 Jennifer HemmingsenI'm an op-ed columnist and member of The Gazette's editorial board, writing primarily about Iowa politics, social issues, public safety [...] |
|
Email the author
Stay on track with health act debate
(AP Photo)
The ink wasn’t even dry on the U.S. Supreme Court ruling on the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act before we started to hear the thrumming of a thousand PR machines across the land.
But there were few surprises in reactions that split quite cleanly along party lines:
Gov. Terry Branstad called it a “disastrous decision” to uphold a “destructive health care law.” Sen. Tom Harkin said it “affirmed the common sense idea that virtually all Americans will use health care, whether or not they choose to purchase insurance.”
Sen. Chuck Grassley said he respected the court but strongly disagreed with the decision, one which Rep. Dave Loebsack said brings “stability and certainty to Iowans as they make critical health care choices for themselves and their families.”
Fans focused on preventive care and pre-existing conditions, closing the Medicare prescription drug doughnut hole, allowing parents to cover their children to age 26, and on the act’s benefits to women’s health.
Foes warned it makes government too big, that the individual mandate tramples individual freedoms. That, contrary to what Democrats said when they were touting the thing, it’s a tax. It’s a tax. It’s a tax. It’s a tax.
In short, everyone just dusted off their talking points from 2010. And all, regardless of where they stood, explicitly or coyly pledged to make the issue center stage in November. Talk about disastrous.
It would be a mistake to make this fall’s election a referendum on such a much-misrepresented and poorly understood piece of legislation. Candidates have little incentive to accurately describe the act’s wide-ranging provisions. Voters will have to work hard to get up to speed about what it truly entails.
Healthcare providers already have spent millions of dollars to carry out less-controversial provisions of the act. Investments they say will help improve care and control costs — in other words, which will work exactly as intended. But nuts and bolts make poor campaign rhetoric. We’re sure to hear little about that.
In the flurry of statements issued in response to the Supreme Court ruling last week, the guest opinion penned by St. Luke’s Hospital President and CEO Ted Townsend and Iowa Health System CEO Bill Leaver stood apart.
“Can we move on?” the health providers asked, pleading with policy makers, candidates and voters not to lose their heads in bitter battle.
“We are already on our way to reforming health care,” the men wrote. “Let’s not get derailed.”
Comments: (319) 339-3154; jennifer.hemmingsen@sourcemedia.net
-u20042.png?1366232523)
Iowa City schools won’t apply for federal grant
Authorities investigating possible connection between abduction cases
Iowa Legislature 2013 adjournment in sight, leaders say
Oklahoma tornado death toll currently 24, not 51, medical examiner says
Linn County casino campaign cost $3.43 million, final figures reveal
I’d like to list some points here.
1. I don’t mind the law being upheld. I’d rather see it repealed than overturned. We shouldn’t look for our courts to bail us out of bad laws.
2. Those who like the law are saying, “Let’s move on.” I say, “Let’s vote on it.”
3. It was repeatedly sold to us as not being a tax. Not only is it a tax, but 75 percent of it will be paid for by those making under 120k.*
4. I recently had my eyes checked. While at the eye doctor, they took by blood pressure. I asked why they were doing that, and they said it was part of the new healthcare law. All providers that do electronic charting are required to do certain things. They said that this would cause them to go from 4 patients an hour to 2 an hour. Where is the efficiency? Where is the cost savings?
*http://www.humanevents.com/2012/06/30/wsj-chief-economist-75-of-obamacare-costs-will-fall-on-backs-of-those-making-less-than-120k-a-year/
Brad says “let’s vote on it”. Usually voting is a good idea, but not in this case. For 2 years we have been flooded with propaganda from well funded special interest groups that have thoroughly misrepresented what the ACA says and does. There has been no counter force.
Now we’re hearing the repeated calls that “It’s a tax”. Some even say “The largest tax increase in history”. They forget to mention that it is only a tax on those who elect not to buy health insurance (yet, will receive care at a cost to the taxpayer when they go to the emergency room). Governor Romney called them “Freeloaders” when defending the mandate in Massachusetts.
You may also note that in Massachusetts only about 1% pays this penalty. That’s hardly the largest tax increase in history.
On this point and many others, people have been bamboozled into believing all sorts of false things about this law.
Yea – let’s vote – but not until most people have an honest and accurate understanding of what the ADA says and does.
There are 21 new taxes that go along with this bill that total almost 700 billion – “Cadillac Tax, tax on insurance providers, tax on medical devices…*
Democrats were thrown on their asses in 2010 for this bill. It’s time for round two. The Dems just lost Senate and White house. By the way, since this is tax legislation, it only takes 51 votes in the Senate to repeal.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jun/28/republicans-ruling-focuses-election-obamas-health-/
Wow Brad, you’re just full of misleading comments. But, that happens when you just regurgitate conservative propaganda.
