The Face of the New American Moocher? The Tea Party

teapartymoochersWithout wanting to come off sounding too much like a politician, I nonetheless want to be clear: I’ve always supported a single payer health care system. Quite frankly, as a progressive, I’m somewhat disappointed with what I believe is reform that not only doesn’t go far enough, but is a massive handout to insurance companies. However, despite the somewhat botched roll-out of the website and kinks in the law itself that need to be ironed out, I am proud that the President and Democratic Party finally achieved something that no other person or party was able to accomplish before – revamping a health care system which was in serious need of an overhaul. Having said that, I still think we should just move full steam ahead towards single payer, which Vermont, for example, is already considering.

Which brings me to my larger point. According to a study done by Illinois Wesleyan University in 2012, 30-40 billion dollars worth of taxpayer money a year goes to pay for people who go to the ER without insurance – a combination of people who actually need urgent care and those who are using the ER for preventative health services that they would otherwise obtain from their primary care physician if they were insured. In addition, aside from taxpayer spending, covering the uninsured and their bills practically doubles annual health premiums for those that are insured.

The ACA helps to close this gap by lowering the number of uninsured people. Using state Medicaid expansions, subsidies, and tax credits, the ACA looks to reduce the number of uninsured people and thus to reduce the amount of money spent on those who are uninsured. Moreover, even when accounting for the subsidizing, it is estimated that the Affordable Care Act will reduce the deficit, saving the U.S. more than $200 billion in the first decade and $1 trillion in the following 10 years. I’m not going to get into a long and drawn out synopsis of the ACA; I’ve already wrote about it previously, there are many articles on the topic out there, and it’s not the topic of this article.

Furthermore, this article is not addressed at those who are low income and who may be eligible for Medicaid (if they live in a state that expanded), subsidies, tax credits, or exemptions. These people are in a whole other category. This article is addressed at one group and one group only; those people who are mostly Tea Party members (albeit not all of them are members of the TP and not all members of the TP are refusing to buy insurance) who can afford to, but refuse to buy health insurance on the grounds that the government shouldn’t be able to “force” them to do anything. This argument is absolutely absurd. It shirks the idea of personal responsibility – a notion championed by conservatives – and fails to account for the fact that the individual mandate was the bi-partisan compromise in the law. After all, it was an idea written, promoted, and defended by the ultra-conservative Heritage Foundation.

So, who are these people? They are the new American moochers. Stomping around complaining about how they shouldn’t be forced to do anything – ever – because “freedom” and “Murica.” Constantly complaining that “welfare kings and queens” who collect SNAP benefits are moochers who are taking advantage of the system, when in reality, they are the biggest moochers of all.

If you’re alive, you need health insurance. If you breathe, you need to be insured. Your choice to not be insured ends where my choice not to pay for you because you’re not insured begins; and since I don’t get that choice, you don’t have a choice as to whether you buy insurance (unless of course you just want to pay the $95 personal responsibility fee – which SHOCKER goes to cover YOUR OWN CARE). In other words, since some of my tax money goes towards paying for your care if you’re not insured (whether I like it or not) and therefore I don’t have a choice about paying, then you don’t have a choice when it comes to either getting insurance or paying the penalty for not having it.

The new face of the American moocher? The person who refuses to buy insurance on political principle,  driving costs up for all of us. The person who refuses to take personal responsibility, while claiming that is what conservatism is all about about. I’ve had it with these people. Their audacity to point fingers at others who need government assistance makes my blood boil. Moreover, nobody is actually forcing them to buy health insurance. If they don’t want it, they can just pay the $95 fine. But, when one is not individually responsible for themselves by either getting themselves insurance or paying the fee, the rest of us end up paying for it with our taxes and increases in our premiums. When people who have made a conscious decision not to insure themselves end up getting sick and/or injured, we end up paying for them in one way or another.

Who are you to think that you can mooch off the rest of us? Here is an idea: buy insurance or pay the penalty, but keep your grubby hands off my tax dollars because of your refusal to buy something you actually need, on political principle. Conservatives constantly complain that forcing them to buy health insurance is akin to slavery. Well, guess what? Me paying for your stupidity makes me a slave to the moocher; buy your own damn insurance or pay the penalty to cover the portion of my money you end up spending when you get sick and go to the hospital without insurance.

Finally, if you don’t like the mandate, blame a conservative. If you don’t like the ACA, blame a conservative. Progressives always did and still do want single payer – we ended up with this because we had to work with conservatives who wanted a market-based solution. Some people never learn. 

Ilyssa Fuchs

Ilyssa Fuchs is an attorney, freelance writer, and activist from New York City, who holds both a juris doctor and a political science degree. She is the founder of the popular Facebook page Politically Preposterous and a blog of the same name. Follow Ilyssa on Twitter @IlyssaFuchs, and be sure to check out her archives on Forward Progressives as well!

Comments

Facebook comments

  • JustTheFactsMa’am

    “Here is an idea: buy insurance or pay the penalty, but keep your grubby
    hands off my tax dollars because of your refusal to buy something you
    actually need, on political principle.”

    I love it. Got a bumper sticker with that on it?

    • J.G. Smith

      I’ve heard the statement this way somewhere else:

      “Here is an idea: buy a condom or pay the penalty, but keep your grubby hands off my tax dollars because of your refusal to buy something you actually need”

      Do we vote up that one?

