I’m afraid I have to admit that I have some conservative family members. And I don’t mean simply deep-rooted Republicans, they are rabid Tea Party lunatics.
I actually started dissecting the arguments they’ve been making last week, but Blogger hiccupped, and four hours of composition was completely lost. So now I’m using an off-line blog editor, and I’m breaking it down into smaller pieces.
My relative offered up an article to defend his views on The Affordable Care Act:
It’s an article on a right-wing propaganda site called End Of The American Dream. And of course, they can’t bring themselves to call the Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act by its proper name, referring to it simply as “Obamacare.” the fact that they can’t use proper nomenclature should set alarm bells ringing, followed by klaxons when you find that at no time do they ever cite any actual portion of the ACA to support their arguments. But the thing about being a rabid Tea Party conservative is that intellectual processes are considered a hindrance.
So first, I’ll supply a link to the ACA, and I will reference it as it applies.
From now on, any counter-arguments you make about the law must contain references to the law. No excuses, because, hey, I’ve given you the link to the act.
So here are the first five reasons outlined by Michael Snyder for End Of The American Dream:
#1 According to the U.S. Supreme Court, the federal government has the power to force you to buy private goods and services. Now that this door has been opened, what else will we be forced to buy in the future?
“This door has been opened” back in 1790. The New England Journal of Medicine reports that in that year, Congress mandated all ship owners to provide medical insurance for seamen in their employ. Eight years later, they required all seamen to buy hospital insurance for themselves.
And what have we been mandated to buy? Well, car insurance, for one. Sure, this is at the state level rather than the federal level, but it’s still a mandate from a governing body that applies to all people governed by that body. Strange that I haven’t seen Tea Party conservatives holding signs demanding we repeal the car insurance mandate.
For what it’s worth, the link is dead. Which gives it as much life as the argument it was supposed to support.
So reason #1 must be dismissed for lack of merit.
#2 Obamacare is another step away from individual liberty and another step toward a “nanny state” where the government dominates our lives from the cradle to the grave.
Interesting leap of logic: by requiring every individual in this country to take responsibility for providing their own health insurance coverage, the United States will become a “nanny state.”
Let me look up this term; perhaps I’m not clear on what a “nanny state” actually is:
nanny state n, (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) a government that makes decisions for people that they might otherwise make for themselves, esp those relating to private and personal behaviour
OK, that’s what I thought it meant. Of course, the ACA isn’t making any decisions about “private and personal behaviour.” It’s tasking us with lifting up our share of the burden of health insurance costs. And of course, this is a ludicrous argument coming from a group that regularly attempts to legislate what a woman can and can’t do with her very body. If becoming a nanny state is a legitimate conservative concern, they’d be denouncing every conservative that introduces legislation related to the human reproduction system. Can being told to have health insurance coverage really be less invasive than forcing a woman to have an internal sonogram before she can have an abortion?
We should note that the individual is still free to choose any provider they like, with several different layers of coverage. This falls under Title 1, Subtitle F Part 1, Section 1501, which is on page 124 of the ACA.
Reason #2 makes claims, but does little to support it the claim beyond offering a dead link.
#3 The IRS is now going to be given the task of hunting down and penalizing millions of Americans that do not have any health insurance. In fact, the Obama administration has given the IRS 500 million extra dollars “outside the normal appropriations process” to help them enforce the provisions of Obamacare that they are in charge of overseeing.
This one is simply a whopping lie with two parts. Part 1; there is nothing in the bill anywhere that authorizes the IRS to hunt down and penalize anyone for failing to have healthcare. I’ve given you the link; check it out. If you can find such an order in the document, please leave the exact citation in the comments section.
The second part is even worse; it links to another blog, where one Sam Baker states that the IRS was given funding “to impliment healthcare law.” The problem? The article offers absolutely no evidence. Nothing. Nada. It doesn’t offer a single document. Not one recording. Not even names or dates.
My verdict on #3: it’s a whopping lie.
#4 Obamacare imposes more than 20 new taxes on the American people. You can find a comprehensive list of Obamacare taxes right here. If you love paying higher taxes, then you are going to absolutely love Obamacare once it is fully implemented.
The link in this one leads to Americans for Tax Reform, a partisan political action committee founded by Grover Norquist, who never met a tax that he liked. He also doesn’t believe in government. And he doesn’t have a grasp of economics, being a firm believer in the Reagan era policy of “starve the beast” that has led to record deficits.
