Obamacare protects the financially troubled

If you believe that everyone having health care is socialism, you may also believe everyone having food is communism. When you create a product that people want to have because it’s fun and change the product to be exactly what you want, you tend to make money off of people who can afford it. When you create a product that people may need to live, you stand to make even more money because the people involved have no choice but to give it to you. When you use the same business model for both, you may accidently create a business that bleeds your demographic to the point of starvation and in the process kills so many people that a government institution is forced to intervene for the purpose of protecting its voiceless citizens.

The word socialism, to me, is like the word freedom, in that if a person in power feels a certain way but doesn’t have much of a foundation, he can just scream it and get people’s attention. In my opinion, having health care is not only not a form of socialism or control, but rather a freedom that some in power may not want some people to have. Maintaining control over someone’s health, I believe, is among the greatest forms of control.

My favorite thing about the claims that the Affordable Care Act (ACA) is a form of control over people, is that it’s unconstitutional. It may seem that way if you’re not familiar with what’s actually in the Constitution, specifically where it’s stated that laws deemed so by the supreme court are in fact constitutional, which the ACA was. Not to mention the fact that the house GOP (Republican party) has attempted to repeal the ACA over 40 times and failed all of those times, which according to our system of government, means that it is favorable to the majority of our elected representatives, or at least our senate representatives, and therefore favorable by the majority of Americans. The ACA was also among the biggest foundations of Barack Obama’s election campaign, and there’s no mistaking the fact that he won; he received both the electoral and popular votes. Now how in the world in our democratic society could a law that is supported by our legislative branch, our executive branch and our judicial branch also be Socialism? Last time I checked, we definitely do not have a dictator by any way shape or form because if we did, everyone who speaks out against the president would have their heads cut off, so maybe it’s safe to say that “King Obama” did magically make the law happen under our noses, but the majority of voting Americans (and through them elected congressmen and supreme court judges) that determined this law would be best for our country. It should also be noted that the new healthcare system is a marketplace, you don’t have to buy it if you don’t want to. People are definitely allowed to keep their old policies. I know this to be true because I still have mine.

According to theAtlantic.com, many Americans support the Affordable Care Act due to its basic priniciples but do not support Obamacare because of ignorance to the fact that they are the same thing. One myth is that the ACA is unpopular among senior citizens, but a poll accessed from busninessweek.com shows that only 14 percent of senior citizens disapprove of Medicare Part D, with 64 percent approving. According to a rudimentary Google search, many of the recent drops in the ACA’s approval rating are directly linked to technical problems occurring with its website. As I put myself in the shoes of an anti-ACA supporter and say out loud, “People that need health care shouldn’t get it because this website is slow and glitchy sometimes!,” I’m disgusted with their lack of morals as well as weak from laughter that it would actually be their argument. I’ll admit the site could have been handled better, but being mature that he is, so did the president when he apologized for the technical difficulties. I’m excited to see what naysayers will say when the technical problems are resolved.

Another argument against the ACA is that it hurts small business by making employers pay for their employees’ healthcare. The question here is that if you’re not going to pay your employees enough that they can take care of themselves, what’s the point of paying them at all? We as a society created laws to protect employees from employers because we were sick of becoming hungry and not being able to do anything about it. Now we want to create laws to protect us from becoming ill and not being able to do anything about it and the same kinds of people opposing these laws are the ones who opposed those laws then.

Another question about this law is whether it causes existing health insurance policies to be cancelled. Well this is simply not true. As I mentioned before, the law does allow the government to intervene upon existing health insurance plans, in that it holds those policies to a certain standard of coverage. If your existing health coverage did not meet that standard, it doesn’t help you in time of need or simply costs a huge amount without paying that back, then that coverage must be increased to the federal standard. I must cover pre-existing conditions among other things. If a health plan is cancelled, it is because the insurance company refused to meet those standards because they either don’t think you need it or you weren’t willing to pay vastly increased prices.

It sounds to me like the biggest reason that the Affordable Care Act exists, is ironically because there was no dictator to tell us that they didn’t like or want it, but rather the American system of democracy screaming that yes they did want it and if the greatest enemy of the anti “Obamacare” movement is the support of our society and democratic system, than it’s obvious to me who the real ‘wanna-be’ tyrants are.