This week, U.S. Attorney General William Barr, a Republican, announced that his predecessor, Jeff Sessions, just hadn’t gone far enough when he asked a federal judge to kill the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) protections for people with pre-existing medical conditions—that is, stuff like asthma, diabetes and high blood pressure.
“Barr is not an outlier. He is the face of a Republican Party that has done everything in its power to rob Americans of ACA benefits every minute of the nine years that the law has existed.”
Obviously true that the political right wing has relentlessly tried to halt such protections as the ACA offers.
Likewise true - the right has never presented an alternative government plan to deal with the US healthcare crisis, and this reflects an underlying ideological view that healthcare is not and should not be a right, so too bad for the many that suffer without it.
But this disgusting ethics explains right wing leadership and media better than significant parts of the low income Republican rank and file. Probably, low income Republicans oppose ACA partly due to racist dog whistles. But more important, the ACA fails to get support from many middle income and low income Republicans - and gets tepid support from many Democrats - because it is a crappy, largely inadequate healthcare system that is too expensive for many, and, therefore, functions most of the time as ‘disaster insurance.’. That is: for many, it is underinsurance.
This is why we need medicare for all - advanced on the basis of its ethical vision of healthcare as a right, and its political vision of healthcare as something that we must demand of political elites that ask us to choose between no healthcare and crappy healthcare. Not only is medicare for all needed to address health needs; medicare for all and its moral vision of health care as a right are needed politically to frame the issue and get a wider electorate behind it.
This hits the GOP base hard. Poor, underemployed, undereducated and just stupid enough to think it is in their benefit.
Even the German fascists were smarter than this.
As I said, an important reason ACA doesn’t get more support is because it’s expensive and unusable for many, including GOP’ers. Why we need medicare for all, which actually will get widespread support:
In a more perfect world we would see to it that one rich person would be executed for every person that dies due to unavailable care. It wouldn’t take long for universal care to be adopted.
So-----taking thousands of people off of health care will--------LOL, make the rich people’s costs go up?
Cutting all those people off of health care means. THEY WILL CUT the health workers too. Fewer jobs?. Collapsing economy?
Weirdly they will cut asthma. coverage and high blood pressure LOL that’s almost the whole population of Mickey D’s eaters, and oh yeah, The Trump too.
Gosh all the dirty air does from coal and oil and gas…I guess lots of people will die and Wall St will start investing in funeral Homes.
BUT these are awful reasons to force people to die—but then as America has murdered a million Iraqis, and how many in Syria, and Yemen—so apparently LIFE does not matter to the military and corporate ones in America… I wouldn’t mention that to people who might have guns----they might decided to shoot politicians---- not to kill them, but to alter them so they can no longer produce. That sounds awful and painful—but probably what will happen when logic and kindness and civility have been done away with and justice tumbles down to the era of a cheap Saturday night special. : (
I’m starting to think SkepticTank is correct, we should probably just stop fighting this. If Barr is successful in eliminating the ACA, it could be exactly what we need to get the citizens fired-up and willing to fight for expanded, improved Medicare for All.
We should remember the repugs have had a healthcare plan for the working class in this country for quite awhile now, it’s very simple and only requires 1 page:
“Don’t get sick or injured, and if you do, die quickly”.
There’s another benefit of the ACA that I’ve not seen brought up anywhere before. In the states that wouldn’t except the ACA there’s a scam going on with professional tax preparers (or at least my state), and the penalty clause of the ACA. The citizens in states that wouldn’t except the ACA were exempt from the penalty of not buying insurance, it was very clear in the tax code, yet tax preparers were making their clients pay this penalty. I had a argument with a fellow worker who was paying a $1700 penalty one year, even showed him a copy of the tax code, but he stilled payed it because his “tax expert” told him he had to. I started asking other people who use different tax preparers and got the same answer. Maybe there’s something I’m missing, but from what I have found out about this, the only conclusion I can come to is there must be some kind of kickback scandal going on here. I’m can’t explain it any other way, nor do I know how it works, but it needs to be investigated.
