Skip to main content

One of the more frustrating elements of the debate about Obamacare is that the Right Wing has dictated the terms of that debate.

Resolved: Does American Want Socialized Medicine?

While the Obamacare legislation was being legislated, the debate was about "socialized medicine."  As if.  Obamacare is no more a government takeover of healthcare than air traffic control is a government takeover of the skies.  Or traffic lights are a government takeover of the roads.  (Although the Post Office is, in fact, a government takeover of the mail.  Cue to Tea Partiers blowing up their own mailboxes.)

Resolved: Is Obamacare Unconstitutional?

Then there was that interminable debate about whether Obamacare is constitutional.  Let me get this straight: are you telling me that it is constitutional for the Government to draft your rear-end and ship you to Vietnam to serve as cannon fodder, but somehow it isn't constitutional for the Government to make you pay for your own emergency-room care?  Oh, come on!  If it's constitutional for the Government to put you in prison if you fail to buy car insurance, then surely it's constitutional for the Government to make you pay a fee if you fail to buy health insurance.

Resolved: Isn't the Obamacare Website Absolutely Sucktastic?

And now the Tea Partiers are shedding crocodile tears over the Obamacare website.  The website that they tried to repeal, on 40+ different occasions.  The website that went live on the very day that they shut down the federal government.  Because, you know, they get really upset if there is any delay in people obtaining Obamacare coverage, since they don't want anyone ever to have it.

Why?  Why did the Right Wing go to such lengths to dictate the Obamacare debate?  Because if you're obsessing over government takeovers, and constitutionality, and a website, then you aren't ever talking about:

  • closing the "donut hole" in prescription drug coverage for seniors;
  • extending coverage and care to 40 million people with preexisting conditions;
  • prohibiting insurance companies from literally pulling the plug on patients whose care becomes too expensive;
  • allowing young adults up to the age of 26 to remain on their parents' health insurance policies;
  • eliminating deductibles and copayments for ordinary care for seniors;
  • mandating refunds for seniors who are overcharged under the Medicare Advantage program;
  • eliminating useless and predatory "junk" coverage;
  • prohibiting overcharging on the basis of gender;
  • preventing employers who don't offer insurance coverage from making employers who do offer coverage feel like suckers and fools;
  • extending Medicaid to the working poor; and
  • paying over one-third of the cost of small businesses providing employee healthcare.

Funny, but I don't remember the Republicans ever arguing for the repeal of any of those specific provisions, just the "Obamacare" bogeyman.

Regardless, the autumn Tea Party blitzkrieg to repeal Obamacare really came down to an element of Obamacare that has received little or no mention, except when I mentioned it:  the "affordability credits."  The government-mandated discounts on health insurance, which generally see to it that you don't have to pay more than 11 percent of your income for health insurance.  The discounts that the Kaiser Foundation says will save families who buy their own insurance an average of $2,700 each year.  (Actually, to be specific, Kaiser found that 48% who purchase their own insurance will qualify for the affordability credits, and for them, the discounts will save a stunning $5,500 each year.)

That's what I'm talking about.

Tea Party Republicans were determined – no, engrossed – no, bent -- no, obsessed – no, consumed – no, possessed by demons, with the urgent compulsion to prevent the affordability credits from ever going into effect.  Because then, you know, people could afford insurance, which means that they would get the healthcare that they need to stay healthy and alive.  As opposed to the Tea Party chant at one of the Republican Presidential debates – "Let them die!  Let them die!"

You don't have to take my word for it.  A right-wing columnist in a right-wing newspaper (Byron York of the Washington Examiner) wrote this very revealing statement last July, just before the Tea Party repeal efforts went nuclear:

"The White House knows that once those payments begin, repealing Obamacare will no longer be an abstract question of removing legislation not yet in effect.  Instead, it will be a very real matter of taking money away from people.  It's very, very hard to do that."

So if you were wondering why the Tea Party went so far as to shut down the Government, and threaten default on the national debt, just to prevent one single aspect of one single government program from being implemented, now you know why.

