Whenever the ACA is challenged by Republicans, the President's response is always basically the same: Millions of people are benefitting from the law.
This fact is not really in dispute.
But consider the following hypothetical law by comparison. I'll call it the "Wealth Redistribution Act of 2016." Under this Act, every household in the U.S. will be given a classification according to the last digit of the SSAN of the oldest member of the household. If the last digit is an odd number, the household will be required to pay a surtax of $5,000 per year, and if the last digit is an even number, the household will receive a $5,000 check from the IRS on December 31 of each year. Of course, allowances will be made on the revenue side; the assessments will be graduated according to income, but the "bottom line" is that the surtax will generate sufficient revenue to pay for the $5k checks to be paid to the others. It would be the "perfect" revenue-neutral law. It wouldn't cost a cent; it's completely self-financed!
Of course, there will be a lot of grumbling in half the households in the U.S., but let's be honest, the IRS carries the force of Government and enforcement will be no problem.
At the beginning of January every year, newspapers will have heart-warming stories of poor families for whom the $5k check was a God-send. All Christmas debts paid off, granny can pay for her medications now, student loans being paid down, and so forth. It will be enough to bring a tear to the eye.
And you can be sure that if anyone proposed repealing this stupid law, the ACLU and various interest groups for the "Evens" will stage protests, claiming that his repeal would have devastating effect on these innocent people.
Because that law, stupid as it is, would benefit about ONE HUNDRED FIFTY MILLION AMERICANS!
So it is clear that no law can be justified simply on the basis that it benefits a lot of people. Many, many STUPID laws benefit thousands - even millions - of people. But in the real world, laws must be justified on whether (1) they are Constitutional, (2) the benefits outweigh the cost, and (3) the costs areaffordable to the Federal Government (and will not have to be borrowed).
With ObamaCare, millions of people are benefitting from the law. That is not arguable. But many MORE people have seen their policies be cancelled or dis-continued, have lost access to their preferred doctors, have had their premiums increased, and have seen their co-pays, deductibles, and annual out-of-pocket maximums increase dramatically. Indeed, many relatively small employers have simply eliminated their health insurance and dumped their employees onto the state exchanges.
And not to get personal, but is it not abundantly clear that many of the "promises" that were used to "sell" the law to the American people were either blatant lies or absurdly optimistic. Our Beloved President himself promised us that the average family would save $2,500 per year. This seems to be true, but only if you put a minus-sign on the $2,500, and call it a "cost." The "you can keep your plan, you can keep your doctor," promises proved to be total B.S. And on and on.
The Press allows the President to get away with one discussion-stopping point ("...lots of beneficiaries...") that has minimal relevance to the question of whether ACA was (is) a good idea and should be continued. The appropriate response to this point is, "So, what?"
Over the next month, we will see our Presidential contenders debase themselves in Iowa to support another colossally stupid law that provides subsidies and guarantees to (mainly wealthy) farmers who grow corn that is converted to motor fuel. Again, lots of people benefit from a law that is essentially stupid and counterproductive. Is it justified because a couple thousand farmers reap huge benefits? You decide.
This fact is not really in dispute.
But consider the following hypothetical law by comparison. I'll call it the "Wealth Redistribution Act of 2016." Under this Act, every household in the U.S. will be given a classification according to the last digit of the SSAN of the oldest member of the household. If the last digit is an odd number, the household will be required to pay a surtax of $5,000 per year, and if the last digit is an even number, the household will receive a $5,000 check from the IRS on December 31 of each year. Of course, allowances will be made on the revenue side; the assessments will be graduated according to income, but the "bottom line" is that the surtax will generate sufficient revenue to pay for the $5k checks to be paid to the others. It would be the "perfect" revenue-neutral law. It wouldn't cost a cent; it's completely self-financed!
Of course, there will be a lot of grumbling in half the households in the U.S., but let's be honest, the IRS carries the force of Government and enforcement will be no problem.
At the beginning of January every year, newspapers will have heart-warming stories of poor families for whom the $5k check was a God-send. All Christmas debts paid off, granny can pay for her medications now, student loans being paid down, and so forth. It will be enough to bring a tear to the eye.
And you can be sure that if anyone proposed repealing this stupid law, the ACLU and various interest groups for the "Evens" will stage protests, claiming that his repeal would have devastating effect on these innocent people.
Because that law, stupid as it is, would benefit about ONE HUNDRED FIFTY MILLION AMERICANS!
So it is clear that no law can be justified simply on the basis that it benefits a lot of people. Many, many STUPID laws benefit thousands - even millions - of people. But in the real world, laws must be justified on whether (1) they are Constitutional, (2) the benefits outweigh the cost, and (3) the costs areaffordable to the Federal Government (and will not have to be borrowed).
With ObamaCare, millions of people are benefitting from the law. That is not arguable. But many MORE people have seen their policies be cancelled or dis-continued, have lost access to their preferred doctors, have had their premiums increased, and have seen their co-pays, deductibles, and annual out-of-pocket maximums increase dramatically. Indeed, many relatively small employers have simply eliminated their health insurance and dumped their employees onto the state exchanges.
And not to get personal, but is it not abundantly clear that many of the "promises" that were used to "sell" the law to the American people were either blatant lies or absurdly optimistic. Our Beloved President himself promised us that the average family would save $2,500 per year. This seems to be true, but only if you put a minus-sign on the $2,500, and call it a "cost." The "you can keep your plan, you can keep your doctor," promises proved to be total B.S. And on and on.
The Press allows the President to get away with one discussion-stopping point ("...lots of beneficiaries...") that has minimal relevance to the question of whether ACA was (is) a good idea and should be continued. The appropriate response to this point is, "So, what?"
Over the next month, we will see our Presidential contenders debase themselves in Iowa to support another colossally stupid law that provides subsidies and guarantees to (mainly wealthy) farmers who grow corn that is converted to motor fuel. Again, lots of people benefit from a law that is essentially stupid and counterproductive. Is it justified because a couple thousand farmers reap huge benefits? You decide.