      • Steven Keith Tait

        Obamacare does not cover male contraception, just female.
        Evidently, they they do not believe males have any responsibility for birth control.
        It is not like condoms reduce the transmission of disease or anything. Wait, the Pope says they do.

      • epyeahright

        Male contraception is available over the counter; women need to get a prescription.

      • Charles Vincent

        NO they dont there are plenty of OTC contrceptions available to women The sponge, spermicide jells for use with the sponge or a diaphragm are but a few. Males have condoms OTC that’s it the only other option is a vasectomy for males(at least that’s the only one I am aware of).

      • Peter Simatos

        If you haven’t been kept up to date on what is going on, the tea party is trying to outlaw contraception.

    • Steven Keith Tait

      I think the New Hampshire motto of “Live Free or Die” covers it.

  • Steven Liesch

    This argument may not work because it uses logic.

    • strayaway

      Logic is based on facts. Where is the study, any study, indicating that Tea Partiers are less likely to buy themselves insurance? Without proving that premise, the premise of the article that Tea Partiers are moochers is nonsense.

      • mcquestion5000

        Indeed, facts are required and none are presented here, but for Tea Partiers, facts are only required when it’s a slander against them or some hole in their way of thinking. They have no problem shouting “Obama is going to kill your grandma.” when it suits them. They long ago lost their right to sit at the adult table for mature discussion on the topic of health care.

      • strayaway

        Thank you for acknowledging that “facts are required and none are presented here.” But maybe someone posting here has such facts? Never give up.

      • mcquestion5000

        I don’t think it matters. The Tea Party has long proven that they lack empathy for anyone who isn’t them. They have proven that they will say any lie to make sure that no one gets more health coverage. They are already in the wrong. We don’t need facts to prove they are moochers. They have already been proven to be known liars and lack complete empathy for anyone. That’s all I need to know to stand against them.

      • strayaway

        I don’t think they are worse than anyone else. They aren’t taking away anyone’s health insurance or putting our children in debt for instance.

      • mcquestion5000

        Your children have been put in debt for decades and it was never worse than when the Bush era government decided to put two unpaid wars on the credit card and then gave all their rich buddies a tax break. Facts do show that Obama has tightened the belt considerably in that regard.

        Obama is definitely doing his best to give as many people health insurance as he can manage. If right wingers don’t like the system, just remember, left wingers wanted a single payer system to begin with.

      • strayaway

        Senator Obama never once voted against funding Bush’s wars. As president, he tried to extend both wars. Recently, the Pope, our allies, and the American people had to reign him in to prevent US attacks on Syria.

        As Senator, Obama rallied the black caucus in support of the Wall Street bailout, transferred billion$ of bad paper from the banksters to taxpayers, and made half of Bush’s tax breaks for the rich permanent. The 1% has accelerated its financial growth under Obama.

        “As he can manage” might be right as a measure of his incompetence. If he wanted single payer, then he should have allowed Vermont to have its own AFFORDABLE single payer system. No, he let the insurance companies write the (un)ACA.

      • mcquestion5000

        Wait, allowing funding for “Bush’s wars” and ensuring that the soldiers that he didn’t want to send in the first place are getting body armour is somehow agreeing with the wars?

        No, that’s Republican thinking. If they didn’t want the war and Obama sent them anyway, they would be the ones denying funding for body armour and such just to be stupid, vindictive A-holes.

        “The black caucus?” Seriously? I agree fully that the 1% is gaining in wealth why we all get poorer. I think he addressed that concern just today or yesterday. It’s clear Obama doesn’t buy into the B.S. that the 1% are “job creators” as the GOP likes to say over and over and over and over and over again on FOX.

        Obama very much did want single payer. It’s because he gave in to the damn GOP that we have what we have.

      • strayaway

        No, there was always enough money in the pipeline to get our troops out in 3-9 months.The money went to continue the engagements. Obama was a agreeing with the wars even before he became President. As President, he tried to negotiate with both the Iraqi and Afghan government to keep some US troops there longer. The Afghan negotiations are ongoing.

        Over 73% of US casualties in Afghanistan have been under Obama if you are so worried about our troops and want to bring up a relatively hypothetical topic. I do remember that In Vietnam, under Johnson, the military chose not to provide better bullet proof jackets because they cost $47 each. Relatives were also forbidden to send such items. That doesn’t have anything to do with present circumstances except to note that such things do happen.

        Yes, Senator Obama did leave the campaign trail specifically to lobby the black caucus to support Bush’s Wall Street bailout. I’m glad he verbally addressed the 1% issue yesterday but that leaves the question of why he ignored it the for over four years.

        Regarding your last paragraph, Truman used to say “the buck stops here”. With Obama, it’s always someone else’s fault that nothing he tries works. I read an article today comparing the Hoover dam and all the other dams Roosevelt built with the computer program Obama built as his legacy.

      • mcquestion5000

        Get our troops out? I am not talking about getting our troops out, though. I am talking about getting them better body armour. Some had none at all. We all remember the soldier begging Cheyney for body armour on TV. Your assertion was that, by funding the war, Obama wanted the war. I say that the comparison doesn’t work at all.

        Believe it or not, I am fully aware of the death stats. I have relatives in the military, as do most of us. More deaths during his administration does not necessarily equal that Obama is pro-war or anything else. It means the enemy is getting smarter.