Look, if you ask people who don't have health insurance why they don't have it, 90% say that it's because they can't afford it.  Which leaves two options:

  1. Make it affordable.
  2. Tell them to go to hell.

Obamacare represents the first option.  Maniacal efforts to repeal Obamacare represent the second option.

And now, as of January 1, 2014, America is going with the first option.  That's America's New Year's Resolution: "Heal the sick."

I feel good about that.


Rep. Alan Grayson

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  How about single payer instead? (7+ / 0-)

    Enough of this "for profit" death by spreadsheet approach to healthcare.

    Happy little moron, Lucky little man.
    I wish I was a moron, MY GOD, Perhaps I am!
    —Spike Milligan

    by polecat on Thu Jan 09, 2014 at 10:59:34 AM PST

  •  I've believed this all along (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    FloridaSNMOM, Sandino
    "The White House knows that once those payments begin, repealing Obamacare will no longer be an abstract question of removing legislation not yet in effect.  Instead, it will be a very real matter of taking money away from people.  It's very, very hard to do that."
    Translated from rightwingese, this just says that when the American people get a taste of universal health care, they'll like it. Byron York may be a little more honest than most about saying it, but they all know it. That's why it's so important for them to stop it now--they know they'll never get another chance.
  •  I was very surprised to see only 48% (3+ / 0-)

    of people getting insurance on the exchanges qualify for subsidies...I thought for sure it would be in the range of 80% or more. I guess there are a lot more successful self-employed professionals than I thought--or most workers who don't have insurance through their employers are really, really poor--too poor to qualify for the exchanges, which means they are SOL unless they're in a state with expanded Medicaid (and I think a whole lot, like maybe even more than half, of them aren't).

    Or maybe it means that people who already purchase their own insurance (i.e., those who would buy individual insurance regardless of the mandate/subsidies)? In which case it's not so bad, but not the figure I'd choose to argue in favor of the ACA--best to bring in those who have never purchased their own insurance because they were turned down or couldn't afford it, even if we have to project because they aren't all enrolled yet.

    Still, the "affordability" part of the ACA does need serious work--because a lot of exchange policies come down to 11% (I thought it was 9%?) of your income in premiums and then another 10-20% in deductible before any claim is paid (depending on your income--deductibles can go up to $6,350, the out of pocket cap).

    It's better than before, but it seriously needs improvement, which Republicans are working hard to prevent. That's the tricky pitch we need to make: Vote for a Democrat because Republicans won't let us fix Obamacare. (And they won't let us raise the minimum wage or extend unemployment either).

    "All governments lie, but disaster lies in wait for countries whose officials smoke the same hashish they give out." --I.F. Stone

    by Alice in Florida on Thu Jan 09, 2014 at 11:35:04 AM PST

  •  The "affordability credits" shouldn't force people (4+ / 0-)

    to sell assets (at a gain) in order to qualify for them.  I'm one of those under 65 who are currently living off savings, but without sufficient taxable income to qualify for the credits unless I sell some of those assets (mutual funds) to create more taxable income every year. ( I could have gone on my state's Medicare expansion, but I didn't want the GOPpers accusing me of being a moocher.)
      Whoever wrote that part of the ACA (thanks alot @ssh*le Baucus) should have considered exceptions such as mine.  But then that probably would have made the ACA that much closer to Single Payer.

    My Karma just ran over your Dogma

    by FoundingFatherDAR on Thu Jan 09, 2014 at 11:35:35 AM PST

    •  I see no real reason to avoid Medicaid... (0+ / 0-)

      but I would assume that once you sold those assets and "created" some income, you would go right ahead and invest the money again, just outside the retirement account...even generate some income from it.

      "Nothing happens unless first a dream. " ~ Carl Sandburg

      by davewill on Thu Jan 09, 2014 at 02:41:48 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  forgot #3 (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    3. Continue to work at making healthcare affordable for everyone.

    The affordable healthcare fight ain't over yet.

Click here for the mobile view of the site