Thanks

Obamacare!
RCL 138T Issue Brief
Chris Messner

Executive Summary:
Obamacare; also known as the Democratic healthcare cure-all. President
Obama makes and has made many promises to improve the lives of Americans,
however some of these promises often fall flat. Obamacare makes some good
points, but it clearly has some issues and needs to be reformed. The promises
Obama makes end up only applying to certain groups of people, even though this
new form of healthcare is an attempt at equality. There must be changes made to a
number of the current healthcares policies, because as of right now it is detrimental
to many Americans, especially in comparison to their previous healthcare. While
the premise of the system is good, it is necessary to mitigate some of the changes
that were made if we hope to express realistic equality for all Americans. The first
issue to be remedied, is that Obamacare focuses too heavily on a lack of
discrimination when paying for healthcare, when in the end it still discriminates
against both homosexuals and the wealthy. Health related discrimination is a real
issue, however the two groups that Obamacare taxes more have no scientific reason
to be discriminated against. It also makes many people to pay more money under a
guise of providing cheaper coverage to the common people, by forcefully
encouraging that everyone pays for healthcare, and raising the needed medical
cost for tax deductions.

The Issue:
Obamacares primary focus is
to expand coverage and reduce
costs (4). The problem is that the
system does not accomplish Obamas
desires effectively, at least not for
everybody.
One of the key concepts to

Another Example: Womens Cervical Cancer rates

by race, clearly higher for Black women

Obamacare is that nobody can be charged

extra based on gender, race, origin, age, or disability (8). This is seems like a noble
idea, nobody in the country can be discriminated against when it comes to medical
care. However, unlike most discrimination, insurance companies may have a right
to charge differently depending on many of these factors. According to (10), race,
gender, origin, and certainly age have different impacts upon the health of an
individual. Chinese people tend to have better health than Caucasian and African
people. Pakistanis tend to have the lowest levels of health. Cancer is also much less
prevalent in African people, but much more prevalent in Ireland and Scotland.
Heart disease and stroke probabilities are much higher in men than in women.
Elderly people have many complications, including a 50% risk for hypertension past
the age of 80.
Ultimately, the reason that the premiums were higher for different people
and lower for others, were because the insurance companies were listening to what
scientific research was telling them. There was nothing unfair about it, different

people have different risks, and as a business the insurance companies were simply
looking after themselves. While it is indeed noble for Obama to say that there will
be no discrimination when it comes to healthcare payments, it is honestly foolish in
a scientific light. Now, the prices for many people who are at a higher risk for
medical complications will go down, and the prices for relatively healthy people will
go up. But this is not the only problem with Obamacares stance on discrimination.
Obamacare does not stop discrimination against gay, lesbian, and bisexual people
(13).
Sexual orientation can still be legally discriminated against. The main fear
for sexual orientation concerning diseases comes from sexually transmitted
diseases. The Center for Disease Control (11) does voice its concerns that
statistically homosexual men have a much higher rate of developing an STD, and due
to STDs homosexual men are 17 times more likely to develop anal cancer.
Although, it is important to remember that the diseases the government worries
about are sexually transmitted, and that means that the diseases are spread much
differently than diseases proliferated through normal transmission. While normal
viral or bacterial transmission of diseases (and the random cellular mutations that
cause cancer) are generally random with some increased infection potentials in
certain groups of people, STDs are transmitted through sexual secretions or the
blood (1). STD transmission is part of the risk for having unprotected sex, and this
is something that homosexual people can choose not to do. Obamacare should not
discriminate against a group of people, when the reason they have a higher chance
of disease is based upon an activity they can choose to either perform or abstain

from. This is why once again Obamacare does not make good sense scientifically. If
this new healthcare wanted to discriminate against homosexuals, it should have
discriminated against the other human population groups as well. Especially
because homosexuality only increases tendency to perform certain risky acts, it
does not change the chemical make-up of a person and make he or she any more
susceptible to diseases like hypertension and leukemia.
Now, while it is clear that Obamacare fails to cover all of the American people
equally, it makes paying for that coverage
problematic as well. The idea is that
Obamacare will lower its prices for the
average man, and thus overtime premiums
will be lower, by 2500 a year (14). It is
actually difficult to see where Obamacare
believes it will get funded if it believes that
it will cost less overall to do more.
Healthcare premiums have been rising since 2014 due to Obamacare, and many
families of the upper-middle class and higher have seen coverage costs double or
even triple. This is a serious issue, because these families are forced to pay that new
higher amount or pay a tax penalty which is based on marriage status, income, and
other factors. That is of course unless a family has an exemption, which means that
there is a specific reason as to why they cannot and should not pay for healthcare
(3) These exemptions include families with annual incomes below

