Just to clarify what may have been a fairly serious case of tl;dr:
On NPR this morning some fool Republican freshman congressman invited to explain why he's voting in vote no. 50-something to repeal the Affordable Care Act (for the freshmen it's all exciting because it's their first time, they're all Obamacare Repeal Virgins), transcript is not up and I can't be bothered to listen to the thing again to get the name of the fool and his exact wording, said, among other things,
But it's not the Massachusetts law that got passed over Romney's eight vetoes, or the Affordable Care Act. These are meant first to require as many employers as possible to provide their workers with health insurance, with the government taking care of those who are unemployed or underemployed, and only those individuals in special circumstances (too independent to get it from their bosses, too well off to get it from Medicaid) to take care of themselves, via the Marketplace device that people seem to think constitutes the entire law of which it is actually only a very small part.
That's why the Heritage proposals and Obamacare are not the same thing, and why it pisses me off so much when people say they are, because they are, in fact, the opposite. OK? If you want to look at some evidence you could follow the links from Monday's post. Republicans are quite right to hate the ACA, because it goes against their long-term goal of freeing the capitalist of all responsibilities toward their employees. It's not one of Obama's gestures of cooperation to the Right.
On NPR this morning some fool Republican freshman congressman invited to explain why he's voting in vote no. 50-something to repeal the Affordable Care Act (for the freshmen it's all exciting because it's their first time, they're all Obamacare Repeal Virgins), transcript is not up and I can't be bothered to listen to the thing again to get the name of the fool and his exact wording, said, among other things,
We can't have a law where every person in the country is forced to buy health insurance.That, friends, is what the Heritage Foundation health care proposal was, in 1989 and 1993, and what Mitt Romney proposed for Massachusetts: the gradual elimination of employer-supplied insurance, the reduction of the Medicare and Medicaid programs, and the individual mandate becoming the normal way of supplying health insurance to the nation.
But it's not the Massachusetts law that got passed over Romney's eight vetoes, or the Affordable Care Act. These are meant first to require as many employers as possible to provide their workers with health insurance, with the government taking care of those who are unemployed or underemployed, and only those individuals in special circumstances (too independent to get it from their bosses, too well off to get it from Medicaid) to take care of themselves, via the Marketplace device that people seem to think constitutes the entire law of which it is actually only a very small part.
That's why the Heritage proposals and Obamacare are not the same thing, and why it pisses me off so much when people say they are, because they are, in fact, the opposite. OK? If you want to look at some evidence you could follow the links from Monday's post. Republicans are quite right to hate the ACA, because it goes against their long-term goal of freeing the capitalist of all responsibilities toward their employees. It's not one of Obama's gestures of cooperation to the Right.
No comments:
Post a Comment