibility. That is NOT a “tax increase”, unless you also claim that those who rent pay a “tax” because they don’t own their home.
I fear you are flatly mis-stating the provisions of the Medicare payroll tax rate increase. That was an increase of 0.9% — and it applies ONLY to families with incomes above $250,000. In that same high-income group, the capital gains tax increases by the 3.8% you cite. So what? A “Cadillac plan” is a Cadillac plan. Few middle-class taxpayers have one, and those make that choice will pay for it. Again, so what?
Your comment egregiously mis-states the impact of the ACA on middle-class families. It says nothing about the dramatically reduced health care costs it will bring about. The “huge tax hike on the middle class” that you refer to is more accurately characterized as a huge GOP lie.
Oh, and let me join Christopher in observing that you appear to have no problem enjoying the benefits of socialized medicine that already apply to you. You join Scott Brown in his hypocrisy.
Elizabeth Warren said yesterday in a press release:
Hardly the words of a candidate running away from anything.
I came back to this comment today, because I found a strikingly different description of who pays what under the ACA. More on that in a minute.
The claims in the comment by retired-veteran were SO glaringly wrong I looked to see if they were perhaps a drive-by cut-and-paste job. Sure enough — here’s what I found in the Washington Times “report” of the decision (the Washington Times has a reputation for accuracy somewhere south of the National Enquirer):
You’ll note that retired-veteran’s second paragraph — after “Obamacare is nothing more than a tax hike.” — is an un-attributed word-for-word copy of paragraph ten of the Washington Times piece. So we have yet another Republican plagiarist spreading outright lies about the ACA. The hilarious irony is that the material is copied from arguably the LEAST reliable source in the nation.
Now, for the truth about who pays for the ACA. Here, from my first link, are the specifics as reported by the Christian Science Monitor by way of Alaska Dispatch (emphasis mine):
The piece miss-stated the first bullet — the 0.9% surtax is for incomes in excess of $200K per person or $250K/family.
The following is a bold-faced LIE, whether plagiarized or not: “12 tax hikes would affect families earning less than $250,000 per year. This will include a payroll tax on wages, and self employment income, a 3.8 percent tax on dividends, capital gains, and other investment income. A “Cadillac tax” on high-cost insurance plans, a tax on insurance providers and an excise tax on medical-device manufacturers.” The payroll tax increase explicitly excludes the $200K/250K thresholds. Similarly, increase in taxes on investment income applies ONLY to investment income in excess of $250K. The bulk of the “high-cost insurance plans” are the province of the very wealthy. Insurance providers and medical-device manufacturers are, well, insurance providers and medical-device manufacturers — not individuals and families.
If there is any substance or integrity to the Republican position, then WHY all the lies?
sorta, kinda leads directly to single payer. If the mandate is actually a tax and tax incentive issue, then clearly a single payer system would pass that Constitutional muster. Right?
I was concerned that health care reform would stall here at his hybrid, not quite really GOOD state. But there seems to me to be no reason now not to pursue the endgame of single payer…even if it takes years.
BTW, hope you enjoy the one truly socialized medicine system we have in this country – the VA. From everything I hear and read it works well and is popular. We do need to pay for this law, but it’s not nearly as onerous as you make it sound.
« Blue Mass Group Front Page
Mon 20 May 3:31 AM