Frequent Libertarian campaigner Emmett Reistroffer donned a Barack Obama mask and paraded through downtown Sioux Falls Tuesday to protest the Affordable Care Act. Reistroffer posts his photo and complaint to Facebook, and the comment section explodes with discussion of freedom, liberty, and the government doing violence and enslaving us all.
Two commenters set things straight: the Affordable Care Act is not tyranny and enslavement. The Affordable Care Act helps people enjoy more liberty.
I'm waiting to hear what the libertarians want in place of the ACA as well. Something emotional and ill-reasoned, perhaps? All this talk of freedom and liberty seems to ignore what those things are in actuality. Despite preference for a real solution such as single payer, the conservative ACA is a decent step in the right direction. I'm looking forward to my "freedom" and "liberty" to avoid the exorbitant costs and strain on the economy caused by the uninsured and the unrestrained practices of the insurance industry. Libertarians might live in a land where people don't get sick, and even if they do, charity hospitals take care of them, but I live in a world where the richest nation on the planet can't take care of its sick. The "freedom" not to have health insurance is akin to the "freedom" not to have the "socialist fire department" save me from my burning home. Libertarian notions of having their freedom stolen is true only in the sense that a small fraction of their income has to go towards helping others. Isn't that a crime [Stephen Wood, Facebook comment, 2013.10.04].
Good analogy and good point about all of the freedoms the ACA affords people. Freedom for the insured to no longer be robbed by the uninsured through inflated insurance rates and property taxes. Freedom for people to quit their job and start their own business (with or without a pre-existing condition). Freedom for people who prescribe themselves a smaller dose than the Dr. did because they are forced to budget their prescriptions. Freedom from the #1 cause of bankruptcy, etc... [Ned Horsted, Facebook comment, 2013.10.04].
Libertarians like abstractions. Even I like a good round of philosophizing. But most Americans like money in their pockets, because money is liberty. (Why else would Republicans like Congressman Lee Terry from Nebraska say they "cannot handle" doing without a paycheck during the current government shutdown?) A family has more liberty when it can afford health insurance than when it can't. If you can get decent health insurance for 6.3% of your income or less if your income takes a hit, you have more liberty to switch to a new job or start your own business or even step out of the regular workforce to take care of your family.
Reistroffer and the Republicans in Congress say they love liberty, but in their intransigence agaisnt the Affordable Care Act, they are fighting to take practical liberty away from millions of Americans.
Bonus Reading: Media Matters takes debunks 15 more myths about the Affordable Care Act, which is law, and which will stay law.
I do not see the persuasive appeal in the argument that our society should have the liberty to allow the poor to suffer and die for treatable conditions. I do not see that as a freedom our society should enjoy.
Certainly for the affluent, wealth converts to "freedom," but at what level of affluence does "freedom" kick in? Instead of the ACA, how about get focused on a real liberty killers - like Citizen's United or legislative gerrymandering or anti-union/organizing statutes? Stop using "liberty" as an excuse for conservative lazy thinking.
And then there is Citizens United decision that says money is speech.
Good post The practical liberty that the ACA provides will be a boon to entrepreneurship in our nation. The freedom for folks to chase their dreams and ideas without the fear of sickness destroying the family finances is a more practical freedom than the freedom to be unburdened by your neighbors misfortune.
Some people think Obamacare wants to put a computer chip in your arm. It does make a person wonder how many people have a basic understanding of the law and how many are totally full of .... misinformation: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/05/bill-maher-americans-know-nothing-obamacare_n_4049573.html
I watched the Jimmy Kimmel video about Obamacare v. Affordable Care Act. Yes, that's what he asked people on the street: Which did they prefer? People pontificated on their choices. It was either sad or frightening, or maybe both. The respondents were the GOP myth buyers.
Cory. You have a good grasp of who should be looking into ACA. So do many of your readers. I have not kept up with this issue like I try to do with many other issues in my city, SF, state and national. The reason I do not know a lot about it is partly my fault, but mostly because our media is focused on the political battle and not who it can help.
For over thirty years we have had federal blue cross blue shield. Good insurance, but very expensive, even though my former employer picks up a sizable chunk. It still takes more than I care out of my pension check. Should we be looking into this, or do we even qualify? Feel kinda embarrassed for even asking, but to this point haven't really felt it affected me.
Poly, don't be embarrasses for asking. You're not the only person who's been so flooded with the political coverage that you've been hesitant to look into the details of the actual law.
If your employer provides health insurance, you're usually not eligible for the health insurance exchanges. However, there are exceptions. If your employer's plan doesn't provide the minimum benefits the ACA requires, you can buy on the exchange (but if you have BCBS, your plan likely meets the minimums reqs). If your share of the premium is more than 9.5% of your income, you can buy on the exchange. Check out this info sheet from the feds: https://www.healthcare.gov/what-if-i-have-job-based-health-insurance/
Deb, Kimmel's video is a funny representation of March 2013 survey data from the Kaiser Foundation. Don't say the words "Affordable Care Act" or "ObamaCare," ask people about specific policy planks of the ACA, and you find overwhelming support for most of the law. The one negative poller: the individual mandate... because we Americans don't like being told what to do, even when we ought to do it.
Thanks for the link Cory. Got a lot of reading ahead of me. WHY is the media stuck in the political end of this and not the nuts and bolts? I suspect my wife and I will not qualify. We are both retired, on the family plan I had for years while employed. If that 9.5% applies to retiree's as well, then we prolly stay where we are. Still, damn expensive. My wife thinks we're getting a hell of a break comparing what we pay out of pocket now versus what it would cost without my former employers contribution.
Federal blue cross blue shield costs over $1300 a month without employer help. Seems extremely high. I suspect it is so high now because hospitals are covering their shortfalls from the uninsured. I guess these premium costs would go down if everyone were insured.
On the media: two thoughts.
(1) Covering the nuts and bolts is boring and complicated. Really working to educate people is harder than just hyping a soap opera.
(2) Covering the nuts and bolts would make clear that lots of people can save a lot of money. Some reporters might be afraid to do that coverage because they are afraid that they would come out sounding like they are promoting the ACA, when in fact they would simply be giving an objective report about an awesome policy that sells itself. And believe me, if any TV station or news paper runs a story that runs simple facts that make ACA sound good, they will get calls from their local Tea Party customers blasting them for "liberal bias."
Do those two points sound logical?
I think it's spot on Cory. The 4th Estate is now a rental property.
The latest press escape from real news is to interview two entertainment or sports celebrities to get both sides of an important political issue. Depth and facts are not the usual result.