Quantcast

Exposing and Debunking 5 of the Biggest Republican Lies About “Obamacare”

boehner-sadThere’s a lot of propaganda that comes from the right as it relates to the Affordable Care Act (aka “Obamacare”), and even I admit that at times it’s tough to know every rule that the law carries with it.

However, the blatant lies coming from Republicans since the law’s inception have been seemingly endless.  So I decided a few of them needed to be debunked.

Granted, the following aren’t the worst lies — they’re just the lies I see most often from right-wing trolls on my pages Right Off A Cliff and Forward Progressives, as well as my conservative friends and family who get most of their “information” from Fox News.

So in no particular order, let’s go ahead and debunk 5 of the biggest Republican lies about Obamacare.

1) Death Panels: Who actually believes that there will be some committee of government officials sitting at a desk determining whether or not someone lives or dies?   How is it that people are this stupid?  You would think that this myth would have faded long ago, but sadly I still see it pop up far too often.  For the record, Obamacare is not a government takeover of health care.  Which leads me to…

2) Obamacare is socialized health care:  Obamacare is not socialized health care.  That would be a single-payer system which Republicans simply refused to support in any way.  What Obamacare equates to is insurance reform.  It requires that every American obtain health insurance (you know, the whole “personal responsibility thing”) and those who can’t afford it will be given subsidies (tax breaks) in order to help them afford coverage.  Those who can afford insurance, but don’t make that much, will be given tax breaks as well based on their income.  It’s still largely private insurance companies providing health insurance to Americans.  Not a government takeover of health care.

3) The mandate is unconstitutional:  Actually, according to our Supreme Court it is constitutional.  In fact, the mandate is vital for any kind of insurance reform to work.  Think of it like car insurance.  People can’t pick and choose when they want car insurance.  If they want to drive, they have to have insurance.  Well, we can’t pick when we’ll get sick and need medical attention.  So health insurance is a little different.  If we require that all Americans be given access to treatment (the pre-existing conditions part) then it’s vital that we require all Americans to obtain health insurance.  Otherwise people would only purchase insurance when they got sick, use it, and then drop it as soon as they’re well.  This behavior would be catastrophic for everyone who continually kept health insurance.  The whole point of insurance in the first place is to lower individual out of pocket costs by essentially paying into a pool of money.  If we allow people to pick and choose when they want coverage, and allow them to drop it whenever they don’t need it, then that would skyrocket the cost of health premiums even more.  While it never sounds good to say “the government mandates…” when it comes to pretty much anything, the fact of the matter is it’s vital for Obamacare (or any health insurance reform) to work.  Otherwise, everyone who pays responsibly would then be paying the price.

4) Obamacare is a radical leftist idea:  Actually, that’s false.  An individual mandate was originally a Republican idea in the 1990′s, as a counter to the push during the Clinton administration for true universal health care.  They proposed essentially what Obamacare is—health insurance reform.  It’s also a law that was passed in Massachusetts by then governor, and former GOP presidential candidate, Mitt Romney.  In fact, Obamacare so closely resembles Romney’s health care plan that Republican opponents to Romney during the primaries referred to his health care law as “Romneycare.”

5) Obamacare is so bad, Obama gave Congress an exemption from it: Again, that’s false.  This has been a talking point Ted Cruz has often used–and it’s simply not true.  It’s also a lie that Politifact rated 100 percent “false.”  In fact, there was an amendment added to the law (by a Republican) before the bill became law that specifically prohibits members of Congress from being exempt from the law.

So there you have it, 5 of the biggest Republican lies about Obamacare exposed.  Sadly, I don’t expect many conservatives to change their opinion about the law just from pointing these out.  Facts rarely make an impact.

But still, I would encourage everyone who reads this to share it often, especially with conservatives.  Because if nothing else, it’s always funny to confront Republicans with a few facts and watch them try to dispute them with their spoon-fed right-wing talking points that often just don’t make any sense.