“but 75 percent of it will be paid for by those making under 120k.*
WRONG. Correction: 76 percent of those who will end up paying the tax for not having insurance will make under $120k.
Don’t forget that 47% of new tax revenue will come from the rich (individuals making $200k+/couples making $250k+). And the additional money from “Cadillac” plans is not from the excise tax but from additional income tax expected when workers get pay increases b/c the company drops the “Cadillac” plan for something more efficient.
Whats the difference whether you call it a tax or a penalty? It is what it is, no matter what anyone wants to call it.
The rest of your 2 comments above are just biased opinon blather not worthy of response.
“They forget to mention that it is only a tax on those who elect not to buy health insurance”
Depends on how you look at it. In this case, the health insurance premiums themselves are the tax being levied on everyone. One of the problems I have with the Court’s decision is that the word “tax” now has whatever meaning Congress wants it to have.
How can you call money being paid to a private health insurance carrier a tax?
You want to get upset about something, how about you get upset about the corporate welfare subsidies people will get so they can afford private health insurance in the exchanges? Strange how the right whines about gov spending money on people but has no problem giving our tax money to private companies.
I had my blood pressure checked at the eye doctor, too. It took an extra minute. I’m glad they did it.
Offices have only started implementing this law. The BP check may only take a minute, but that is only one of the many things they must do now. I’m only relaying what I was told by the person doing it. This will not be more efficient, which means it will take longer and cost more.
I can’t find anything about a requirement for blood pressure checks, nor any other new additional services that are required by ACA. There are a bunch of services/checks detailed to be covered by insurance, but nothing more I can find. Perhaps Brad, you can provide a link to support there are many thing they must do now?
I’d add, its indicative of just how effective the conservative Republican campaign of misinformation about ACA has been, considering a nurse at the eye doctor doesn’t even know why she is doing a blood pressure check, but ascribes it to new requirements of ACA. How easy it must be to mislead someone such as yourself who readily accepts everything that comes from the machinations of a partisan ideology.
Here’s a short quiz everyone can take that may help them understand the health care law. At the end it will tell you what answers you got right or wrong and give you the correct answer and also display figures on how well others did. It’s amazing how few people really understand what this law entails.
http://healthreform.kff.org/quizzes/health-reform-quiz.aspx
Umm…100%. I might not be as dumn as I look.
Actual reforming of healthcare can only begin when the Unaffordable Heathcare Act is repealed and replaced with intelligent legislation and policy. There are parts of the U-ACA that are worhwhile but the underlying destruction of private insurance is un-American, un-Democratic, un-fair and un-sustainable economically.
VOTE for GOP is to bring down this crap.
Gary, exactly what parts of the new affordable health care law do you see are not good? You often spout anti Obama stuff, but you never really give any facts? Do you really have any? If you could somehow read up on this subject you may actually be surprsed to see that the new law will probably help YOU. Please start to see how your repub house members are not doing their job and only wasting their time to make Obama look bad. I think this is very sad … for our country.
http://www.reddit.com/tb/vbkfm
Richard,
Gary may need to have someone explain this to him, but if he truly did want to understand the ACA this would be a good start.The problem is that he doesn’t want to know what he’s talking about since he has others who tell him what to say.
Richard, I’ll answer that for you. I don’t care for the fact that it will cost 938 Billion over ten years. Where do you think that money is going to come from? You guessed right. The ACA is a massive TAX bill.
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/health/diseasesconditionsandhealthtopics/health_insurance_and_managed_care/health_care_reform/index.html
Nice try Brad! You left out the rest of the paragraph that says ACA will reduce the budget deficit by $138 billion during the same ten years it costs $938 billion. Kind of puts it in context and shows you’re willing to deceive people for your beliefs. Conservatives applaud that behavior (when it serves the ideology), but I do not.
Now that you know ACA will not cost additional money than government already spends on this, the opposite is true in fact, it will reduce spending… now do you care for the fact?
My eye doctor did a rectal exam…Was he supposed to do that as a part of Obamacare? And will they post the results online like some republicans I know told me they would? I used to respect everyone’s right to their opinion but this crap is getting ridiculous. A billion dollars will be spent to try to get a job that pays 400k a year. We shouldn’t be arguing over healthcare We (both republicans and democrats should be demanding campaign reform. Enough is enough. You can’t have honest politicians when they owe so many people favors because of all the “contributions” they received
Health Care Act is not perfect, but Obama had the courage to start. If it were not for the Republican House, the bill would have been more efficient. Republicans frame the health care debate by saying Health Care Decsions should be made by doctors and patients. Today health care decsions are made by private insurance companies. In my experience having insurance companies cover your health care bill is like the hosptial gown, chances are your backside is not covered