        And yes, these things do happen in war, and it’s a crime every time no matter who is responsible. Obama’s use of drones and continuing these wars is a major disappointment to people like myself. I don’t make my team no matter what idiotic things they do.

        I seem to remember Obama owning the failure of the ACA website, even though he didn’t write one line of code. Obama did inherit a horrific mess of a country thanks to the GOP government that preceded him, one that declared that “deficits don’t matter”… until the black guy took power.

        Why did he ignore the plight of the 99 percent? I don’t think he did, but hey, dude inherited a GIGANTIC mess from his bumpkin predecessor, who prayed a lot about Iraq but didn’t bother to learn much about it.

      • strayaway

        So why not just bring the troops home? Why are any still there?

        Bush spent too much but did he ever say “deficits don’t matter”? I think that was Cheney or Paul Krugman. I don’t think Obama intended for the 1% to do so well relative to everyone else but that’s what is happening during his reign. It’s true that Obama inherited a mess but as Senator he did nothing to stop the wars, he funded them, and he voted with Bush for the bankers. Not much has changes since becoming President either except for his roll-out of the (un)ACA.

      • mcquestion5000

        Indeed, why not? I wouldn’t dare say I wasn’t disappointed that the troops haven’t been brought home.

        Bush didn’t say that. True. The real President did.

        I disagree that things haven’t changed. The deficit has gone down. Jobs are being created again. More people have affordable health care. His people finally found and killed the world’s most wanted terrorist. He still has time to address the destroyed 99 percent and has brought that concern to light already. There is still an American Auto industry.

        I would say “not enough” has changed since he became Prez, but he has the GOP working against him at every turn. That can’t help. Jesus, even Britney Spears used to say “Just support our President” when referring to Bush. Can’t we take a lesson from Britney!!!!! 😉

      • strayaway

        But Obama has added $7T, going on $10T, to the national debt and will probably double it bu the time he leaves office. More people have lost their policies than have signed up for new policies because of the (un)ACA. I’ll give him partial credit for getting Obama although I’m not convinced he was dumped in the Ocean. The auto industry would still be here one way or another although GM might have been purchased by a foreign company like Chrysler was. I do approve of federal help for developing the Volt technology on the basis that it was good for national defense. We don’t have to fight oil wars over the domestic energy used in Volts and Tesla’s. I regularly argue with Republicans who are hostile to Volts because the President had a hand in their development.

      • Peter Simatos

        The biggest part of his addition to the deficit was the bail out. Which was left to him by Bush/Cheney.

      • strayaway

        Senator Obama voted for the Wall Street bail out. He left the campaign trail to lobby the black caucus to vote for the Wall Street bail out. Senator Obama was a vigorous supporter of that bailout. Bush/Cheney didn’t leave it to him, he was their ally.

        The biggest part of what? If you are referring to the $7.3T of debt incurred under President Obama, the Wall Street bailout was not the “biggest part”. If your are referring to Bush’s 2009 budget, Obama retroactively added to it with his nearly useless stimulus spending bill. You know, let’s get people to junk their used cars and subsidize them to buy new Korean cars. Let’s have the federal government give money to employ school teachers, let’s subsidize Fiat to buy Chrysler, etc..

      • Peter Simatos

        de-regulation of the banks is what led to the economy tanking in 08. A move made by Bush/Cheney. In the forty some years the regulations where in affect, not one bank failure. Removing the regulations almost destroyed us.

      • strayaway

        I thought it was the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999 that repealed part of the Glass–Steagall Act of 1933, removing barriers in the market among banking companies, securitiescompanies and insurance companies that prohibited any one institution from acting as any combination of an investment bank, a commercial bank, and an insurance company. The law also repealed Glass–Steagall’s conflict of interest prohibitions “against simultaneous service by any officer, director, or employee of a securities firm as an officer, director, or employee of any member bank”. (Wikipedia info)

        It was Clinton who signed this bill. bush was bad enough but let’s not forget Clinton. By the way, how many bankers has the Holder Justice Department put away?

      • disqus_mmZU8TPsvi

        Cheney said that deficits didn’t matter when asked about it during the bush years.
        Skip Moreland

      • Charles Vincent

        Krugman said deficits dont matter. here are a variety of hits;
        http://www DOT bing DOT com/search?q=Krugman+says+deficits+dont+matter&form=U147DD&pc=U147D

      • strayaway

        Cheney said the same thing as Krugman. I think they’re on the same team.

        “Cheney told former Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill that “(Ronald) Reagan proved that deficits don’t matter.”” – from article “Tapper Busts Dick Cheney on His ‘Deficits Don’t Matter’ Comment”

      • Charles Vincent

        Who said it first seems to be the million dollar question.

      • strayaway

        I’m guessing the CEO of Goldman Sachs.

      • Charles Vincent

        Ohhh the sweet irony of that.

      • Peter Simatos

        you forgot to mention the banking regulations that bush removed leading to the collapse of our economy in 08

      • Charles Vincent

        Sorry that was Barney Frank not Bush. and they had been dismantling the Glass-Steagall Act for a long time prior to Bush. The Clinton administration did a bunch to dismantle that act.