The following two tabs change content below.
Allen Clifton is from the Dallas-Fort Worth area and has a degree in Political Science. He is a co-founder of Forward Progressives, author of the popular Right Off A Cliff column, and an unapologetic Hillary Clinton supporter. He is also the founder of the Right Off A Cliff facebook page, on which he routinely voices his opinions and stirs the pot for the Progressive movement. Follow Allen on Twitter as well, @Allen_Clifton.

Comments

Facebook comments

  • suburbancuurmudgeon

    It’s the truth. The GOP don’t need no stinkin’ truth.

  • funnier at you

    1) Just saying it isn’t so does not make it not so. Sebilius has already denied operations to people for reasons covered within the bill. 2)This is the dumbest point in the whole article ” It requires that every American obtain health insurance (you know, the whole “personal responsibility thing”) and those who can’t afford it will be given subsidies (tax breaks) in order to help them afford coverage”. The very sentence contradicts itself. It touts responsibility, and then says we will give to those who can’t. These are mutually exclusive items. So much for the “facts” it claims to express at the end. So far, in it’s first two points, it uses arbitrary statements (not facts) and double speech circles (again, not facts). 3) “it’s always funny to confront Republicans with a few facts and watch them try to dispute them with their spoon-fed right-wing talking points that often just don’t make any sense”, so, who is laughing now?

    • funnier at you

      And to finish the unraveling of this body of lies, the “exemption” which does not exist is instead a subsidy, given by big O himself, to members of congress, because they claimed they could not afford to give their entire staff the policy… I will cite you as many sources on that as you need to see. Hmmm, wouldn’t it be nice if working Americans could get that same subsidy? This article is full of lies and bullshit, no wonder you leftists eat this crap whole.

      • Scott Snow

        okay, how about citing one? What I thought I new is that the law includes a requirement that Congress and their staff are to be dropped from whatever plan they selected through the FEHBP (Federal Employees Health Benefit Plan) which currently covers them as it does most other Federal employees, and instead subscribe to a plan that designed in response to the ACA.
        I’m sure the Federal Government pays a portion of the premium for alll employees in plans offered through FEHBP, just like other employers that offer coverage usually do, so it seems entirely fair and rational to me that they would continue to do so, or else increase salaries to compensate for eliminating the current benefit.

      • Scott Snow

        Regarding working Americans, getting “the same subsidy”. Absolutely: Many do and will continue to, just as they have since their employer signed up with a group plan and committed to pay part of or even sometimes 100% of their employee’s medical insurance premiums. ACA does not change that. I speculate that what may happen as the exchanges mature is that employers find that they can’t create a better deal, or anything like the variety of choices through a group plan than their individual employees can get through the state exchanges. Maybe employers will create private exchanges to create larger groups and more choices. I read that some already do that.

      • Andrew Campbell

        No, not correct. No one NO ONE qualifies if their employer currently offers insurance unless the employee earns under a certain income which these politicians don’t. If you have insurance with your employer and get fired, you actually like paying for high priced Cobra coverage? You don’t have to worry about that now which will increase entrepenurship in large states as a huge obstacle is removed.

      • Scott Snow

        No one qualifies for what if their employer offers coverage?
        I’ve been laid off and used Cobra. It’s the same price as what one had when they were employed, but without the former employer chipping in say, 75% of the monthly premium, tax-free. So one’s cost to continue coverage becomes 3-4X, or more, of what it had been, but still almost certainly lower than what one would pay on the open market for equivalent coverage because of the employer’s group advantage. Now with the exchanges there will be more choices in that individual market and easier comparisons due to the standardization of benefits at bronze, silver, gold levels.

      • Andrew Campbell

        What I am saying is that my understanding of the law is that the reason Congress and the President are exempt is not because they don’t want to be a part of it it is that the law says that if your employer offers insurance in most cases you cannot use the exchanges.

