In the continued battle against Republican and Koch Brothers’ blitz of health care reform misinformation, Julia Boonstra (the woman who has become conservatives’ poster child for victims of Obamacare) is once again the victim of a group of vicious attackers, more popularly known as… factcheckers.
Mother Jones has sifted through the 50 states and cobbled together a list of state governors who have effectively chosen to deny the poorest of their constituencies health care coverage and the opportunity to attain basic medical care through their refusal to accept Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion provision. They represent the who’s who of Republican governors whose states occupy the core of stalwart opposition to the Affordable Care Act.
With each new bit of regulation proposed a screeching chorus rises from industry pronouncing the dire consequences set to befall the country if even the slightest utterance of such rules are dared spoken. How many times have these warnings of cataclysm been heard? And how many times have they come to pass?
The Romney campaign is up with a new billboard touting another small business owner upset with President Obama’s out-of-context remark that businesses don’t succeed on their own but rather with help from federal government programs.
But like so many of the small businesses that the Romney campaign has trotted out in recent weeks, Tanya L. Burns & Associates, an insurance brokerage firm in Florida, is yet another beneficiary of federal spending. And not just any spending: Burns’ firm has helped clients reduce their health insurance premiums thanks to the Affordable Care Act, which Mitt Romney has pledged to repeal.
NEW YORK (CNNMoney) — Mitt Romney’s tax plan would provide large tax cuts to the very wealthy, while increasing the tax burden on the lower and middle classes, according to a study released Wednesday.
The report — produced by researchers at the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center — illustrates just how difficult it would be to recoup government revenue lost under Romney’s plan.
The presumptive Republican presidential nominee’s tax plan calls for 20% cuts to today’s Bush-era income tax rates. He would also eliminate the Alternative Minimum Tax.
Those tax cuts would lead to a sharp decline in government revenue. Yet Romney insists he will make up the difference in-part by limiting deductions, exemptions and credits currently available to top-level income earners.
In light of the growing number of Republican governors’ refusals to implement provisions of the Affordable Care Act, the most prominent of which being Bobby Jindal of Louisiana and Rick Perry of Texas, it becomes prudent to contemplate the trends of access to care, residents’ health status and the political leanings of individual states across the country.
In a truly unexpected 5-4 decision with Chief Justice Roberts leading the way the Supreme Court ruled President Obama’s Affordable Care Act, and its hotly contested individual mandate, was indeed constitutional. While the last 2 years were filled with court challenges and rampant questionable claims over the bill’s intent, the administration and the Democrats need to decide what to do now. Mitt Romney and the Republican Party have already taken up a steadfast “repeal and replace” position. But what about the Democrats? Now that the constitutionality of the law is no longer in question, they have what amounts to a second chance to wrest control of the conversation from the GOP and tell the voting public what is actually in the bill.
As the eve of the Affordable Care Act’s fate fast approaches, both sides of the partisan divide eagerly wait upon baited breath to pounce on whichever decision is laid down. Republicans have vowed to settle for nothing short of complete elimination since the law’s inception. The Supreme Court may do what GOP has been unable to do on their own. Whatever direction the Court takes, the Reform’s opponents promise to “repeal quickly and replace slowly” but with what is unclear.
LATER this month, the Supreme Court will rule on the Obama administration’s health care law, the Affordable Care Act, deciding whether to uphold or strike down the entire law, or to keep some provisions. No matter the decision, the political ramifications in this election year will be big.