 $10,150 for an individual and $20,300 for a couple, as well as homelessness and
imprisonment. Forbes states that High earners (people who make over 200,000
individually or 250,000 as a couple have received a 0.9% overall tax increase for
Obamacare alone, and there is an additional 3.8% tax increase for investment
income (5). The wealthy now have even higher taxation rates, when their rates
were much steeper to begin with. The highest potential income tax rate is now
39.6%, for people who alone make over $400,000 or as a couple make over
$450,000, and the Affordable Care Act has now added 0.9% on top of that, as well as
the 3.8% tax on investment income (2). To compare, someone who makes $500,000
annually will pay about 202,500 in taxes (there are various tax deductions and
exemptions, this is just a rough estimate). Whereas someone who makes $50,000
will pay substantially less than $20,250 (if the 40.5% tax rate applied), because they
will not be even close to the threshold for the highest taxation rate. This is
completely unfair, when both the middle-class and the wealthy party have worked

hard to earn their

money. In the end,
taxation on the
wealthy is always
going to be higher,
that is an unavoidable
fact. Many upper-
class individuals wish
for their taxes to be
higher, because they acknowledge the fact that not everybody has the same
opportunities that they had (6). Although is 40.5% of their income anywhere close
to fair? There is no reason for taxation on the wealthy to continually rise, people
should not be punished merely because they have earned a good salary.
Yet another troublesome issue with Obamacares funding is that it has raised
the threshold for tax deductions based on medical bills. Families originally had to
pay the already steep price of 7.5% of their income per year in medical bills before
deductions would be considered, and Obamacare has raised that to 10%. In a
household that makes $200,000 total, the family will have to shell out $20,000
dollars that year towards their medical bills to even be considered for a deduction.
Now unless a family member is extremely sick, that is not going to happen. This
new healthcare plan simply increases the taxation on groups of people who are
moderately sick or possess high incomes.

How to Fix It:

The question is, what has to be done with Obamacare. Clearly its heart is in

the right place, President Obama designed the system with the goal in mind of
increasing access to healthcare while simultaneously lowering the price. Money
does not simply grow on trees however, and it is where he decided to garner funds
from that Obamacares problems ultimately lie. As mentioned the money comes in
many different forms of taxation, or in the case of the 10% medical bill, lack of tax
deduction. The taxes have the greatest impact upon people in the upper-middle to
wealthy classes, and this is ultimately unfair. Once again the healthcare plan that
focuses on nondiscrimination is discriminating. These upper classes have no reason
to be taxed harder, besides the fact that they have earned a good sum of money in
their lives via the sweat of their own brow. To begin cutting down on this excessive
taxation upon the wealthy, Obamacares lack of discrimination should be reversed.
The aforementioned scientific data shows that different people all have different
health statuses, so some discrimination cannot hurt when it comes to health
insurance. But the most recent form of discrimination was much too harsh. Until
Obamacare, women apparently paid an average of 1 billion more per year for health
insurance, which is absolutely ridiculous (9). There should be a limit as to how
much extra a person can be charged based upon their ethnicity, gender, age, and
other factors. The plan should not severely punish anyone just based upon who
they are, but it is necessary to realize that the different chemical make-ups of each
person makes them more or less susceptible to certain infections.

One other problem with Obamacare that must be corrected is the new

increase in annual medical bill costs required for tax deduction. 10% is much too
high. 7.5% was high to begin with, but necessarily so, because if the deduction was
too low then most people would be writing off their medical bills. This new
percentage of 10% should be lowered to its initial percentage of 7.5%.

A final issue that must be confronted is the tax penalty for lacking healthcare.

While it may be beneficial in the end, getting more people covered by health
insurance, it is ultimately unconstitutional. All bills for raising revenue shall
originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose of concur
with amendments as on other bills (12). What this statement from the Constitution
is saying is that to ensure that no one branch can tax without the consent from other
branches. In the case of Obamacare, taxation is modified under the suggestion from
the executive branch alone. Chief Justice John Roberts allowed this to happen even
though it went against the Constitution, and proponents of Obamacare insist that
the tax is not attempting to be a tax, but a means of changing peoples attitudes
towards healthcare. Realistically, this tax is an unconstitutional mandated payment,
something that the Founding Fathers were desperately trying to avoid. This may
not seem like a big deal now, but if a president can mandate a tax now, who is to
stop him/her from mandating more in the future? This mandated tax should be
removed entirely, as it is borderline illegal, and puts many families in a tough spot
by practically requiring healthcare payment.

Practicality:

It would not be difficult to tweak Obamacare. As previously mentioned

Obamacare is founded on a non-Constitutional basis, I do not see why there could

not be some simple rule changes to this all-but illegal
document, at the very least to make it Constitutional and
remove the tax penalty. Also, the current majority in
Congress are Republicans, and I feel that the policies I
have advocated for are right up their alley. It would not
be difficult for Republicans in congress to lobby for an
John Boehner, Current Republican
Speaker of the House

adjustment of Obamacare, not to remove it entirely but

simply to fix it.