      • Scott Snow

        It’s misleading and plays into opponent’s hands to use “exempt” with respect to individuals who currently have insurance through their employer. The ACA is all about ensuring everyone can get medical care. The law requires everyone to have insurance. Got it now, through your employer? Great! you’re all set with respect to the individual mandate in the ACA. You’ve met the requirement, you’re not exempt from it.

        As passed and signed, the law includes a requirement that members of Congress and their staff subsrcribe to plans designed to meet the requirements of the ACA. For most that may mean dropping their current plan that they have access to through FEHBP.

      • Steeler4Life

        Come on now, you say you can cite all kinds of stuff backing your conservative bullshit but yet you have cited nothing. Typical conservative, tell us that our facts are lies and that you can prove them, but never do! I bet you voted for Mitt RobMe, didnt you?

    • Ian

      I think you are confusing concepts in your own conservative head. There’s nothing contradictory about saying “everyone has insurance, and if you can’t afford it you get subsidized”. Perhaps a little bit of the real world crept in here in you, but insurance isn’t cheap, and it’s largely the insurance companies and doctors that will continue to decide what care you get or not. For that matter, perhaps rather than subsidize people who need health care we should give them jobs? Or is that too close to communism for you?

      Regardless, most people are not laughing at the GOP. Well, actually most people these days are because they are being taken over by the likes of Palin and Cruz. The only GOP alternatives I ever heard are 1) complete free market – no insurance touch luck or 2) a paltry voucher to go pay for your own insurance (which would no question raise insurance prices – that’s how supply and demand works).

      Personally I’d rather we stop with the name calling and stick to the basics. But one thing the GOP has taught us over the last few decades is that we have no choice. They excel at it, and progressives have tried for years to stand “above the fray” and it doesn’t work. And the easiest trick the GOP / Faux News likes to pull is to take one concept out of context and therefore call everything about it a massive lie.

    • David R Smith

      “Think of it like car insurance. People can’t pick and choose when they want car insurance. If they want to drive, they have to have insurance.” In the winter I cancel my insurance on my nice car. I renew it in the spring. If I am a bad driver (more expense to the ‘pool’ of insured), then I have to pay more, or I am denied coverage. (previous condition). Ok..you have a problem with that? Drunk driving condition because of addiction (a disease in some medical camps)? Diabetes 2 because of no exercise, obesity? (personal responsibility)? If you drive without insurance and are caught, you are fined and / or thrown in jail, so it’s harder to be able to afford the mandated insurance required. What about sickness/injury insurance? Just fundamental questions. How do you feel about someone who is prone to get into accidents being part of your car insurance, versus someone who you KNOW is prone to sickness and automatically having higher health – related bills? The liquor industry doesn’t subsidize the drunk’s car insurance. Nor does NASCAR subsidize the reckless speeder’s insurance.

      • Brian in Seattle

        So you’re
        actually proposing people with more serious medical conditions be required to
        pay more for insurance under the assumption that everyone with a medical
        condition is somehow responsible? While people’s lifestyles can certainly
        contribute to their own ill-health, not everyone with diabetes is obese. Not
        everyone with lung cancer is a smoker and what about people with chronic
        diseases like MS? Who is responsible for that?

        Your point of
        view is based strictly on your own selfish motivations to not pay a dime for
        anyone else and the fact that, presumably, you are currently in good health and
        can somehow avoid all illness in the future based on healthy lifestyle choices. Unless you have the good fortune to die
        suddenly of a massive stroke, you are at some point going to require medical
        care. By participating in a health insurance
        plan you are mitigating your own financial risk and that of others. In most cases, you will not receive more out
        of the system than you pay in. That’s the way insurance works and if you have
        the good fortune to not be stricken with a chronic illness, you should consider
        yourself lucky.