        See link;
        http://en DOT wikipedia DOT org/wiki/Glass%E2%80%93Steagall_Act

      • Peter Simatos

        well said

      • Gatortrapper

        Where are your facts proving your assertion? You make these things up from whole cloth. Point to a single assertion made by the “Tea Party” that even comes close to “if you like your insurance policy you can keep your insurance. PERIOD” Heck, you can’t even point to anything that can be attributed to the group (as opposed to the random fool that we find in every group comprised of more than 2 people in every society) that is not based on reasonable assertion of established fact. You can disagree with someone’s conclusion of what certain facts mean but that doesn’t convert them to “lies.”

      • mcquestion5000

        Sarah Palin/Death panels.

      • Gatortrapper

        First, while Palin may be the “darling” of the Tea Party, she will be the first (and actually has) to say that she does not speak for them. Second, the term “death panels” is an inauspicious description of the Independent Review Board which is charged with setting policies to rein in costs and set standards for delivery of care. Similar boards in state run health care systems such as in England have been found to have the effect of denying care or treatment to certain groups that had the effect of accelerating their demise by denying care to members of that group by denying reimbursement for delivery of the care. While it might by an overstatement or hyperbole to use such a term it certainly isn’t outside the range of acceptable labeling given the wide range that Progressives claim when it comes to slandering others such as the Tea Party.

        So try again. What lies has the TEA PARTY authored? I’ll be waiting for your response.

      • mcquestion5000

        How can you be “the darling” of the tea party and not speak for them? That’s pretty insidious, isn’t it? “The stewardess from Alaska is right. We love her. Love everything about her, but we totally disagree with what she says.”

        Of course, no one says that.

      • Gatortrapper

        Well Farah Fawcett once was the object of many a young man’s fantasy but that didn’t mean we all slept with her did it? The fact that Palin has been careful not to accept that mantle being placed on her by the “Tea Party Movement” or by third parties speaks well of her. She neither needs nor wants that role and also is perceptive enough to understand that the only reason that you and other liberals are so pre-occupied with establishing a standard bearer for the movement is because you want a focal point for your slanders about the movement.

        And if you don’t understand that then you are truly obtuse, or a fool. Which is it?

        You people lose every time you come up against someone who has full command of the facts and the logic behind the issues. And because you can’t defend your position you are relegated to having to use slander, character assassination/ad hominem attacks or change the subject when you have to debate the issues. And that is exactly what you do here: change the subject to focus on Palin’s role as “standard bearer” of the Tea Party.

        Finally, the reference to “darling” is a colloquialism. If you were educated or intellectually honest you might accept that for what it is. But apparently you are neither.

      • mcquestion5000

        Well, the holidays sure wreak havoc on internet debates, don’t they? And here come the slanders against my intelligence. YAY! And you like to comment about my slander? Yeah, Farrah Fawcett was on every guy’s wall. Not everyone met her and banged her, but most every guy wanted to and would have given the chance! I don’t think your example stands up.

        Also, even you admit The Tea Party heaps praise on her, so how is she not the “darling” of that group? Maybe she doesn’t wear a Tea Party cape but at some point this association has to be made clear. If you say things the party supports and endorses, you are one of them. If you say things the KKK agrees with and they want to call you the darling of the KKK, then you are a spokesmen for them, official or not.

        I agree that America has financial issues that are very serious, but I am far more concerned with corporate welfare than a few who oppose the system, not at all concerned about practically non-existent voter fraud and voting ID issues clearly designed to keep minorities from the polls. We agree on a lot of issues, I just think we’ll never agree on the solutions.

        By the way, you have presented me with NO FACTS. NONE.

      • mcquestion5000

        Is the founder of the Tea Party Nation good enough for you? Who does speak for these racist morons? Youtube.

        watch?v=k-g7qmmr1ew

      • Gatortrapper

        Look dude, if you are so obtuse that you can’t figure it out then all the rationale explanations in the world from me won’t help you. Face it, you have your world view and anything that might contradict that world view is treated as either not existing or is rationalized away consistent with the theory of cognitive dissonance.

        Given that all the information that you have on the Tea Party comes from mainstream media and that your own personal knowledge is at best limited to a handful of interactions; and given that mainstream media is universally conceded as having pronounced animus toward the Tea Party then it stands to reason that all of the information received from that source is tainted.

        The Tea Party has three principles 1) a Constitutionally limited government of enumerated, not expanded, powers; 2) that operates in a fiscally responsible manner; and 3) that is committed to the maintenance and promotion of a free market economy.

        The “Tea Party” is not funded by the Koch Brothers or any other “cabal.” It is comprised of 1000’s of small groups that you can find in any community that are self funded. To conflate the few national groups that have succeeded in gaining size and prominence with the much larger cadre of small groups that dwarf those larger organizations is to seek out excuses for your views while ignoring reality. I don’t deny that the Koch’s may spend money on favored organizations or that their views often, but not always, dovetail with the “Tea Party Movements.” But isolated, even considerable, funding of those groups does not taint the larger number of groups nor does it make us less legitimate in our own right or make our views less valid. But you go ahead and live your fantasy world until you can grow up and be a little more mature in your thinking and reasoning. Then we can talk.

      • Peter Simatos

        And what is it called when an insurance company limits out a patient who desperately needs medical care or refuses to insure them because of a pre-existing condition causing death to said patient.

