Tilted
..
One of the things that the PPACA will do is provide health care benefits (i.e. through insurance subsidies and an expanded Medicaid program), to people perceived as needing the assistance, at the expense of the American taxpayer. That last aspect is one of the major points of criticism from opponents. 'Obamacare', as some like to call it, represents an expansion of healthcare welfare. Some consider that a good thing, others don't. Some feel it's the right thing to do, others disagree - so much so that they want it repealed (though, for most, surely not for that reason alone). This expansion of healthcare welfare was very controversial, narrowly won passage in Congress and was signed by President Obama in 2010.
But, how does it compare to another recent expansion of healthcare welfare? I'm referring to the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003, which narrowly won passage in Congress and was signed by President Bush in 2003. Specifically, I'm referring to Medicare Part D, which was included in that law.
What do you know about the latter? How much will it cost American taxpayers in future years? How does that cost compare to the costs of the PPACA's expansions of healthcare welfare (i.e. how much they will actually cost, not offsetting that cost by the tax increases and supposed savings also implemented by the PPACA)? How do you feel about Medicare part D relative to how you feel about the PPACA's subsidies and Medicaid expansion? Are your opinions of them fundamentally different? If so, do those differences result from a perception that you'll benefit from one but not the other?
I'll leave specifics out for now - but we can discuss them if anyone wants and/or if they are seen as vital to the discussion - but, the general reality is that both of these programs will be very costly going forward. Both of them represent making some people pay to provide health care to others. Both of them relate to a perceived need of some to have health care coverage or better health care coverage. Should we repeal both of them? Should we repeal one but not the other? Do you now want the PPACA's expansions repealed? Did you, at the time, want the Medicare Part D expansion repealed?
Is all politics really primarily about whose ox happens to be getting gored, or pleasured as the case may be?
But, how does it compare to another recent expansion of healthcare welfare? I'm referring to the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003, which narrowly won passage in Congress and was signed by President Bush in 2003. Specifically, I'm referring to Medicare Part D, which was included in that law.
What do you know about the latter? How much will it cost American taxpayers in future years? How does that cost compare to the costs of the PPACA's expansions of healthcare welfare (i.e. how much they will actually cost, not offsetting that cost by the tax increases and supposed savings also implemented by the PPACA)? How do you feel about Medicare part D relative to how you feel about the PPACA's subsidies and Medicaid expansion? Are your opinions of them fundamentally different? If so, do those differences result from a perception that you'll benefit from one but not the other?
I'll leave specifics out for now - but we can discuss them if anyone wants and/or if they are seen as vital to the discussion - but, the general reality is that both of these programs will be very costly going forward. Both of them represent making some people pay to provide health care to others. Both of them relate to a perceived need of some to have health care coverage or better health care coverage. Should we repeal both of them? Should we repeal one but not the other? Do you now want the PPACA's expansions repealed? Did you, at the time, want the Medicare Part D expansion repealed?
Is all politics really primarily about whose ox happens to be getting gored, or pleasured as the case may be?
Last edited: