Trading the lives of the poor for tax cuts for the wealthy


The starting point for the AHCA was not about health care, but about repealing the ACA taxes on the wealthy. Once they calculated the effect of the tax cuts on the budget, they simply slashed and burned their way way through the ACA, cutting off enough coverage to pay for the cuts.

Who cares if people die because they no longer have affordable health care?

And make no mistake, people will die.

What's kind of remarkable (or maybe not) is that not one person who would benefit from the tax cuts has come out to proclaim the immorality of this change.

Not one.


This is just another data point for the case that voting Republican is a deeply immoral act.


This is the only real reason Republicans violently oppose the ACA, which was based on their own private market and mandate plan put forward by The Heritage Foundation and Newt Gingrich to counter Hillary's 1993 proposal. As Mitt Romney noted, it was the foundation of his successful Massachusetts health care reform.

http://robertreich.org/post/65155134884

To fund the ACA's expanded coverage, perhaps the most progressive tax hike ever was enacted. The bulk of those funds comes from its 3.8% tax on investment income for those earning over $200K, which fell squarely on the top 1%, who pay about 90% of the revenue from that tax. Since Republicans never admit that's the only constituency they serve, we got an unprecedented torrent of lies managed by the Koch Brothers' Tea Party, like death panels and unending deception about components and effects of the ACA.

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/1/17/14263918/affordable-care-act-tax-cut

http://www.vox.com/2017/3/8/14843762/ahca-republican-lies-obamacare

Remember, Trump formerly endorsed single payer, and promised "insurance for everybody." Thankfully Sean Spicer just clarified that to mean everybody will have the option of purchasing insurance, a truly innovative and comprehensive solution to all of the ACA's shortcomings.


My only quibble with your post is that, based on what I've been reading lately, the ACA is not really even closely tied to the Heritage Foundation's plan. Though it has sort of become the conventional wisdom.

http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/?s=heritage+aca&x=0&y=0

This post pretty much nails the dissimilarities

http://lawyersgunsmon.wpengine.com/2013/12/the-aca-v-the-heritage-plan-a-comparison-in-chart-form



dk50b said:

This is the only real reason Republicans violently oppose the ACA, which was based on their own private market and mandate plan put forward by The Heritage Foundation and Newt Gingrich to counter Hillary's 1993 proposal. As Mitt Romney noted, it was the foundation of his successful Massachusetts health care reform.

http://robertreich.org/post/65155134884


To fund the ACA's expanded coverage, perhaps the most progressive tax hike ever was enacted. The bulk of those funds comes from its 3.8% tax on investment income for those earning over $200K, which fell squarely on the top 1%, who pay about 90% of the revenue from that tax. Since Republicans never admit that's the only constituency they serve, we got an unprecedented torrent of lies managed by the Koch Brothers' Tea Party, like death panels and unending deception about components and effects of the ACA.

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/1/17/14263918/affordable-care-act-tax-cut


http://www.vox.com/2017/3/8/14843762/ahca-republican-lies-obamacare


Remember, Trump formerly endorsed single payer, and promised "insurance for everybody." Thankfully Sean Spicer just clarified that to mean everybody will have the option of purchasing insurance, a truly innovative and comprehensive solution to all of the ACA's shortcomings.




drummerboy said:
What's kind of remarkable (or maybe not) is that not one person who would benefit from the tax cuts has come out to proclaim the immorality of this change.

Not one.

http://blogmaverick.com/2017/03/08/some-thoughts-on-fixing-obamacare-shoot-holes-in-this-please/



drummerboy said:

What's kind of remarkable (or maybe not) is that not one person who would benefit from the tax cuts has come out to proclaim the immorality of this change.


I suspect that some of us here on MOL who are decrying this change would stand to benefit from those tax cuts actually.


I don't think that number is terribly significant, unless the MOL demographic is very different than what I see. What most people would see in the way of a tax cut is pretty trivial. The big numbers only kick in for the very wealthy. 60% of the cut goes to people earning at least 1 million. Now divide the other 40% among the couple hundred million people who don't earn 1 million. That ain't much per head.

sac said:



drummerboy said:

What's kind of remarkable (or maybe not) is that not one person who would benefit from the tax cuts has come out to proclaim the immorality of this change.

I suspect that some of us here on MOL who are decrying this change would stand to benefit from those tax cuts actually.



When Ryan declared this replacement an "act of mercy," I almost lost my ish. What type of Christian teachings has he received?



kibbegirl said:

When Ryan declared this replacement an "act of mercy," I almost lost my ish. What type of Christian teachings has he received?

Joseph Kennedy III would agree with you. This is what he said and I'll add an amen to that:

"I was struck last night by a comment that I heard made by Speaker Ryan,
where he called this repeal bill 'an act of mercy.' With all due
respect to our speaker, he and I must have read different Scripture…The
one I read calls on us to feed the hungry, to clothe the naked, to
shelter the homeless, and to comfort the sick. It reminds us that we are
judged not by how we treat the powerful, but by how we care for the
least among us. There is no mercy in a system that makes health care a
luxury. There is no mercy in a country that turns their back on those
most in need of protection: the elderly, the poor, the sick, and the
suffering. There is no mercy in a cold shoulder to the mentally ill.
This is not an act of mercy. It is an act of malice."