Counterpoints:

There would be objections by Democratic candidates about how healthcare

discrimination is wrong, or how the wealthy should be taxed until they are poor.
However I feel as though this issue brief has already addressed these issues.
Discrimination is wrong when it comes to civility and human interactions, but
statistically it has been proven that different people have different susceptibilities.
The wealthy have absolutely no reason to be discriminated against and taxed even
more under Obamacare. They are not any less fit or healthy, they only have more
money; money that they worked hard for, money that does not deserve to be
forcefully taken. Overall there is nothing in my recommendations that is eccentric

or outlandish. I feel as though it would be accepted and understood, because these

changes to Obamacare would benefit the nation as a whole as they attempt to make
Obamacare a better functioning healthcare system.

Conclusion:

In conclusion, Obamacare is a flawed healthcare plan that requires a bit of

tweaking. Once certain conditions have been met, it does possess potential to be a
great service to this nation, but until they are it is a serious hindrance to the
wealthy, the homosexual, and the moderately ill.













Journalist Jennifer Rubin calls
for a change to Obamacare

References:

1. About Sexually Transmitted Diseases. TeensHealth. The Nemours Foundation,

01 Jan. 2014. Web. 08 Apr. 2015.

<http://kidshealth.org/teen/sexual_health/stds/std.html>

2. Bell, Kay. "5 Higher Taxes For Wealthy Taxpayers | Bankrate.com." Bankrate.

Disqus. Web. 09 Apr. 2015.

<http://www.bankrate.com/finance/taxes/higher-taxes-for-wealthy-

taxpayers-1.aspx>

3. "Exemption from the Fee for Not Having Health Insurance." HealthCare. U.S.

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Web. 09 Apr. 2015.

<https://www.healthcare.gov/fees-exemptions/exemptions-from-the-fee/>

4. "How to Fix Obamacare." The Economist. The Economist Newspaper, 20 Sept.

2014. Web. 08 Apr. 2015.

<http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21618788-americas-health-

care-system-remains-dysfunctional-it-could-be-made-better-how-fix>

5. "How Will 'Obamacare' Affect Your Tax Bill?" Forbes. Forbes Magazine, 1 Mar.

2013. Web. 09 Apr. 2015.

<http://www.forbes.com/sites/learnvest/2013/03/01/how-will-

obamacare-affect-your-tax-bill/>

6. Frank, Robert. "Even Millionaires Think The Rich Should Pay Higher Taxes." Huff

Post Business. The Huffington Post, 6 May 2014. Web. 09 Apr. 2015.

<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/06/millionaires-taxes-

survey_n_5272647.html>

7. Nguyen, Hang, and Roberton Williams. "How Big Is the ACA Tax Penalty?" Tax

Policy Center. Web. 08 Apr. 2015.

<http://taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/acacalculator.cfm>

8. "ObamaCare Facts: Facts on the Affordable Care Act." Obamacare Facts. Web. 08

Apr. 2015. <http://obamacarefacts.com/obamacare-facts/>

9. "ObamaCare No Discrimination." Obamacare Facts. Web. 09 Apr. 2015.

<http://obamacarefacts.com/no-discrimination/>

10. Rull, Gurvinder. Diseases and Different Ethnic Groups Information. Patient. 19

Aug. 2011. Web. 08 Apr. 2015. < http://www.patient.co.uk/doctor/Diseases-

and-Different-Ethnic-Groups.htm>

11. "Sexually Transmitted Diseases." Gay and Bisexual Men's Health. Centers for

Disease Control and Prevention, 02 July 2014. Web. 08 Apr. 2015.

<http://www.cdc.gov/msmhealth/STD.htm>

12. Shapiro, Ilya. "The Obamacare "Tax" That Chief Justice Roberts Invented Is Still

Unconstitutional." Forbes. Forbes Magazine, 12 May 2014. Web. 09 Apr.

2015. <http://www.forbes.com/sites/ilyashapiro/2014/05/12/the-

obamacare-tax-that-chief-justice-roberts-invented-is-still-

unconstitutional/>

13. Terkel, Amanda. "Obamacare Bars Discrimination Based On Gender Identity But

Not Sexual Orientation: HHS Official." Huff Post Politics. The Huffington Post,

8 Apr. 2014. Web. 08 Apr. 2015.

<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/08/obamacare-

lgbt_n_5111399.html>

14. Viebeck, Elise. O-Care Premiums to Skyrocket. The Hill. Capitol Hill Publishing,

19 Mar. 2014. Web. 08 Apr. 2015.

<http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/201136-obamacare-premiums-are-

about-to-skyrocket>

Graphics:

Obamacare Logo (1) http://blog.heartland.org/2013/09/a-short-guide-to-
obamacare/

Ethnic Differences (2) http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/cervical/statistics/race.htm

D.C. World Cartoon (3)
http://itmakessenseblog.com/files/2011/01/Obamacare-cartoon.jpg

Obamacare Tax Penalty (4)
http://obamacarefacts.com/obamacare-individual-mandate/

Obamacare in a Nutshell (5)
http://images.sodahead.com/profiles/0/0/1/6/6/5/8/2/9/Obamacare-in-a-
Nutshell-9384947922.jpeg

Boehner (6)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speaker_of_the_United_States_House_of_Representati
ves

Jennifer Rubin (7)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/02/republican-alternative-to-
obamacare_n_4877100.html