    • Andrew Campbell

      Do Republicans understand economics or analyze business patterns? The reality is that one marketplace promotes an apples to apples comparison that had not previously existed before allowing choice. This promotes competition and puts downward pressure on prices. As health insurance becomes commoditized, prices will drop but the best insurance companies will also add additional services eventually offering vision, dental and improved mental health benefits in a package deal at a much better price than now offered. This is what happens when an industry is commoditized, businesses struggle and think of competing on price only (benefiting consumers) but the best thrive through differentiation by expanding what is offered to consumers. Increased efficiency is forced by the 80/20 rule under Obamacare which means that 80% of your premiums must be paid to benefits or there is a refund of premiums to all policyholders. But it is the free preventive services part that will dramatically costs because early diagnosis will dramatically reduce the number of high priced catastrophic incidents and watch bankrupticies drop by 40% as 60% of current bankruptcies are the result of medical bills. As a result, large creditors get paid more money allowing them to expand and profit creating more jobs. And with 20 million people coming into the market demand for medical products, prescriptions and medical supplies will increase demand which is a job creator. As demand increases per unit production costs drop which benefits pricing for all buyers (even those who have insurance through an employer) and private employers already see the benefits of a private exchange to get better care for their employees according to a Booze Hamilton report.

  • David Boltz

    I have noticed that many people who oppose the PPACA (let’s stop calling it Obamacare, okay?) have moved on to claiming that it is ruining the economy and that people are actually losing their health insurance as a result of it, both of which are false. In fact, everyone who is being moved off their company’s insurance rolls is now eligible to use the exchanges that open up next week and the larger companies that will face penalties for not insuring their people will probably pay less in penalties to the government than they would to insure all those people (see Home Depot). I think it’s the Koch brothers who are creating adds discouraging people from using the exchanges, as well. The exchanges, by the way, are what Republicans are truly scared of, I think. They may actually bring premiums down for many people immediately, which would be disastrous for them in the 2014 mid-terms and the 2016 general election, and the long term projection is that they WILL bring premiums down. I also think it’s funny to hear people refer to the exchanges as “getting Obamacare.” No one “gets” Obamacare. That’s a term people use for the PPACA, which is a reform bill (as you have pointed out) and NOT a form of insurance. Thanks for the article! Great work!

    • Neener

      Wrong! My employer stated today that he will no longer pay for our insurance. The “affordable” insurance I qualify for is going to cost me $400.00 per month (which I don’t have) and being that I have a pre-existing condition, I will be paying an additional $200.00 or more per month for my visits and lab tests now. Small business doesn’t have to provide medical, but the employees still have to have it. The fine may be cheaper, but some of us do need insurance. And I know many people who’s companies are doing the same thing.

      • Scott Snow

        What did mr. Boltz write that is shown to be wrong by your situation? Your employer is cutting your compensation if the amount that used to go toward insurance premiums (tax free) does not now come to you as wages/salary (grossed up since the amount will be subject to payroll and income taxes).

        The fine may be cheaper, but employers are ripping people off if they drop group insurance premiums paid through payroll deductions without increasing wages/salary.

      • Sherry Fay Putnam

        as of January 1st pre existing conditions no longer apply..have you checked the exchanges in your state? you most likely will qualify for subsidies or tax credit.

      • Andrew Campbell

        Now you can get on the exchanges but don’t complain about pricing until the exchange actually opens and you see the actual pricing. You should be expecting to pay 5% of your income to premiums.

      • [email protected]

        You aren’t paying attention. Insurance companies can no longer use ‘pre-existing conditions’ to deny coverage. And, you probably qualify for a government subsidy. They are actually going to HELP you get insurance that you can afford. Quit listening to Faux News for your own sake. Get the real facts.

      • Shutter Pup Jeff

        Don’t need insurance. does that mean you will never get sick, have an accident, or other unforeseen event in the future

      • Geoffrey Feldman

        Your employer cutting your insurance benefit is their decision and has nothing to do with ACA at all. They are removing a benefit and therefore reducing your compensation. That has nothing to do with ACA that has to do with your employer cheating you. You are right, firms are cutting back on benefits due to the effects of recession. I don’t have to tell you what actions by what party have extended those effects. Without ACA you would no path to insurance.