It is truly an "act of malice". Whose only purpose is to give the wealth of our nation to people who don't need it.


wendy said:



kibbegirl said:

When Ryan declared this replacement an "act of mercy," I almost lost my ish. What type of Christian teachings has he received?

Joseph Kennedy III would agree with you. This is what he said and I'll add an amen to that:

"I was struck last night by a comment that I heard made by Speaker Ryan,
where he called this repeal bill 'an act of mercy.' With all due
respect to our speaker, he and I must have read different Scripture…The
one I read calls on us to feed the hungry, to clothe the naked, to
shelter the homeless, and to comfort the sick. It reminds us that we are
judged not by how we treat the powerful, but by how we care for the
least among us. There is no mercy in a system that makes health care a
luxury. There is no mercy in a country that turns their back on those
most in need of protection: the elderly, the poor, the sick, and the
suffering. There is no mercy in a cold shoulder to the mentally ill.
This is not an act of mercy. It is an act of malice."



I'm waiting on the silver lining, which will come.

I find it fascinating that Ryan grew up and was educated on benefits due to his father's death.


@drummerboy thanks for correcting that myth. Really didn't make sense they would be concerned about expanding access, even by preserving the unneeded private insurers, without a larger goal. Of course that would be ending Federal involvement in health care, freeing folks from the soul crushing dependency breeding Commie handout that is Medicare. They must be so relieved that their main reason for wanting to torpedo Trump, his strong commitment to saving Medicare and Social Security, the other work discouraging Ponzi scheme, was like all his promises merely a lie to get votes.

Ryan's hilarious/pathetic hypocrisy isn't new of course. By long citing Ayn Rand as his inspiration for entering public service, the only takeaway is he's rejected Christ's message outright. But on "discovering" her atheism, he decided St. Thomas Aquinas was his actual inspiration. Trump and Pudzer, to name a few, also claim her objectivism as justification for placing society's most successful (wealthy) at the top of the food chain to be worshiped by us takers.

https://qz.com/882493/donald-trump-paul-ryan-and-andy-puzder-say-they-love-ayn-rands-controversial-philosophy-heres-what-us-republicans-keep-getting-wrong-about-it/


Many of them deem themselves Christian and I have no doubt that when they worship, they believe they are Christians, but Christianity is more than bowing ones head and giving thanks to the Lord. Being Christian is not only being thankful for what you have but seeing what others don't have and trying in big and small ways to make the lives of others more comfortable -- to lessen or delete their suffering. So when asked "What Would Jesus Do?" surely Jesus would not defund Meals on Wheels, gut healthcare to benefit the wealthy and withhold food for families who, even with employment, cannot make ends meet.


the point was raised earlier that perhaps some MOL'ers who would benefit from the AHCA tax cuts were in fact speaking out against the AHCA. If so, I guess MOL is comprised of some pretty wealthy people.

This how the tax cut benefits would pan out

http://www.cbpp.org/blog/house-gops-proposed-fix-for-health-bill-prioritizes-tax-cuts-for-richest


Now that we're at the apparent end of Obamacare repeal, it's pretty clear how modern Republicans put tax cuts for the wealthy above everything. During the week long negotiations on repeal, reducing tax cuts was never on the table.

I really would like to hear from a Republican out there how they can justify ever voting for this party over the last twenty years. They live to serve about 5% of the population and that's it. There is no major party in any developed nation that is as morally corrupt as this one.



I think it's optimistic to say we're at "the end of Obamacare repeal." The R's still can, and will imo, chip away at its finances, which they may be able to do via "reconciliation," if they can get their own folks together, and through rule-making at HHS. It has always needed some fixes, and if it doesn't get some, could be in bigger and bigger trouble.

full disclosure: as some are aware, I am a huge fan of the ACA.


yeah, I don't disagree that they will chip away at it, mostly through executive action, but I don't see a full-scale attempt at repeal happening again for some time.

mjc said:

I think it's optimistic to say we're at "the end of Obamacare repeal." The R's still can, and will imo, chip away at its finances, which they may be able to do via "reconciliation," if they can get their own folks together, and through rule-making at HHS. It has always needed some fixes, and if it doesn't get some, could be in bigger and bigger trouble.

full disclosure: as some are aware, I am a huge fan of the ACA.



It could be better for them, and just as painful for those covered by ACA, if it "implodes" due to lack of tweaks/upkeep instead of being repealed. "See, it wasn't us, it was just doomed, no use trying again, either."



In order to add a comment – you must Join this community – Click here to do so.

Sponsored Business

Find Business

Advertisement

Advertise here!