      • BobbyDP

        All you heard from mcquestion was what you WANTED to hear. You failed to understand the key facts about the GOP/TEA

      • strayaway

        You must be the gatekeeper with the key to understanding “the key facts about the GOP/TEA”.

        My understanding:

        __Democrats (wars, overspending , corruption)
        __Republicans (wars, overspending, corruption)
        X Not stupid enough to fall for it anymore.

      • BobbyDP

        All it takes to understand the GOP/TEA, is to see, hear and know evil.

    • Jim Bean

      You meant to say ‘uses faulty logic’ – am I correct?

  • Pipercat

    Your final paragraph is a pivot magnet. Throw that out for consumption and the usual counter is a disquisition on how Obama is a liar…

  • Matthew Reece

    “If you’re alive, you need health insurance. If you breathe, you need to
    be insured. Your choice to not be insured ends where my choice not to
    pay for you because you’re not insured begins; and since I don’t get
    that choice, you don’t have a choice as to whether you buy insurance
    (unless of course you just want to pay the $95 personal responsibility
    fee – which SHOCKER goes to cover YOUR OWN CARE). In other words, since some of my tax money goes towards paying for your care if you’re not
    insured (whether I like it or not) and therefore I don’t have a choice
    about paying, then you don’t have a choice when it comes to either
    getting insurance or paying the penalty for not having it.”

    You are basically saying that because you are denied liberty, that other people should be denied liberty as well. Here is a better idea: You should get the choice to not pay for people who are not insured, and you should advocate for having that choice. That way, you are not denied liberty and those who take their own risks get to suffer their own consequences.

    • Ilyssa

      You can blame Reagan for that. Another conservative failure.

      • Matthew Reece

        I do blame Reagan for that. (I am a free market anarchist, not a conservative.)

      • wawoo

        Sweetheart Reece has in other posts claimed to not be an anarchist but an “anarcho capitalist.” He now claims to be an anarchist. Deep, deep thinking revealed.

      • you mean you live off of other people’s taxes and are the first in line with your hand out.

    • Reynard Vulpes

      Here’s the score, bunky. Do NOT go to any health services if you are sick or injured. Die or get well, that’s the true independent way.

      Or are you just a moocher?

      IN fact I’m considering lobbying for an end to ER visits by indigents being paid for at all. You should be denied entry and services.

      Just go and die, as you want others to for “independence.”

      It would be a great service to Mom (mother nature) and evolution which you don’t believe in but is true science.

      Just go die and shut up.

      • Matthew Reece

        I am advocating that if people voluntarily enter an agreement to receive services, then they should pay for the services rendered to them. No one else should have to pay for them.

        I never said I don’t believe in evolution. You are making up false accusations.

  • tpy2012

    So why can’t I not take the insurance, pay the 95 dollar tax and pay my own medical expenses from the money I have earned, saved and invested on my own. Our President and his political “progressive” crownies wrote into the ppaca major kickbacks to insurance and pharmaceutical companies. The system is an attack on the American people and the “care” is sub-standard and will only get worse. What happens to the people who were covered, for the healthcare they needed, who will be losing their insurance next year when the employer mandate kicks in?. I’m not sure of what type of Flavorade you’ve been drinking, but you need to back up and look at the ACA for what it is….Another way to get into the pockets of those who have to give to those who don’t. And, I doubt that all of the Moderate and Independent folks in this country will enjoy what has been cast upon them.

    • Ilyssa

      The old system we had dug into taxpayer money to the tune of 40 Bil a year. The new system will save us 200 Bil over ten years. It’s not flavorade. It’s just math,

      • tpy2012

        The non partisan CBO does not agree with your numbers. In direct patient cost the system will cost an additional 1 trillion dollars over the next 10 years and this does not include the government reimbursement to insurance companies to cover for their loss of profits in caring for those with pre-existing disease.

      • Ilyssa

        My numbers came from the CBO you are just talking nonsense lies.

      • strayaway

        Sort of like the $600M for a website that didn’t work and should have cost $6M. You might be confusing math with beliefs or dreams.

    • Ilyssa

      Ie we are already redistributing now we are redistributing less. It’s real simple.

    • Bud

      So typ2012, you have a million dollars if you end up with pancreatic cancer or whatnot? Even with health insurance, you’ll likely be tapped out at all you can afford before you hit your out of pocket max. If you have saved millions, I agree, you should be able to skip on health insurance. But if you also should not be able to buy it later if you opt out now.

    • tpy2012,

      What’s a crownie? Thanks!

      • tpy2012

        I’m not sure what he meant by that….Crownie Capitalist perhaps?

    • stacey318

      You cannot make insurance available to individuals with pre-existing conditions without requiring insurance for everyone or else people would wait until they get sick to get insurance and the insurance companies would go bankrupt.

  • Bud

    I don’t think there should be a fine for not buying health insurance. But if you are paid at say 150% of the poverty level, or are in a household at that pay level, you should have to pay for any treatment at the emergency room up front, or be denied treatment. Just like you have to carry an insurance card, you should have to carry something showing your “poverty status”. Hey, if you wreck your car without insurance, nobody is paying for it but you. There could be a waiver for children of the moochers since it’s not their fault their parents are moochers, but for adults, pay up now or pay the piper if you aren’t one of the lucky ones that never gets sick or hurt.