      • Cathryn Sykes

        And you’re blaming the ACA for your employer’s cheapness? BTW, have you factored in tax credits that you can get if you make less than $49,000 a year?

  • Silhouette

    Actually, people can pick and choose when they want car insurance…if they don’t want insurance they can choose not to drive. Nobody is forced to buy auto insurance simply because it exists; they are required to buy it if they choose to use public roadways.

    • Anna

      You can’t choose whether you get sick or not. This comparison is specious!

      • Cathryn Sykes

        I love people who complain, “I’m not fat, I don’t smoke, I don’t sleep around, so why do I need insurance?” Face palm. Because, dimwits, when you slip on ice and break your leg in three places, it’s going to cost you to get that fixed! When your bronchitis turns into pneumonia, it’s going to cost you to get that fixed. Peope usually don’t CHOOSE to be sick or injured! A visit to the doctor to check my thyroid turned up a large tumor in my throat, so big that it was pushing against the tendons in the side of my neck. I couldn’t figure out why those were hurting. A month later, MINOR OUTPATIENT SURGERY, and they removed the damn thing. (Luckily, benign.) Doctor’s visits, tests, biopsies, but still MINOR surgery, in at 8am, out at 10:30, home feeding my horses (carefully) at 8pm. Total cost? $20,000. Because I had insurance, I paid “only” $6,000 of that. No one can predict if they’ll get sick or hurt. And since one major injury or illness can literally leave a family bankrupt, everyone needs insurance!

    • Scott Snow

      We can’t choose whether we or our dependents will become sick or injured. Medical personnel cannot choose whether to treat us. If I show up at the local Emergency Room with a compound fracture, they will treat me. The only choice is in how the care ultimately will be paid for.

      If someone could know they would not need any care, no matter what happens, perhaps there is an argument akin to yours that fits the analogy to automobile insurance, and we could accept that perhaps that person can be excused from the requirment to purchase health insurance.

      • Andrew Campbell

        You cannot opt of our reality. Grow up take personal responsibility and pay for your insurance like everyone else.

      • Scott Snow

        I resent your implied assertion that I’m expecting someone else to pay for my insurance. You know nothing about my situation, you show that you are making unwarranted assumptions.

        My post that you replied to has nothing to say about who pays for anyone’s medical insurance. It was about whether and how we can appropriately analogize medical to car insurance.

      • Andrew Campbell

        Sorry Scott, I was replying to to Silhoutte, not your post.

      • Scott Snow

        Apology accepted.
        However, Silhouette was objecting to the individual mandate, gave no indication that they refuse to take personal responsibility or expect someone else to pay for their insurance.

        The personal attack you made does nothing to advance and indeed detracts from the dicsussion.

    • Sam Brosenberg

      So what you’re saying is that we should create a system where people who do not have Health Insurance are required to sign a contract that bars them from ever going to an Emergency Room, or ever recieving any medical care that they cannot pay for out of pocket, up front.

      Personally, I’d be totally fine with that, but nobody would ever suggest it politically.

      • Cathryn Sykes

        Hypothetical situation. Because, in this country, we usually don’t actually leave people do die in the streets. The point I’m making is that those who say they’ll never need insurance and should have the “right” to refuse to pay for insurance are delusional…..and would be the first to scream “Help me!” when they got hurt or sick.

    • [email protected]

      Driving is a privilege, not a right.

      • Cathryn Sykes

        And one of the most highly regulated activities on the planet. You can only drive your car on narrow strips of land called “roads.” You must turn, stop, yield at the order of signs and stripes painted on those roads. You can only travel at speeds dictated by other signs. Red, yellow and green lights also dictate when you can stop and go. Break any of the laws concerning driving and you can be fined or even jailed. The Tea Party needs to do something about such tyranny. WHERE IS THE FREEDOM?

    • Amanda Depina

      Not True at ALL! Here in NY State if I buy a vehicle from a dealership I CAN NOT drive it off the lot and the purchase is not final with out proper car insurance.

