Connect with us

Economy

Murkowski opposition to Obamacare penalty reeks of irony

Published

on

Murkowski opposition to Obamacare penalty reeks of irony

Mitch McConnell gets a much deserved bad reputation, but by all means, he is far from the worst Republican Senator. The worst is John McCain, easily. Number two arguably is split between Lisa Murkowski and Susan Collins. Lisa Murkowski sports a 22% Liberty Score. The low rank is partially attributable to her lack of support for repealing Obamacare. Murkowski wasn’t even supportive of “Skinny Repeal.” So when Murkowski announced her opposition to the Obamacare individual mandate, I couldn’t help but read that with a certain sense of disgust. In her article published in a local newspaper, Murkowski begins by saying:

have always supported the freedom to choose. I believe that the federal government should not force anyone to buy something they do not wish to buy in order to avoid being taxed. That is the fundamental reason why I opposed the Affordable Care Act from its inception and also why I cosponsored a bill to repeal the individual mandate tax penalty starting as early as 2013. And that is why I support the repeal of that tax today.

If this is true where was she when Conservatives were trying to repeal? It is absolutely disgusting when Senators say they oppose something they voted to keep in place. She does address that in the next paragraph.

Over the course of this year, the Senate has considered bills that would have repealed Medicaid expansion, completely transformed the base Medicaid program, converted the individual exchanges into a block grant program, cut Planned Parenthood out of Medicaid reimbursement for a year, and other measures. All of those bills went far beyond the fundamental problems presented by the ACA and would have unnecessarily taken away access to care from those who need it most.

So basically, she opposes conservative healthcare reform. I’m not Trumpcare was a conservative solution, but we can certainly count her out voting yes on the free market solution. But in this paragraph she shows her pro-abortion colors in a support for Planned Parenthood receiving taxpayer dollars to kill babies and fund democrats. Nevermind that Planned Parenthood is an easily replaceable part in actual women’s health. Murkowski then delves into both a defense and critique of Obamacare. She states that the ACA has helped so many Alaskans and Alaskans pay the highest premiums. She tops it off by saying:

Repealing the individual mandate simply restores to people the freedom to choose. Nothing else about the structure of the ACA would be changed. If you currently get tax credits to help pay for your insurance, you could still receive those credits if you choose to buy an exchange plan. If you are enrolled on Medicaid or received coverage under Medicaid expansion, you could still be enrolled if you choose to be. The only difference would be is if you choose to not buy health insurance, the government would not levy a tax on you.

Let’s for a second, recall that it was the Supreme Court that rewrote the ACA to make the individual mandate a tax. It was clearly a fine, even Obama said it wasn’t a tax. The fine was hardly the worst thing about Obamacare. In fact, the fine is the only possible way Obamacare could work, which is why it was written into law in the first place. Obamacare is a halfway step to a government healthcare system. Without the mandate, rising premiums will further incentivizing people to not buy health insurance causing more rising premiums. It’s a spiral.

Murkowski does delve deeper into healthcare reform touting a bipartisan bill supported by fellow RINO Lamar Alexander, Liberty Score 17%.

Protecting the gains we’ve made with provisions of the ACA while providing greater control to states and options for individuals is why I have been working for bipartisan solutions to the health care challenges we face. Instead of taxing people for not being able to afford coverage, we should be working to reduce costs and provide options. That is precisely what the bipartisan legislation introduced by Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tennessee, and Sen. Patty Murray, D-Washington, which I have cosponsored, achieves.

While I support repealing the individual mandate, I strongly support enacting the bipartisan compromise Alexander/Murray legislation into law as fast as possible to stabilize our markets, provide more control to states and more choices to individuals.

Murkowski goes on full betrayal of her promise to her constituents. Instead of opposing Obamacare, she is actively sponsoring it’s “rescue” sponsoring the Murray/Alexander plan. Sometimes there’s beauty in compromise. This is not one of those times. Murkowski went back on what she promised to do. Even now, she states no opposition to Obamacare, merely it’s core mandate. To hear her oppose the penalty is seething with irony. So while Republicans may have her vote on their latest tax reform bill, any Obamacare repeal efforts will need her replacement in 2022.

Further Reading

Alexander-Murray Health Care Deal Shouldn’t Go Through

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/452885/no-alexander-murrayIn other words, the Alexander-Murray deal is a solution to an overblown problem. The deal is being sold as a short-term fix, appropriating funds through 2019. But in all likelihood it would wind up being permanent, like most government spending, with Congress simply renewing it when its time runs out.

In exchange for appropriating the Obamacare funds, Republicans would get . . . nothing much. No Hyde Amendment–type protections are included on the CSR subsidies, for instance, meaning the funds could go to insurance plans that cover abortions.

Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Economy

Thomas Sowell makes a clear point about Medicare-for-All

Published

on

Thomas Sowell makes a clear point about Medicare-for-All

How was the left able to take heat away from their Medicare-for-All proposal, and more specifically the estimated $32 trillion price tag over a decade? They tripled down with the Green New Deal, which some estimate would cost upwards near $100 trillion.

So, the price tag of the Democrats’ desired replacement for utterly failing Obamacare is to take current government control over healthcare and put it on a regiment of steroids and methamphetamine. When you’re going through Hell, keep going, I suppose.

But all of this could be alleviated if voters and politicians took a moment to think about the prospects of Medicare-for-All logically. Let’s erase, for a moment, the Utopian notion that taxing rich people extreme amounts will give us enough money to make healthcare free for everyone while also improving the quality. That’s the goal, right? Cheaper, better healthcare is what most people want. Conservatives believe it’s best to pull government administration out of the equation and put it all on a competitive capitalist model that has worked for nearly every other industry for over a century. Hyper-leftists want to add more government control.

Conservative commentator Thomas Sowell has some thoughts on the matter. One in particular can be wrapped up into an eloquent quote that should be ideological checkmate allowing us to win the healthcare debate.

“It is amazing that people who think we cannot afford to pay for doctors, hospitals, and medication somehow think that we can afford to pay for doctors, hospitals, medication and a government bureaucracy to administer it.”

Of course, our version of checkmate requires common sense, logic, and basic math skills. These attributes aren’t as readily present on the left, therefore they might hear this logic and still think single-payer makes sense.

Will you help revive the American Conservative Movement?

 


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading

Democrats

Bernie 2020, the union: How organized labor is the latest play for primary points

Published

on

Bernie 2020 the union How organized labor is the latest play for primary points

When one Democratic candidate goes to the left, the other candidates lurch to match. We’ve seen it in support for the Green New Deal, Medicare-for-All, and super-high tax rates for the rich. We’re about to see it in regards to organized labor as Bernie Sanders’s campaign has become the first group in presidential campaign history to form a union.

My Take

Whether this was a decision by campaign leadership to demonstrate their boss’s leftist credibility or of they’re simply being the leftists that they are, we can’t be sure. In fact, we’ll almost certainly never know. Either way, it’s done and now all of the other leftist campaigns have to respond.

Expect every major campaign team to unionize soon. It’s not because it will make them more effective. It won’t help them get better benefits or retain their jobs for longer term since the organization will fundamentally change following the election. All it will do is allow them to make the claim they’re so pro-union, they’re willing to accept the lost productivity associated with organized labor.

This is quickly becoming the most symbol-driven primary election season we’ve seen in decades, perhaps ever. It would all be very entertaining if it weren’t so dangerous to the American psyche.

Continue Reading

Economy

Busted: The myth that old 90% tax rates actually worked

Published

on

Busted The myth that old 90 tax rates actually worked

One of the favorite tactics for the new Democrats to push their idea of super-high taxes on the rich is to invoke Dwight D. Eisenhower. They say even a Republican President once believed in high taxes on the rich, a time in which the highest tax bracket was 90%.

John Stossel an economic historian Phillip Magness debunked the myth that rich people actually paid the extreme tax rates of the past in this video. As usual, Democrats have selective memories when it comes to anything they want to press.

Back in the days of high taxes for the rich, there were enough loopholes intentionally left open for them to cut their actual tax rates tremendously. According to Magness, the actual average rate paid by millionaires back then was around 41%. With fewer loopholes available today, the highest tax bracket of 37% is close to what is actually paid by those earning the most money. But what would happen if the high tax rates of the past were combined with the lack of loopholes of today? We’d have an economic collapse that would hit so swiftly, there’s no way Democrats would have time to react.

The bottom line is this: the best producers in America will no longer have an incentive to produce here. Some would leave. Others would simply stop producing. It’s easier for them to reduce their revenue and live off their accumulated riches than to earn money for the government to take. Even at a “more reasonable” 70% tax rate, as proposed by some of the top Democrats today, the increase would be too great for most wealthy Americans to bear. We saw this play out in France. We could see it play out here if the Democrats get their way.

Fighting the talking points of the left is one of the biggest reasons conservative sites like NOQ Report exist. We call on those who want to help prevent the rise of socialistic ideas to contribute to us; as a news outlet that is crowdfunded, you’ll notice a conspicuous lack of spammy ads that you find on other sites. This is intentional and allows us to reach a broader audience with the conservative truth.

Democrats love pretending like raising taxes on the rich will solve all of our problems. They know it’s not true, but it certainly sound good in campaign speeches. This isn’t really a tax grab. It’s a power grab designed to confuse the people.

Will you help revive the American Conservative Movement?

 


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading

Facebook

Trending

Copyright © 2019 NOQ Report