  • Imma Commenter

    I agree with everything you have written with the exception of this being a massive hand out to insurance companies. I am an independent contracted agent with one of the largest insurance companies in the United States. The company I am contracted with has fought this law every step of the way. And now that there is no going back you wouldn’t believe the kind of cuts they are making internally so as to maintain their profit margins as best they can.

    I am thrilled we are taking this step in the right direction, and I hope we end up with a single payer system sooner rather than later!

    • truevalue

      I think it will drive prices down eventually – why else would the ins co fight so hard against it

      • raiderato

        Guaranteeing a demand without increasing the supply will not lower prices. It’s the easiest economics.

        Yes, this is more complicated than supply/demand, but the other complications are just window dressing compared to the underlying supply issues.

    • That’s literally insane.

    • Gatortrapper

      I find that hard to believe. With a single payer system this guy is out of a job as insurance companies in the health care industry are gone. So he must be either stupid or a troll.

  • Dsarducci

    Good article, but keep in mind most Teabaggers have insurance. In my experience, they tend to have Tricare through the military, Medicare, Medicaid, or employer-sponsored insurance. Yes, a few are probably moochers, but most “got theirs.” They’re like dogs in the manger. They’re covered, they just don’t want anybody else to be. Especially blacks and latinos. They are misinformed and think “Obamacare” is free insurance being given to minorities and they are having to pay for it. They’re wrong, but that’s what they think.

    • Truevalue

      From the looks of the poor looking red necks teabaggers carrying the signs – I doubt very seriously that many of them have theirs. They usually look too stupid to realize what is good for them. They usually look like faux news & rush limpballs followers.

      • Gatortrapper

        Wow, what a generalization. I bet you supported the wearing of Yellow Stars in Europe in the 30’s and 40’s. You’re a bigot and also ignorant.

    • Gatortrapper

      What an idiot. How can you know what we think? You have no idea. You only know that we oppose the PPACA and therefore we are your enemy, in your view. Sorry but solid logic reflects our judgment that this was ill conceived and misrepresented and would not achieve what it proposed by have the opposite effect: and it has. Ha ha ha ha …. how is that crow that ya’ll are having to swallow?

      • grafyter

        Tastes pretty good. You’ll see in a couple years when ACA has been running for a while. Did you also tell your kids they were lousy walkers after their first three steps?

  • John Clark

    In 19 and 74, because the big three didn’t want air bags, a law was passed requiring seat beats to be buckled or a bell would ring. In them there days, what we now call teabaggers would buckle the belts and sit down on them unprotected because freedom. Quickly, the law was overturned and for years, freedom lovers kept dying by hitting windshields in accidents. PPACA too was a comprise as in: airbags = single payer, this = seat belts. And also, the PPACA law gives states a whole lot of lead way, just like state seat belt laws did later. Insurance wise, like individual mandate car, it let’s states prosue the ways insuring health works best. VT, for instance, did do single payer. My MD, we have a coop, three big medical systems, the nonprofit Blue, and the big HMO’s in our state exchange. And, had many red states built exchanges, Oct 1 would have been easy (except for the closed down federal gob’ment workers). I’ll say, post 911 in DC, ER beds reduced because un-insurence. Hospitals stopped ER because they lost too much money. So, here at a ground zero, we don’t have enough capacity to even take a Republican Congressman if the terrorists hit again. And that’s how myopic this whole discussion is: because uninsurenced rely on ER, hospitals close them and real emergent care goes with it.

    • tpy2012

      It didn’t matter what anyone other than those who passed this bill believed. There was a majority vote obtained, some of the votes for the ACA were bought by the white house, Pelosi and Reid and those special interests who wanted this, and it was purely a partisan vote. What we have now represents what the originators of the bill wanted. It was purely a democratic issue. The ER will still be abused. Doctor appointments will be harder to come by and the behavior of the people for which this law was directed will not change. And, unless something changes, we will be paying for this for generations to come, but with deflated dollars.

      • Imma Commenter

        “Doctor appointments will be harder to come by”

        1) incredibly selfish statement.

        2) keeping people healthy by giving them wellness visits means doctors spend less time treating more serious issues…which frees them up to see your selfish, inconsiderate a$$.

      • raiderato

        He’s not “selfish” or even “inconsiderate”. You assume that the # of doctors will continue to rise at the same rate (or an even higher rate to keep up with the increase in patients).

        However, the incentives to become a doctor are lowered. Don’t get me wrong, they’re still large, but they have been lowered. Lower profits, larger bureaucracy, etc. will cause more doctors to retire early, and lower the rate of new doctors coming into the system. Best case scenario is a large strain on the current system.

        The system will react. But how do you react when the product you’re selling is in high demand?

      • Imma Commenter

        He is both. Countries that have true socialized medicine, which Obamacare is not, do not have shortages of doctors. He’s regurgitating talking points that have no basis in fact & displaying his selfishness while doing so.

      • raiderato

        I’m talking about our system. Not someone else’s.

        Reality vs. Dream.

        It’s going to put a heavy strain on the system, if it works properly. If it doesn’t work properly, there will be a smaller strain on the system.

      • Imma Commenter

        You’re regurgitating talking points as well. The reality is there is no proof in any system that everyone having health insurance causes a shortage of doctors.