      • Scaramongus

        I think the point was you can opt out of having a car, and thus you don’t need car insurance

      • Cathryn Sykes

        True. Pretty hard to “opt out” of breast cancer, broken bones, miscarriages, prostate cancer, pneumonia, heart attacks, strokes…..

      • reallyred

        Can one opt out of “health”? No one can!

    • reallyred

      Absolutely, you can opt out of buying car insurance if you do not drive
      or own a car. Explain to me how you opt out of health?

      I’m
      sorry, but the reason people purchase car insurance is not solely
      because they use public roadways. “Public” roadways are supported by
      taxes through tolls, gas, etc. Car insurance is purchased as your
      protection for a possible accident whether it be your fault or the fault
      of another. And if you get sick and use the health system, and have
      not purchased insurance to cover your costs for this unexpected
      event…. who will pay for those costs?

      The idea of an individual mandate was popularized by the Heritage
      Foundation and other conservative think tanks as early as 1989. Then
      this very law was passed and put into action in Massachusetts by Romney,
      a state law enacted in 2006. That state seems to be faring pretty well
      with the mandate solidly in place! Where’s your galling outrage?

      In 1993, the Heritage Foundation’s health care guru Stuart Butler argued
      before Congress for “a requirement on individuals to enroll themselves
      and their dependents in at least a basic health plan — one that at the
      minimum should protect the rest of society from large and unexpected
      medical costs incurred by the family … To the extent that the family
      cannot reasonably afford reasonable basic coverage, the rest of society,
      via government, should take responsibility for financing that minimum
      coverage.” (WHAT? The government should HELP? Egads!)

      As late as 2007, Democrats and Republicans introduced a bipartisan
      bill that included an individual mandate, which was still seen as an
      essentially conservative idea. Newt Gingrich, in 2007, argued that
      “citizens should not be able to cheat their neighbors by not buying
      insurance, particularly when they can afford it, and expect others to
      pay for their care when they need it.” (Wow…. so Newt thought it was
      unacceptable for people NOT to have insurance? Socialist!!)

      • Cathryn Sykes

        Yep, for all those of you who are yelling “Obamacare is socialism”….Obamacare is Republicancare. Obamacare is Romneycare. The president wanted single payer, like the rest of the industrialized countries of this world.
        You are screaming bloody murder about a health care plan created by your own side!

    • John Paganas

      Here is an interesting analogy that might put your comment into perspective…
      If you wish to drive a car, you MUST have auto insurance..
      If you wish to live, You must have Health Insurance.
      Both for the same reason.. Its inevitable that you at some point will nned the insurance.
      If you are no planning on living, just like not planning on driving you are exempt from having to buy Insurance..
      I hope that clears it up for you.. Running to the emergency room for coverage while the bill goes indirectly to evernone else is the True burden.

      • Cathryn Sykes

        How about this? Everyone who refuses to get even the most basic health insurance….leaving the rest of us to pay for their care when they do get hurt or ill….has to sign a binding waiver that if they get injured or sick, they agree to receive NO medical assistance. A heart attack? Lie there and die! Sports injury? Buy a crutch! Pneumonia? Drown! Cut yourself and the cut’s infected? No antibiotics for you! Got too cocky with your chain saw? You don’t need those fingers!

  • common-sense-needed

    If this is such a good thing- why are employers like UPS cancelling insurance for Spouses of their employees?
    If this is a such a good thing – why were all of the staffers in DC threatening to leave ( a brain drain) until they got a subsidy.
    If this is such a good thing- why are so many getting ‘exemptions’
    If this is such a good thing- why is the OBama Administration spending millions of tax dollars promoting it
    If this is such a good thing- why did only Democrats vote for it?
    If this is such a good thing- why is it that over 60% of the American people think it is a BAD idea.
    If this is such a good thing- why is the AFL-CIO against it (unless they get some sort of special treatment)
    If this is such a good thing- HOW is OBama changing the law to postpone the mandate for the employer mandate.?
    If this is such a good thing- Why is it mandated – fines if you don’t comply ?

