Conservative ‘entertainment news agencies’ across the nation said 51% of Americans didn’t support “Obamacare”, but what they failed to admit was over 14% of that 51% believed the bill did not go far enough into solving health care.
I field hundreds of calls and letters from constituents worried about health care and the general state of the world. Having talked with a lot of well-read, well-educated people regarding this new bill and what it will mean for the Commonwealth, I have come up with several of the most difficult to answer/common questions the right has raised in opposition. I in no way deny the right to opinions of others on the issue: unless it is based on fear, fiction or FOX (The three Republican Fs). My hope is that some of you might take something away from this and be as vocal as the right has been in its opposition.
The background is that opponents have failed in Congress and are now filing lawsuits in several states in an attempt to block health care reform. These lawsuits are completely without merit. This is nothing new. Historically, opponents of major legislation have turned to the courts. The Social Security Act, the Civil Rights Act, The Voting Rights Act, all three were upheld despite the pressure.
These kind of frivolous, junk lawsuits are expensive for tax payers, while tying up resources needed for suits that are based on fact.
The AGs that have filed these suits are running for higher office, scoring political points based on filling suits for political motivation.
So I wrote out this little guide for people like me who are sick of telling these crazy Republicans to stop drinkin’ the cool aid and get over themselves. So…
What to say when crazy right wing Tea Party members argue with you:
Q. This Act violates the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment by making taxpayers fund abortions against their will!
A. This is the one that really pisses me off. The Act provides no federal funding for abortion. At all. Ever. This fact is clear from the Act itself and from the President’s Executive Order. Go away.
Q. Under the Commerce Clause the health care legislation exceeds Congress’s power under Article I of the Constitution used to regulate interstate commerce. Mandating that individuals purchase heath care or pay a fine is unconstitutional!
A. Nope. Congress has the power to “substantially affect interstate commerce” if it is an “essential part of a larger regulation of economic activity in which the regulatory scheme could be undercut unless the intrastate activity is regulated,” under the Commerce Clause. This has been the law for decades. Requiring people to pay a fee is established under the law as well. The US spends of $2 Trillion per year on health care, 1/5 of our GDP and the economy wastes billions each year because of the cost of treatment of uninsured Americans.
Q. The Government doesn’t have the power under Tax and Spend for the General Welfare clause to make people buy health insurance.
A. Yep, they do. Congress has the authority to impose an individual responsibility under the same clause. There will be different authorities that will be established with the Department of Justice on how to litigate this soon.
Q. Fourteen States have claimed in lawsuits that the reform bill violates the Tenth Amendment by commandeering state governments and enforcing federal programs that violate state law.
A. I mean, I thought we went over this… The act doesn’t make the states do anything. They can either set up an insurance exchange to offer competitiveness or they decide not to. If they decide not to, the Sec. of Health and Human Services steps up to make an exchange for the people of the state. Nothing in the law makes the states take on Medicaid either.
Q. The same states have said that the Direct Tax violates Art I, Sec 9 of the Constitution which requires that direct taxes be assessed in accordance with population of states. That makes this an unconstitutional direct tax!
A. Again, nope… the direct tax provision applies only to taxes that are imposed on real or personal property. The fee that individuals would be required to pay if they do not have insurance is based on the EVENT that they do not have insurance, not the ownership of property.
Q. This Act is an infringement of the individual liberty that is protected by the Fifth Amendment.
A. This is my favorite. How can this be an infringement of liberty after the above, and the fact that it will promote freedom by providing millions with a way to stay healthy and prevent economic disaster if they become ill? Plus, every state requires drivers to have automobile insurance, every state requires vaccinations for its children… these are not unconstitutional.
Those were definetly the main concerns.
So what is it going to do for us? Well I can’t say for every state, but for Massachusetts it will provide:
1. more than 70,000 small businesses help via tax credits to make coverage affordable.
2. Prohibit insurance companies from excluding pre-existing conditions for 1.4 million children in the Commonwealth.
3. Improve Medicare benefits for a million MA residents.
4. Reduce Medicare premiums for all the old folks.
5. Provide insurance for the last 2% of MA residents (thanks to the Health Connector’s work) with insurance.
6. Reduce premiums for families by $2000- $2,800 for the same benefits, based on the figures calculated to increase by 2016.
7. Create 6,800 – 11,000 jobs by reducing costs for employers. As Scott Brown, the Republican’s new poster boy (literally) would say, its all about jobs.
