After Obamacare ruling, conservative group announces $9 million campaign against it. Sore Loser?
In response to the Supreme Court ruling upholding President Barack Obama's health care law, Americans for Prosperity, a conservative advocacy group, announced plans on Friday to spend $9 million on a campaign against the law.
The project includes a new ad
that will run in media markets in a dozen swing states, and focuses on
the president's insistence that the federal mandate to purchase health
insurance is not a "tax." On Thursday, the Supreme Court ruled that the
provision is constitutional only if it's considered a tax, although the
White House continues to refer to it as a "penalty."
The ad advocates for the repeal
of the law and calls it "one of the largest tax increases in history," a
line sure to be repeated on the presidential campaign trail.
"Obama's health care law is
actually one of the largest tax increases in history," a female narrator
says in the ad. "Shouldn't President Obama's priorities have been
creating jobs and ending reckless spending?"
Charles and David Koch,
billionaires who donate heavily to political causes, are the founders of
the group paying for the campaign, and the group has spent several
million dollars already this year on anti-Obama issue ads.
The birthers have a new delusion it appears.
Then there is this that I received from my congresswoman:
Since President Obama signed the Affordable Care Act into law two years ago, it has made a difference in the lives of Hawaii’s families and seniors.
Nearly 25,000 people on Medicare have saved over $14.5 million in prescription drug costs.
More than 200,000 people helped control long-term health costs by gaining preventive health service coverage.
Parents have been able to keep an estimated 6,000 young adults in Hawaii on their plans until age 26.
Now who and why would anyone be against this?
No one has explained why Nixon was so wrong in proposing this 40 years ago.
I can still understand why people would oppose higher costs to themselves especially if they don't benefit from those higher costs. I can also understand why people would oppose any additional government involvement in their daily lives. I'm not claiming to agree with them, but I don't assume they are ignorant simply because they disagree with my POV. I could never be that arrogant.
Well the costs are not that high and sorry but I have no sympathy for them. Everyone should have healthcare and even if it is expensive, it should be obtained. Sure beats becoming a vegetable and sponging off society for many years.
Government involvement? Just telling people to get health care. I don't consider that unreasonable.
Let me give you an example, one of many millions in this country. This is a true situation. A 48 year old woman has a husband that must be cared for 24 hours a day. He cannot be left alone as he is a danger to himself. The husband has SSDI to pay for his medical needs and the monthly income is his $725.00 per month SSDI payment. She has no insurance. She cannot work as she must be home with her husband around the clock. The least expensive garbage policy she could get a quote for was $525.00 per month. She cannot qualify for medicaid as medicaid has a "work' and "job search" requirement in the state in which she lives. According to the "How will Affordable Healthcare Affect You" website put out by the Obama Administration she is one who will be penalized for not carrying insurance. Now according to you who has no sympathy for these people tell me how this woman is supposed to pay for the tax or the penalty or get healthcare under the PPACA?
I think they have a pretty good reason to be against having to pay a penalty for not being able to purchase something they cannot afford. And this case is not unique. I know virtually scores of similar situations.
What is your answer to that.