    • David Boltz

      I have a couple of these for you:

      1) UPS is cancelling insurance only for spouses of employees that can receive insurance through their own employer. They have said they will continue to cover spouses who are unemployed or who cannot get insurance from their own company.

      2) The mandate is designed to make people who do not pay into the system (and then use the government to pay their health care when they need it) pay into the system. It’s a Republican idea from the 90′s, by the way.

      3) The rest of your questions either have no basis (60% think it’s a bad idea? What organization posted that number? Does that include the people that think it’s a bad idea because it doesn’t go far enough? I think it does. And Obama can’t change the law. It’s the law. Congress has to change the law) or you can Google and get those answers… I did.

      • BuBrac

        1) Why do you think that is?
        2) illegals
        3) NBC/WSJ; USAToday/Pew; Reuters, AP, IBD/TIPP, CNN; Politico; ABC. And when did congress grant waivers, delay employer mandates, exempt their staff? Where is the law change? (from barry by dictate)

      • common-sense-met

        If this is such a good thing- why is company after company reducing workers to less than 29 hours per week?
        If this is such a good thing– and on and on and on..

        It matters not that the US is broke, why not add more debt with this train wreck.
        If this is such a good thing- why are the people that wrote this monstrosity using words like “train wreck’ and nightmare to describe it?

        1) UPS repeatedly cites Obamacare to explain the decision, adding fuel
        to the debate over whether it erodes traditional employer coverage,
        Kaiser says:
        Rising medical costs, “combined with the costs
        associated with the Affordable Care Act, have made it increasingly difficult to continue providing the same level of health care benefits to our employees at an affordable cost,” UPS said in a memo to employees.

        2) No one argued that point, just because someone jumps off a cliff, are you going to do it to?

        3) 50-59% in all various articles on the Web. I noticed BuBrac also gave examples…

      • Andrew Campbell

        Please. Learn about supply and demand. Open exchanges promotes transparency which increases competition. Your argument is so full of fail. Have you not considered that the exchanges will offer better plans that most employers now offer to employees or at least better than 80% of employees now get? Why do you think private employers are using private exchanges, because those exchanges offer more choice to employees and a better deal for both the employer and employee.

      • Scott Snow

        Sure, it sucks that some small employers will choose to restrict hours to avoid having 50 or more “full-time” employees and thereby be required to offer group health insurance to those full-time employees, and it sucks even more that some larger employers will restrict hours to avoid adding people to their group insurance.

        Yeah, some proponents have used the language “train wreck”, but what seems always lost is those proponents have been referring to implementation and education efforts, not to the provisions of the act itself.

        regarding 1): “traditional employer coverage” has it’s roots in the public sector, and came into being to entice prospective employees to join the organization. (If memory serves, it was a midwestern
        city’s school department). It has since become conventional, but not universal, and regardless, the fact that the practice was widely adopted for a while does not prove it is the best or even a very good model for a society to rely upon. UPS finds that offering coverage to spouses increases their costs, and as a business issue, now questions the previous decision to accept those costs regardless of whether the spouse has coverage through their own employer, when they predict that due to the individual mandate, many existing employees will now subsribe to the insurance they had previously chosen to forgo.

        regarding 2) you say “no one argued that point”. au contraire, I believe that Mr Boltz’s statement is in response to a statement like “If it’s such a good idea, why is there a mandate, with fines for non-compliance”.

        regarding 3) citing sources is not the same as citing examples – that is either direct links to articles or enough material in a reference that anyone else can find it – e.g., the publication, article headline, date, and author/reporter(s). Citing only “WSJ”, “Pew”, “ABC”, etc is not sufficient. that’s like “As seen on TV!” on some product’s packaging. No teacher, professor, or supervisor I ever wrote a report for would find that acceptable. It’s dishonest.