      • raiderato

        I’m not on the “talking point” listserv, so you’d know better than me about that.

        It’s really simple logic. If the incentives to do something are lower, then fewer people will do it. There will need to be an increase in incentives to support the (hopefully just) short term drop in supply.

        But, by all means, go ahead and keep denying and downvoting the simplest logic there is.

      • Imma Commenter

        Show me the studies that prove your claim to be true. There is speculation put out there by the same folks at the Heritage Foundation who came up with the idea back in the 90s when Hillary Clinton was 1st lady & talking universal health care. Back then they said it wouldn’t be an issue.

        But now the scary Kenyan marxist-socialist who stole the election by getting more people to vote for him than the other guy got it done, so according to the people who created the idea, which Mitt Romney used as governor of MA, it’s going to fail because…well just because!

      • strayaway

        Ok, “The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the government body that administers the insurance program, told (Melinda Beck in The Wall Street Journal) that 9,539 doctors opted out of the system in 2012; while that represents less than 1.5% of the 685,000 doctors who currently participate in Medicare, it’s more than twice as many as opted out in 2009.” ” Beck also writes about doctors who are unhappy with some of the information-sharing they’re required to do under the Affordable Care Act and other recent health-care reform laws. “Medicare is now paying incentives to doctors who switch to electronic medical records and who send data on quality measures to the federal government,” Beck writes, and “doctors who are part of the Medicare program who don’t do so will face penalties starting in 2015.” Beck’s sources note that those changes are a particular affront to some older, private-practice physicians, who feel they’re being compelled to change the way they’ve worked for decades.” -Marketwatch 7/29/13

      • Imma Commenter

        “Beck’s sources note that those changes are a particular affront to some
        older, private-practice physicians, who feel they’re being compelled to
        change the way they’ve worked for decades.”

        And as for that, tough…the world is changing. How business is done also changes. Are these doctors also lamenting the fact that they no longer get to shove a stick in someone’s mouth as “anesthetic” while they saw off a limb?

      • strayaway

        Your point was that you asked for proof that universal healthcare would cut back on the number of doctors. i provided numbers showing that was the case. Some of these older doctors have enough money that they don’t have to jump through bureaucratic hoops. perhaps they went into medicine to heal and not to do paperwork so they are retiring a bit early. This probably wan’t anticipated by government planners either.

      • Imma Commenter

        And I posted a link to a story that included your 9,500 number, but that post was apparently not approved by a moderator.

        At any rate, that story spoke of your number and then went on to mention how even more doctors are seeing medicare patients, not less.

        And you still show no proof that these doctors are retiring from the profession altogether. So you still haven’t proved anything. All you’ve done is recycle baseless talking points from those selfish, greedy individuals making a mint off of insurance company lobbyists who work for insurance companies that don’t want to insure people who may actually need coverage.

        It just amazes me how everyone hated their respective insurance companies before Obama and now they are madly in love with them.

      • strayaway

        Your imagination is getting the better of you. I don’t like insurance companies. I am presently fighting a $300 charge now and have had other misadventures in the past. Putting insurance companies and the federal government on the same side of the fence and health care recipients on the other though seems like an even worse idea. That is an expression of corporatism which is the nice term for economic fascism.

        I will stick with the Wall Street Journal numbers rather than you apprehensions. But if you don’t like that article, just Google “obamacare doctors quit” to see if any articles pop up. Mostly, it seems, they are just trying to get out of Medicare. Some are retiring a little early. Then there is the matter of some medical systems reducing the numbers of their doctors in an effort to cut costs to offset lower medicare payments.

      • Imma Commenter

        I’m an insurance agent you bozo. Have been for years. I know how the system works. Primarily Medicare since that is my specialty. What you are implying here is false. I don’t care what your sources are…the numbers are twisted.

        And cutting the number of doctors (if it were true) doesn’t have any impact on Medicare payments. Doctors are paid by Medicare for performing procedures. It doesn’t matter how many of them there are. If they’re standing around twiddling their thumbs they’re not costing Medicare a dime.

      • strayaway

        You don’t care what my sources are for doctors getting out? Then why did you ask for any? Now you don’t care how many there are.

        You criticize “selfish, greedy individuals making a mint off of insurance company lobbyists who work for insurance companies” and now you say that you are an insurance agent.

        Let us know when you catch your tail.

      • Imma Commenter

        I asked you for sources because I knew you’d post sources that don’t tell the entire story.

        Yes I’m an insurance agent. One who is in favor of eventually having a single payer system. You know, one that would put an end to health insurance companies. I help people to find the coverage that is right for them and meets their needs. I treat my prospective clients with honesty & respect. Which is why many who choose to remain with their current coverage send many referrals my way…they appreciate the fact that I tell them the truth, even if they are better off with a competitor’s coverage.

        If there were a single payer system that meant an end to health insurance companies that would be fine with me.

      • Gatortrapper

        Now that was brilliant. You really think that is a good analogy? Really? You’re amusing but then again so is the village idiot talking to themselves.

      • Gatortrapper

        First the PPACA bears little resemblance to what Heritage proposed. Second, the backed away from the use of the mandate when the realization that it would be violative of individual rights and the Constitution to require it. But you go ahead and cling to your desperate rationalization. I bet you believe the 3rd greatest lie in life too.

