Affordable Health Care For America Act

What does it mean for now, for later … and for you?

The debate goes on but seems to have gotten so boring that the news media has forgotten about it.  This is probably because it has little or no affect on most people in the immediate future.  A few nice, but non-consequential, things take place now to make it sound better.  The hard stuff doesn’t really become noticeable until after the mid-term elections.  It is not until then, and the following 48 months, that most people will be affected, and not necessarily in a good way.

Tea Party tax day protest 2010

On March 23, 2010, President Obama signed “historic” health care legislation into law following a year-long struggle with congress to follow through on what was a pivotal piece of his administration’s domestic policy agenda.  The most “historic” thing about it was that it was something the majority of the American people did not want passed, but it got passed anyway by a totally partisan vote.  The rules for passing such wide sweeping changes were themselves swept under the rug and true Washington D.C. corruption … “Chicago style” took over.

Who is this bill Really for?

“I am signing this bill for all the leaders who took up this cause through the generations,” said President Obama, “from Teddy Roosevelt to Franklin Roosevelt, from Harry Truman to Lyndon Johnson …”  That may sound good in a tele-prompted speech, but the real reason he signed it was to try to salvage his own political future.  He used every type of leverage and political capital he had available, including bribery, extortion.  There is one person, and one only person, he signed it for.

But, with that said, what does it mean?

What Obama signed may not include all the provisions and changes you think it does.  Many alterations have been made along the way and, at this point, many Americans are unsure of exactly what the AHCA Act entails.

What changes are slated for 2010?

The “immediate” changes include:

  1. Extending the length of time a child can remain on his/her parents’ plan – through age 26 (ending on the child’s 27th birthday).
  2. Children can no longer be denied coverage due to pre-existing conditions.
  3. Policies can no longer be rescinded by insurers when a person becomes ill (unless fraud or misrepresentation is proven).

In the immediate future that really doesn’t mean much because most people’s insurance options haven’t yet changed.  But, believe me they will.  In order to accommodate those kind of changes premiums will go up!  No where does it say in the bill that those changes are provided free by your insurance company!

What changes are slated for the future?

Some of the most sweeping reforms won’t take effect for a few years.  The biggest thing that has everyone buzzing involves required health care insurance.  Beginning in 2014, Americans (except those with religious objections, inmates and Native Americans) will be required to have health insurance coverage … or face an annual “penalty“.  The only good thing is that the penalty cost less than the actual insurance, and if you get sick you can go ahead and buy insurance after you have a problem, since they can no longer deny you coverage for pre-existing conditions.  That may be the best option.

And what about taxes?

The other big thing getting buzz involves tax increases: a new tax which starts in 2013 – a 3.8% tax on investment income for individuals earning more than $200,000 and households earning more than $250,000.  That doesn’t mean to say that people making less won’t also pay also.

Where can you get more information?  The White House has provided a website but, it is the last place I would look for an honest unbiased view.  You can visit .  Just remember this is a very one-sided, slanted view of the bill, and does not give a fair representation of what it really means.

Is it settled?

Nope.  Amendments to the bill have already been proposed, and Attorney Generals from more than 14 states have filed a lawsuit claiming the new bill is unconstitutional.  Justice Department spokesman Charles Miller, however, is “confident that this statute is constitutional”.  Nothing would surprise me.

For it or Against it, one thing for sure … the way this was passed is the is the most corrupt action I have ever observed.  When one party, either party, controls both the House and the Senate as well as the White House there is no check and balance.  Corruption occurs.

Bribes and extortion  are not unconstitutional … they are criminal.  But, … someone has to initiate a unbiased investigation and that ain’t gonna happen.  That is reserved for the important stuff like Sarah Palin, Major League Baseball, and airport restrooms.  It’s time to take care of things at the voting booth.  Wait a minute isn’t that what happened last time?  Papa B.

Leave a Comment

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

Scroll to Top
Scroll to Top