  • Todd Tarzia

    Allen Clifton you need to do more research before you write an article. A single payer health care system is NOT a socialized!!!!!!!!!! Do you even know what socialized medicine is? A simplified explanation is the government controls everything. Single payer that was proposed in this country would allow everything to stay the same except for the health insurance companies would be dissolved. The only thing the government would control is who and when got paid and/or reimbursed.

    • Scott Snow

      Why bother picking on this point? The point is that the ACA is not socialized medicine, but some vocal opponents maintain that it is, or specifically, that it constitutes government controlled healthcare.

      Aside, one problem I see with going to single-payer is the economic disruption resulting from “the health insurance companies would be dissolved”. What happens to all those employees and their dependents, and the communities in which they reside and spend most of their income?

  • formergovernment

    This Act will hurt our economy and jobs are already disappearing. Libs cannot stand anyone disagreeing with what they say, even when facts support it.

    • Scott Snow

      What facts support your assertion that the ACA will hurt our economy? Can you direct us to mutilple reported instances where an employer declares that they are either reducing jobs or cutting back forcasted hiring specifically because of costs associated with ACA alone?

    • Reddkl

      I don’t care if you disagree with me at all, but you MUST be aware of the fact that all those cuts in corporate taxes and the top 1% led to job loss too. Oh, before you even mention it, corporations are NOT people.

    • Scaramongus

      Where are the facts?

  • Pingback: Forward Progressives — The Individual Mandate? It’s Actually A Conservative Idea, About Personal Responsibility()

  • TheDivineMisterM

    What got me was yesterday, when some woman on a Teapublican chat board said, “It’s not that I don’t think everyone shouldn’t have medical coverage. What I don’t like is that Obama is forcing us all to only see Black doctors or visit Black hospitals.” WHAT???

    • Maxine Blanchette

      Now I’VE; HEARD EVERYTHING These people will say and do anything to stop the ACA that’s good for the people and you can choose any doctor or hospitals you want. You can put your children on your insurance until they reach 26 years old.

  • AJ Ciafre

    Driving is a privilege not a right so thats like comparing apples and oranges and it is unconstitutional to make me purchase something that you claim is just to make their plan work? sorry but I don’t care what the supreme court deems constitutional. Essentially we have the same Entity thats making the law telling us that its ok because they say so. Lets ask the general population. I know whats constitutional I dont need them to define it. If the plan doesn’t work unless a mandate is necessary then I suggest coming up with a better plan. It just opens more doors. I don’t know how in your own mind you can agree with them. It goes against everything this country stands for. I agree some health care plan is needed but not at the cost of our liberties! I’m not the smartest person on the planet but I’m smart enough to know when my liberties are being infringed upon!

  • Jerome

    1. The Death Panel, of course is not CALLED a Death Panel. It is called
    The Independent Payment Advisory Board. It is composed of 15 members
    appointed by the President, does not require the approval of Congress
    and has VERY broad powers. It is “ostensibly” to keep down costs The members are accountable to no one and their decisions cannot be appealed. They can only be overturned by Congress. They have the power to decide which procedures will be allowed and which will not.

    Lie number one exposed.

  • Jerome

    2. Obamacare has in its sole intention to bankrupt private employer insurance and eventually bring about a single payer system. Several big name Democrats can be heard on you tube stating obamacare is pushing america to a single pay system.

    Lie number 2 exposed.

  • Jerome

    So because the supreme court decided to say it is “constitutional” despite the fact that it isn’t means it is? This is like saying when you give police right to search your vehicle or property without a warrent or probable cause that is constitutional too right? Btw, car insurance is mandated for damage you do to other people, if you dont keep up your own health that doesnt affect other people’s lives, what a pathetic analogy!!

    Lie number 3 exposed.

  • Jerome

    I find it interesting a writer gives political opinions and calls them “facts” when they are clearly not facts at all. But, what else can you expect from a site with a clear and obvious political lean towards the left. I thoroughly enjoyed smashing your lies and hypocrisy to pieces, it took me all of about 5 mins of research to do so.