Many of the taxes listed at this website are real, although they make it tough to research by failing to provided references to the document so you can analyze their claims for accuracy. So we’re going to scrutinize this one in a separate article later. But suffice to say, almost all the taxes it references only come in to play if you don’t have insurance if you’re an individual, or don’t provide insurance if you’re a large company.
So #4 is correct that there ARE new taxes, but incorrect that they mean you will be paying higher taxes. Stay tuned for closer examination.
#5 In an attempt to “control costs” and “promote efficiency”, Obamacare limits the treatment options that doctors and patients can consider. This is likely to result in a decrease in life expectancy in the United States.
Oooh, another whopping lie. And this shows very clearly that the person making this claim has never read the ACA.
SEC. 1554. ACCESS TO THERAPIES.
Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall not promulgate any regulation that—
(1) creates any unreasonable barriers to the ability of individuals to obtain appropriate medical care;
(2) impedes timely access to health care services;
(3) interferes with communications regarding a full range of treatment options between the patient and the provider;(4) restricts the ability of health care providers to provide full disclosure of all relevant information to patients making health care decisions;
(5) violates the principles of informed consent and the ethical standards of health care professionals; or
(6) limits the availability of health care treatment for the full duration of a patient’s medical needs.
This can be found under Title 1, Subtitle G, on page 141 of the ACA. As you can see, this states in no uncertain terms that treatment will not be limited to “control costs” or to “promote efficiency.
But what does the link say? It’s a blog that quotes a letter by Senator Tom Coburn published in the Wall Street Journal. Dr. Coburn claims that section 3403 and 2021 “explicitly empowers Medicare to deny treatment based on cost.”
What can we find in the ACA about this? First, section 3403, which starts on page 372 of the ACA. Here are the parts that specifically address Dr. Coburn’s claims.
SEC. 3403. INDEPENDENT MEDICARE ADVISORY BOARD.(a) BOARD.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Title XVIII of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395 et seq.), as amended by section 3022, is amended by adding at the end the following new section:
‘‘INDEPENDENT MEDICARE ADVISORY BOARDSection 1899A‘‘(c) BOARD PROPOSALS.—‘‘(2) PROPOSALS.—
‘‘(A) REQUIREMENTS.—Each proposal submitted under this section in a proposal year shall meet each of the
following requirements:
(ii) The proposal shall not include any recommendation to ration health care, raise revenues or Medicare beneficiary premiums under section 1818, 1818A, or 1839, increase Medicare beneficiary cost- sharing (including deductibles, coinsurance, and copay-ments), or otherwise restrict benefits or modify eligibility criteria‘‘(B) ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS.—In developing and submitting each proposal under this section in a proposal year, the Board shall, to the extent feasible—
‘‘(i) give priority to recommendations that extend Medicare solvency;
‘‘(ii) include recommendations that—
‘‘(I) improve the health care delivery system and health outcomes, including by promoting integrated care, care coordination, prevention and wellness, and quality and efficiency improvement; and
‘‘(II) protect and improve Medicare beneficiaries’ access to necessary and evidence-based items and services, including in rural and frontier areas;
Dr. Coburn must be referring to some OTHER section 3403, because THIS section 3403 does the exact opposite of what he claims.
Now for section 2021. The relevant section is found on page 668, under TITLE VI, Subtitle H- Elder Justice Act.
‘‘PART I—NATIONAL COORDINATION OF ELDER JUSTICE ACTIVITIES AND RESEARCH
‘‘Subpart A—Elder Justice Coordinating Council and Advisory Board on Elder Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation
‘‘SEC. 2021. ELDER JUSTICE COORDINATING COUNCIL.‘‘(a) ESTABLISHMENT.—There is established within the Office of the Secretary an Elder Justice Coordinating Council (in this section referred to as the ‘Council’).
And reading through it, it says nothing about explicitly denying care; this is as close as it gets:
‘‘(f) DUTIES.—
‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The Council shall make recommendations to the Secretary for the coordination of activities of the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Justice, and other relevant Federal, State, local, and private agencies and entities, relating to elder abuse, neglect, and exploitation and other crimes against elders.
Basically, this section deals with creating a panel to administer complaints and failures of the system, and says nothing about limiting health care for anyone for any reason.
So I must conclude that reason #5 is false.
This ends the first part of the dissection; we’ll handle “Reasons 6-10” next.
Reasons 1-5 * Reasons 6-10 * Reasons 11-15
No comments:
Post a Comment