We all have friends or family on the other side of the political aisle. I'm having a discussion with my uncle in which the ACA has come up. I'd like to answer the criticisms he's aired with the benefit of information from people more knowledgeable on the matter than myself. This serves the twofold purpose of better educating me about the ACA and its benefits, and hopefully helping me to provide my uncle with a meaningful new perspective. But be fair warned, it's an uphill struggle. Hit the jump if you'd like to help, with my thanks.
So the exchange began with me sending to my uncle an excellent simple explanation of the ACA which I actually got from this site. Forgive me that I am not finding it with a search, or I'd link to give the author credit. Now, I recommend you take a deep breath and go to your happy place before reading down; my uncle is quite opinionated and his words may strike some the wrong way. This is what he sent back:
The Obama care act does nothing but make money for the insurance co.'s and assures the lazy end of the work force [pun] a chance to send more of our money back to their home country while living off my sweat. IE; taxes. When I was out of work, many moons ago, I had to pay over $300 to have insurance for my family. I worked two jobs, but we were covered. Now I have to pay for these people, many of whom make decent money, but want the government to pay for everything. Our taxes are going to go up, even though my social security didn't go up in 2010,and 2011. And then in 2012, it went up so little, that I couldn't buy a dinner for my wife and I twice a month on the increase. You tell me where the logic is for that. I worked hard and paid SSI for many years, and now I am asked to support these people who send their money back to there home country, and ask us to support them. I ask you, where is the logic.
Okay, so my knee-jerk thoughts are sort of all over the place. I'd like to post what I'm replying to with my intended reply; please help me make more sense and give more good information, where appropriate.
First:
When I was out of work, many moons ago, I had to pay over $300 to have insurance for my family. I worked two jobs, but we were covered.
Reply: This example is very meaningful, though not for the purposes I think you intend. At first you mention you were out of work, then you mention working 2 jobs to earn over $300 (I presume per month) to insure you and your family. Two things there: first, the insurance cost for a single person, per month, in the current day, can easily be well more than $300. Second, you specifically stated you were out of work... but then that you had two jobs. So clearly, you were able to
go get paying work at will, enough to meet not only the $300/month insurance obligation, but presumably pay rent/mortgage and keep at least some food on the table. Now I'm asking you to consider, in the wake of the 2008 financial collapse, is that still something you can casually assume everyone can do? Just go get two jobs because they need them, snap your fingers, that easy? For both these reasons - insurance being drastically more expensive, and jobs being harder to find - I don't think your answer really fits our current national situation. No offense.
Second:
The Obama care act does nothing but make money for the insurance co.'s and assures the lazy end of the work force...
Reply: Hold on. The ACA, through the mandate and penalty, offers more money for insurance companies to forestall the massive debt of care for the uninsured; I mentioned this in my last e-mail. In fact, the insurance companies' oft-repeated complaint is that the free-rider penalty is
too small to really induce people to carry coverage. So while I'll certainly allow that you're right and there is more money going to the insurers, it's actually to
protect people like you and I from higher rates incurred by holding up the free-riders.
As far as people in the work force being lazy, it's pretty clear that you're talking about immigrant workers, and you're at least implying that a lot of them are illegal. The process of getting insurance involves a significant bit of background-checking. Wouldn't illegal immigrants shy away from that, wanting to avoid being found out as illegals? Further, I'd like to see you go work in a Georgia field and tell me those workers are "lazy." Seriously, just try it for one day.
Next:
Now I have to pay for these people. many of whom make decent money, but want the government to pay for everything.
Reply: Hold on again. The language of the law, its inclusions and exclusions, are very clear here. People who can legitimately afford insurance
have to carry it, or pay a penalty. How is the government paying for anything new in the case of people who make decent money? If they make decent money, they have to carry insurance (i.e. pay money) or pay for the privilege of not doing so. Simple as that.
And:
Our taxes are going to go up, even though my social security didn't go up in 2010,and 2011. And then in 2012, it went up so little, that I couldn't buy a dinner for my wife and I twice a month on the increase. You tell me where the logic is for that.
Reply: There isn't any logic in what you just typed, because your basic premise - increased taxes on you - is completely wrong. I know a little about your income from what you told me at our last meeting, (name), and I know you do not make more than the very generous income required to actually incur any increased taxes from the ACA. Bear in mind, even if you
did make that much money, do you know how much your taxes would increase?
Less than one percent. Let me type that again:
less than one percent. If you made over $200k a year, which you do not. So basically, the answer that counts is, "You talk about the facts and I'll talk about the facts." If you're going to say that falsehoods and propaganda are your reasons for disliking the ACA, all I can really do is say you need to learn more about what the ACA is and does before making these judgments; again, no offense.
--------------------------------
You may notice from context that my uncle is older, retired, and on Soc Sec. You may also notice I am entirely too wordy and have an unfortunate tendency to snark (and believe me, I've edited my responses several times trying to tone it down).
So I'm asking the good folks here, who took the trouble to read this, to offer me some constructive criticism about how I can offer some constructive facts to my family member. If you made it this far, thanks just for reading. If you've got some good information and presentation to offer me in this debate, consider those thanks multiplied manifold.