OBAMACARE GOOD FOR THE NATION

WHAT'S NOT TO LIKE ABOUT THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT (Obamacare)?

Republican objections to the Affordable Health Care Act has been over the top. The GOP has waged an all-out war to trash or sabotage this legislation. Since it was put into effect on March 23, 2010 it has faced over fifty (50) Congressional attempts at repeal, two Supreme Court challenges, and sabotage from ar-right advocacy groups, a wall of money to support repeal from the Koch brothers and attempts to undermine the bill from Republican-controlled State houses. To this effect thirty-four (34) of the state legislatures chose NOT to set up local state health care exchanges, denying their citizenry the advantages of better health care.

Why do the Republicans hate it so much? Their objections have been difficult to tease out from their political posturing, but seem to be centered around a few ideas. Based on their stated and printed "talking points", these focus on the laws supposed "increase" in health care costs (untrue), its "higher" insurance premiums (untrue), and "decrease" in quality of health care (unlikely). And mostly, its supposed effects on taxes and the budget deficit. Not one of these objections have been verified or documented, or supported by facts. The buget deficit has been decreasing since the bill was signed into law and as for taxes...some increases may be expected but one must weigh the smmall cost against the benefits.

All the 16 (or more) Republican candidates have sworn their enmity against Obamacare. But none has been so vicious or persistent as Senator Ted Cruz, Republican from Texas.

Back in September 2013, Cruz, the freshman Republican Senator from Texas, a man who wants to portray himself as a "principled, conservative", and one who "will never back down", took to the Senate floor. There, with the nation's government stymied by funding problem, Cruz tried his hand at playing the Jimmy Stewart role from the movie "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington". Cruz, a pale, shadow of the actor and American idol, came to the Senate floor to mount a filibuster, not like the "Smith" film character who spoke until he was hoarse to oppose corruption and malfeasance in Washington. Not Cruz, who filibustered to deny the nation's needy access to health care and harangue a near empty chamber with a diatribe against the Affordable Care Act. Cruz' grandstanding act did not stand up to the test of political honesty, veracity or even as cheap cinema.

Cruz compounded this divisiveness by tying a bill to defund Obamacare to an unrelated appropriations bill necessary to fund government operations in 2014. As a consequence, Cruz almost singlehandedly shut down the government for sixteen days, an event not occurring in the Senate for the last 17 years. The shutdown threatened the nation with default on its fiscal,obligations. As a consequence, eight hundred thousand federal workers were furloughed. Another 1.3 million were forced to work without pay. Cruz' actions stirred up negative criticism, against him, and dissension within in his own Party. In the end, the public largely blamed the GOP for the shutdown and its economic fallout. Cruz' shaky reputation suffered again when, soon after the bill passed, the Senator unbelievably proceeded to sign himself and his family up with a federal exchange to take advantage of the cheaper insurance available, an option he had worked so diligently to deny to his fellow Americans. Many on the left and right sneered at this particular Senator's blatant self-serving behavior and blaring"hypocrisy".

Since then, and up to more recent times, the unpredictable, shoot-from-the-hip young Senator, who made defunding or eliminating ACA his "badge of honor" and, though making use of its provisions, continued to call the ACA a "train wreck", classed it as"unconstitutional", and continued to make the untrue claim that the law "puts a bureaucrat between you and your doctor." In 2015, Senator Cruz, announced as a Presidential candidate, and continued (with the other GOP hopefuls) to promise to "end Obamacare."

Then on June 25, 2015, the ACA passed its most recent SCOTUS test. The Supreme Court voted 6-3 against the plaintiffs in the King Burwell case, upholding the right of the government to provide subsidies to the needy. The majority opinion, written by Chief Justice Roberts, agreed with the wording of the law. Interpreting the phrase "the 'state' would establish exchanges" to mean that the federal government in Washington was "the state" and was within its rights to provide the exchanges and provide the subsidies that made care affordable for the indigent. The Supreme Court gave the President a victory over those who would deny affordable care to millions of Americans.

Senator Cruz, called the decision..."judicial activism clear and simple" and characterized the justices as "robed Houdinis" who have "transmogrified 'a federal exchange' into an exchange "established by the State". Cruz termed their actions as "lawless".

So what is all the fuss about?

What's not to like about the Affordable Care Act...or "Obamacare" or now called "Scotuscare" or possibly "Robertscare"?

Not one Republican has clearly stated what they object to. Neither have they put forth some "better" plan. What do they dislike about it? Their complaints seem to be only political posturing and pandering to their ultra right base.

Here are some of my thoughts:

What is wrong with giving tax credits to small businesses to buy health insurance? The ACA does that.

What is wrong with closing the Medicare drug benefit "doughnut hole" so that needy seniors do not have huge out-of-pocket outlays for their medicines? That is a provision of the ACA.

Why should I not like the fact that the ACA will permit me to extend coverage to my dependent child up to the age of 26 years? The ACA provides this benefit.

Why should I object to the law's provision to extend Medicaid to the needy? The ACA does.

And one of its best provisions is that the ACA bans insurers from "cherry picking" though the client base to choose only young healthy subjects. They are also prohibited from excluding patients based on preexisting conditions. Why should we object to that?

And for those, like my brother-in-law, who have been "mandated" to get a health insurance plan. I say, "good deal". He has ignored our pleas to protect himself, his wife and child with a health insurance plan. He boasts of his own health and vitality and claims he would rather "take his chances". But if some chronic illness or infectious disease struck him, he would leave his wife and child destitute. He and his family are well served with the mandate.

Finally, in these times of mass world travel when a single passenger with a life threatening contagious disease can act as a vector to his or her fellow travelers in a stuffy plane, a crowded train, or a bus, is it sound public-health policy to have a large segment of the population without access to ready medical care? Is it wise to have large numbers of citizens who, to avoid the cost, may put off seeing their physician because they have no health insurance?

So when the field of sixteen or more Republicans, with Ted Cruz among them, continue to claim that the fight against Obamacare after this most recent Supreme Court ruling..'is not over"...Please ask them what they find so objectionable.