8. And allow for about 700,000 students to keep their parents’ health plans until they’re 26. THAT’S US, I certainly don’t want to pay for my health insurance yet. Or my cell phone bill for that matter... amendment?
my 2 cents
j
I field hundreds of calls and letters from constituents worried about health care and the general state of the world. Having talked with a lot of well-read, well-educated people regarding this new bill and what it will mean for the Commonwealth, I have come up with several of the most difficult to answer/common questions the right has raised in opposition. I in no way deny the right to opinions of others on the issue: unless it is based on fear, fiction or FOX (The three Republican Fs). My hope is that some of you might take something away from this and be as vocal as the right has been in its opposition.
The background is that opponents have failed in Congress and are now filing lawsuits in several states in an attempt to block health care reform. These lawsuits are completely without merit. This is nothing new. Historically, opponents of major legislation have turned to the courts. The Social Security Act, the Civil Rights Act, The Voting Rights Act, all three were upheld despite the pressure.
These kind of frivolous, junk lawsuits are expensive for tax payers, while tying up resources needed for suits that are based on fact.
The AGs that have filed these suits are running for higher office, scoring political points based on filling suits for political motivation.
So I wrote out this little guide for people like me who are sick of telling these crazy Republicans to stop drinkin’ the cool aid and get over themselves. So…
What to say when crazy right wing Tea Party members argue with you:
Q. This Act violates the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment by making taxpayers fund abortions against their will!
A. This is the one that really pisses me off. The Act provides no federal funding for abortion. At all. Ever. This fact is clear from the Act itself and from the President’s Executive Order. Go away.
Q. Under the Commerce Clause the health care legislation exceeds Congress’s power under Article I of the Constitution used to regulate interstate commerce. Mandating that individuals purchase heath care or pay a fine is unconstitutional!
A. Nope. Congress has the power to “substantially affect interstate commerce” if it is an “essential part of a larger regulation of economic activity in which the regulatory scheme could be undercut unless the intrastate activity is regulated,” under the Commerce Clause. This has been the law for decades. Requiring people to pay a fee is established under the law as well. The US spends of $2 Trillion per year on health care, 1/5 of our GDP and the economy wastes billions each year because of the cost of treatment of uninsured Americans.
Q. The Government doesn’t have the power under Tax and Spend for the General Welfare clause to make people buy health insurance.
A. Yep, they do. Congress has the authority to impose an individual responsibility under the same clause. There will be different authorities that will be established with the Department of Justice on how to litigate this soon.
Q. Fourteen States have claimed in lawsuits that the reform bill violates the Tenth Amendment by commandeering state governments and enforcing federal programs that violate state law.
A. I mean, I thought we went over this… The act doesn’t make the states do anything. They can either set up an insurance exchange to offer competitiveness or they decide not to. If they decide not to, the Sec. of Health and Human Services steps up to make an exchange for the people of the state. Nothing in the law makes the states take on Medicaid either.
Q. The same states have said that the Direct Tax violates Art I, Sec 9 of the Constitution which requires that direct taxes be assessed in accordance with population of states. That makes this an unconstitutional direct tax!
A. Again, nope… the direct tax provision applies only to taxes that are imposed on real or personal property. The fee that individuals would be required to pay if they do not have insurance is based on the EVENT that they do not have insurance, not the ownership of property.
Q. This Act is an infringement of the individual liberty that is protected by the Fifth Amendment.
A. This is my favorite. How can this be an infringement of liberty after the above, and the fact that it will promote freedom by providing millions with a way to stay healthy and prevent economic disaster if they become ill? Plus, every state requires drivers to have automobile insurance, every state requires vaccinations for its children… these are not unconstitutional.
Those were definetly the main concerns.
So what is it going to do for us? Well I can’t say for every state, but for Massachusetts it will provide:
1. more than 70,000 small businesses help via tax credits to make coverage affordable.
2. Prohibit insurance companies from excluding pre-existing conditions for 1.4 million children in the Commonwealth.
3. Improve Medicare benefits for a million MA residents.
4. Reduce Medicare premiums for all the old folks.
5. Provide insurance for the last 2% of MA residents (thanks to the Health Connector’s work) with insurance.
6. Reduce premiums for families by $2000- $2,800 for the same benefits, based on the figures calculated to increase by 2016.
7. Create 6,800 – 11,000 jobs by reducing costs for employers. As Scott Brown, the Republican’s new poster boy (literally) would say, its all about jobs.
8. And allow for about 700,000 students to keep their parents’ health plans until they’re 26. THAT’S US, I certainly don’t want to pay for my health insurance yet. Or my cell phone bill for that matter... amendment?
my 2 cents
j
show this to a republican, his response will be "but.. uhh.. no you're wrong"
ReplyDeleteas a republican, my main gripe is your grammatical error in your title. Success!
ReplyDelete