Republicans at all economic levels have a need to see other people hurt and hurting. It makes THEM feel better about themselves. Think in terms of an emotionally disturbed 5 year old. Then it will all make sense
“I’m starting to think SkepticTank is correct, we should probably just stop fighting this. If Barr is successful in eliminating the ACA, it could be exactly what we need to get the citizens fired-up and willing to fight for expanded, improved Medicare for All.”
Hmm…missed Skeptic’s post on that…I have argued that ACA actually fails to help many - extends uneven coverage to many…helping some, a mixed deal for others, and not helping others. With uneven coverage making it easier for many rank and file Republicans to be against it.
But if Skeptic and the NYT’s Jamie Bouie are right - that even piecemeal repeal would do great harm to Republican beneficiaries of the legislation - then it might be a gambit…a pretty risky one, that I don’t know if progressives would want to telegraph.
Bouie, from today’s NYT:
“Unraveling the Affordable Care Act would deal a catastrophic blow to the safety net. The health exchanges and new insurance regulations? Gone. Medicaid expansion, which even in its truncated form has reached people in 36 states? Gone. The host of protections for people who get health care through jobs and private insurers? Gone. Republican elites might cheer this destruction, but soon enough they would face millions of voters who pulled levers in 2016 believing that Trump and the Republican Party would protect them.”
I’ll say I think it was SkepticTank that made the comment on a ACA story about a week ago, but it could have been someone else. I agree it would be risky, I guess I’m willing to risk it because I live in a state that doesn’t benefit from the ACA, it’s easier to risk something you don’t have. I’m not quite sure where Bouie got the Medicaid expansion number of 36 states, my understanding is there were 24 states that wouldn’t except it, with 2 or 3 added since then. Something the rest of the country forgets when talking about saving the ACA is there are many of us in those 21 or 22 states who don’t receive the benefits that it provides to the rest of the country.
The Nazis didn’t have to do much creative thinking as universal health care existed in Germany long before Fascism even existed.
Hey, ReconFire, I must admit my knowledge of ACA is not detailed - a few articles on its unusableness for many - such as the above citation - is the ground for my view that its relative weakness makes it easier for the right to attack w/fewer consequences.
Now, the number of states w/Medicare expansion is important to the question of how the electorate will react if right wing politicians axe the Medicare expansion part of ACA because a lot of seniors are poor and poor people vote less. So cutting Medicare benefits - or making getting benefits onerous - might not cause a big voting blow back. Which, of course, the right wing would know well.
I left out the ethical prob’ for progressives, though - if progressives say, ‘ok, let the right cut ACA benefits, they’ll get blow back that ultimately gets citizens a better welfare state,’ then we’re countenancing immediate, greater suffering in the short term on the bet that it will cause an ‘electoral uprising’ that ultimately reduces such suffering.
Not saying banking on that is mistaken…but that it is a gambit…and it doesn’t always work out that way…simultaneous appointments of right wing judges, right wing gerrymandering, voting restrictions, susceptibility to right wing media, and increases in poverty/distress all possibly leading to greater falling off of voting…
How to put it - kneecapping a senior’s healthcare could well make it harder for him/her to vote or otherwise resist.
ObamaRomneyCare expands Medicaid not Medicare. Medicaid is a means-tested program fo low income people, Medicare is for seniors. Many seniors qualify for both.
My comment on letting the courts toss ObamaRomneyCare out completely notes that A) the backlash against Repubs would be immense, B) it would make it much easier to build support for and pass Jayapal (or Bernie’s) Medicare for All bill.
That would be the Hypocritical oath: Or, Hypocrisy, thy name is GOP.
Yes, I seem to recall that Jonathan Swift proposed something along that line.
It is very difficult to do good by doing harm. That is, evil as a means to a good end is seldom successful.
OK, we know the Greedy Old Psychopaths* thrive on the misery of others–schadenfreude on steroids. But does Barr ever state a reason that repeal of the ACA is essential? Did I miss something, or was that just a rhetorical flourish on his part?
*If the person who coined that phrase here a week or so ago is reading this, please let me know if I am violating a copyright!
oop - thanks.
An emotionally disturbed 5 year old? — Oh! You mean our Presidunce!!