Earlier this week on Fox News’ the O’Reilly Factor Bill O’Reilly explained that the current battle over healthcare is a “classic” left vs. right battle.
He showed that the fight was really all about economics and about who’s philosophy was better for the country. It’s an argument between socialism and the free market, even if the current GOP leadership wants more of a mixed model that leans towards socialism while still allowing citizens to opt-out.
It is a classic left-right brawl.
President Obama and the Democrats wanted to provide healthcare to Americans who could not or would not pay for it.
The Republican Party and President Trump do not want to do that.
So the battle lines are drawn.
Here are the facts:
Eighty-one-percent of all Americans who signed up for the Obamacare health plan will receive government assistance this year.
Some will have their entire healthcare premium paid for by the government.
That cost American taxpayers more than $100 billion last year alone.
That’s the essence of Obamacare, that all Americans are forced to buy health insurance so that the have-nots can be subsidized and covered.
It is estimated that since Obamacare passed, 13 million people have health insurance who did not have it before.
Enter President Trump, who says that Obamacare costs way too much and is a disaster in every way.
So the Republicans will put forth a new national healthcare plan.
This one will not order you to buy health insurance.
If you don’t buy it, your option will be to go to the emergency room and get treated.
If you can’t pay, the taxpayer picks it up just like the old days.
If you cannot afford health insurance premiums, the Republicans want the states to handle it through Medicaid.
President Trump and his acolytes essentially want out of the healthcare business and will send federal money to the individual states so they can decide who gets what.
But the Medicaid tax dollars will be capped.
Liberals hate that, they want the feds to dictate health insurance costs and who gets it free or subsidized.
So that’s essentially where we are.
The key question for you, the American citizen, is, will your healthcare premiums go up or down once Obamacare is history?
Today the Congressional Budget Office said that under the Republican plan, the feds will spend about $337 billion dollars less subsidizing healthcare over the next ten years.
But about 21 million more Americans will not have health insurance by the year 2020.
Again, that would mostly be their choice.
The CBO does not know what might happen if the insurance companies are allowed to compete nationwide, which they cannot do now.
Will that drive premiums down?
That’s the hope on the Trump side.
But not on the left:
SEN. BERNIE SANDERS (I-VT): “This really has nothing to do with healthcare. What this has everything to do with is a massive shift of wealth from working people and middle-income people to the very richest people in this country. It is a $275 billion tax break for the top two percent.”
Senator Sanders is angry because the Republican healthcare plan knocks out an Obamacare payroll tax and a tax on investment income.
Sanders says that gives money to the rich people and that’s always the argument from the left — any tax breaks, especially on investment income sales of stocks, interest, that kind of thing, helps the wealthy.
But the Trump administration has promised to lower taxes and their healthcare plan does that.
It is simply impossible for you, the American consumer, to know how this will all turn out.
As they say on the west coast, it’s complicated.
Summing up, liberals want a big entitlement culture. Some uber-conservatives want few, if any entitlements. More moderate Republicans want the states to handle healthcare entitlements with limits.
There you have it.Tags: Bill O'Reilly healthcare
Join the conversation!
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.