      • Imma Commenter

        Wrong and wrong. You stupid conservatives go on and on about personal responsibility & then wail about legislation that requires personal responsibility. All because it became possible thanks to a democrat…and a black one at that.

      • Gatortrapper

        Unlike Liberals we conservatives are happy to provide links to our positions: here is the link to the Brookings site that published Stuart Butler of Heritage’s modified suggestions on what STATES might do in concert with the federal changes to tax treatment to expand the availability of health care IN 2007…. Note that it predates Obama and the 2008 election. You’ll have to access the site and pull down the paper and read it to confirm, but you will see that no only did Heritage retreat from a “mandate” for the individual they address reasons why they had reconsidered the efficacy. Note also that the changes were to be made by STATES which have plenary police power to impose such MANDATES which the Federal government doesn’t have. Even your “Constitutional Law” President would have to agree with that (I got my law degree the same month as he did and he is a light weight).

        The moderator here doesn’t allow links I guess so you will have to just go to brookingsjDOTedu and search using “butler and 2007″ and it will give that as the top option.

        As for your reference to the race of the President, I resent your injecting your racial bias into the discussion. It’s a mark of ignorance that might be a hallmark of the liberals to harbor racial animus but we members of the Tea Party don’t tolerate it and rebuke anyone who expresses views that smack of racism. It’s reprehensible and you should be ashamed to publicly promote it.

        As for my intelligence and your suggestion that I might not be very smart, I’ll consider the source.

      • Gatortrapper

        Glad to see that the reference establishing the falsity of your claim about Heritage shut you up.

      • grafyter

        I absolutely agree! I mean the evidence is clear as the nose on one’s face. Look at teachers and nurses and EMT’S and all kinds of other professions where the monetary gains are HUGE! People don’t EVER do things for goals other than money! ( said the republican)

      • raiderato

        Incentives include non-monetary things as well. However, when you’re lowering the monetary incentives, you are still lowering the incentives.

        Also, those professions you list do not require the same investment (time, money, education, etc.) as being a doctor. The incentives much more easily cover the expenses (time, money, etc.).

      • grafyter

        Look at wellness, death rates, life expectancy, and infant mortality rates for all nations. Those First World nations with socialized medicine are all better than the privatized system we have here. Why is that?

      • John Clark

        In those days in ’09-’10, lots of us were disappointed by how much this became a Republican bill. We lobbied for single payer, but Obama and the rest wanted this to be bipartisan, even passing over 150 GOP amendments. I’ve seen just how much the Republicans drove this country into the ground, but their failure to support reforms they have backed for over 20 years seems a new low.

        Yes, the red states will lose doctors. They’re already seeing hospitals closing down (see above). And also, it means fewer trauma centers and ER’s. And, in the red states, it will likely mean higher costs for those who can pay since those states are refusing Medicaid expansion. You want to blame Obama and not fix it, that’s up to you.

        To me, I’m fine with the PPACA. It will be interesting to have all these doctors coming to Maryland from down south, lower health costs to us, even a new hospital down the road is coming. Another $600 mil investment with new medical and research centers likely adding even more development.

        For the red states: they’re just cutting off their noses to spite their faces. And with no ER’s, they’re going to bleed out. Sorry, we tried to help.

  • J.G. Smith

    Did you just advocate for no choice? Seems I’ve heard the, “I didn’t get a choice to send my tax money to support you, so you shouldn’t get a choice either” argument somewhere else.

  • Jim Bean

    I thought it was these old white successful Tea Partiers that we were depending on to pay for all this stuff we want to spend their money on?

  • rick dalton

    Let one if these idiots get cancer or a long term illness and see how fast their insurance company cancel their policies then they would be wishing they had ACA coverage

    • josephebacon

      They won’t you’ll still have millions of teabaggers who will send money to TV pulpit pimps to pray for them.

  • This “revamping a health care system which was in serious need of an overhaul. ” …they didn’t revamp or fix anything, all they have done is set the brokenness in stone. It is absolutely insane, but I don’t expect a liberal to understand anything.

  • Gatortrapper

    Not much of an attorney based on this narrative. She posits a position e.g. Tea Party members are moochers because they refuse to follow the PPACA but offers nothing in the form of evidence, anecdotal or empirical, that in any way supports her supposition. Like many lawyers who are marginal the author of this piece merely conjectures that the political views that she finds offensive are therefore the source of the failure of the program that was implemented in a manner that ignored the views of the vast majority of Americans.

  • KC

    How about hospitals turn away non trauma patients with no insurance or means to pay in advance. There are public health clinics in most large cities, let the tea moochers go to one of them when they have the flu or break a bone or shoot themselves in the ass. No more emergency room visits for general care.

  • bayhuntr

    I’ve been staying this for the last year, where are the rest of the progressives where are the rest of Democrats? They should’ve making this about freeloaders from day one, you don’t want to have insurance, than you’re a freeloader and you’re stealing my money.

  • Indie_Thinker

    Conservatives forget (or didn’t even pay attention) that Democrats tried to compromise with Republicans, and gave in to some of their demands, when crafting the ACA. Then the Republicans turned around and voted against it anyway. The Democrats shouldn’t have compromised at all, and the ACA wouldn’t have been weakened and its implementation wouldn’t have been delayed. The Rs weakened it to benefit insurance companies, and so they could turn around and criticize it at every turn.