U.S. Rep. Alan Nunnelee is a Republican who represents Mississippi's 1st Congressional District.
Congress passed the Affordable Care Act, or "Obamacare," using backroom deals, arm twisting and political buyouts. Nancy Pelosi, who was then speaker of the U.S. House, famously stated that "we have to pass this bill to find out what's in it." Twenty-eight months later, Americans are still discovering what's in it, and the more we find out, the more we do not like it.
While I strongly disagreed with the recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling upholding the constitutionality of Obamacare under the federal government's taxing power, the court's majority decision did make a very important observation: "We do not consider whether the Act embodies sound policies. That judgment is entrusted to the Nation's elected leaders. ... It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices."
Ultimately, the American people will determine whether Obamacare "embodies sound policies." Much of what its proponents used to sell the public on the bill has turned out to be false.
Search our databases
"Your costs will go down by as much as $2,500." Since passage of Obamacare, health insurance costs have gone up by the same amount.
"If you like your own health care plan you can keep it." In reality, as many as 20 million Americans will drop their health care coverage by 2019 because of the rising cost associated with Obamacare. By the Obama administration's own estimate, 80 percent of the small-employer plans will lose their current coverage. These people will be dumped into the "exchanges" set up by the law, which will cause costs to further skyrocket.
"This is not a tax." The Supreme Court has ruled that the individual mandate is a tax. In fact, Obamacare's $500 billion in new taxes is one of the largest tax increases in history. Besides the mandate, the plan contains 20 other new or increased taxes, including on the sale of a personal residence and additional taxes on retirement and savings accounts.
"The cost will not be paid by middle-income Americans." The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office says that 75 percent of the cost of Obamacare will be paid by people making less than $125,000 per year.
"The total cost of the Affordable Care Act will be less than $1 trillion." Less than two years after it has become law, the Congressional Budget Office has revised the 10-year estimate of the cost of Obamacare, doubling the original estimate to $1.8 trillion.
The misrepresentations are enough to warrant repeal of Obamacare, but the law's long-term effects are even more detrimental.
Due to its government-centered nature, Obamacare can only contain costs by rationing available care. Americans are accustomed to being able to obtain care when we need it. When people start being required to wait months or even years to obtain needed health care, this law will become even more unpopular.
The law is a significant impediment to job creation. Small businesses are reluctant to hire new employees, because small-business owners are afraid of the numerous regulations that will be implemented. Obamacare creates over 150 new boards and agencies that have already added over 12,000 pages of new regulations. The mountain of new red tape and massive tax increases combine to make this law a job killer.
Protecting Medicare and preserving it for future generations is one of my most important duties; the Affordable Care Act does not live up to this principle. To help pay for new entitlements, Medicare is slashed by $500 billion. The law then empowers a group of 15 unelected bureaucrats called the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) to choose which services to deny seniors. This bureaucracy is unaccountable to the voters, and their decisions may not be overturned by the courts.
This July, I voted for H.R. 6079 the Repeal of Obamacare Act, which would get rid of the entire law, including the Medicare cuts and IPAB. Sadly, the Democrat-controlled Senate refuses to pass H.R. 6079 and President Barack Obama is on the record completely opposed to repeal.
Obamacare should be repealed and replaced with a health care model that puts the patient in charge. Medical decisions should not be made by government officials or insurance company accountants. The 21st century requires that we have a new model for health care, but Obamacare is not the answer.
Most Wanted Fugitives
Editorial Cartoons
Grizzlies vs. Rockets - November 9, 2012
Scripps Interactive Newspapers Group
Comments » 45
Nightcrawler writes:
"...Obamacare is not the answer."
And neither is government, Rep. Nunnelee.
Since government is never the answer, except for really, really stupid questions, free markets, tort reforms and less government intrusions, regulations and mandates are the real answers to health care reform.
However, Progressives and Marxists in the Democratic (sic) party who hold high political offices do have different opinions and partisan solutions on this issue. But in fifteen weeks and six days, their opinions won't matter much anyway.
It's comforting knowing another congressman is for repealing the Marxist Ponzi and Control scheme...
LarsJ writes:
An awful, embarrassingly partisan, wrongheaded column, Rep. Nunnelee.
Get out of your partisan box and talk to real experts about the ACA and learn why trying to repeal the law would be a disaster for your constituents.
Note that primary care physician groups STRONGLY SUPPORT THE ACA and the recent SCOTUS decision that you disagree with, and agree that despite its flaws, the ACA is improving care for patients (adults and children) in America.
Read and learn instead of repeating partisan nonsense, sir!
http://www.aap.org/en-us/about-the-aa...
and from the family physicians organization ..
http://www.aafp.org/online/en/home/pu...
"he AAFP is recognizing a Supreme Court decision upholding all provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, saying in a prepared statement that "as a result of this decision, more Americans will have access to meaningful insurance coverage and to the primary care physicians who are key to high-quality, affordable health services."
"Broad, individual responsibility for health care is the foundation for successful implementation of the Affordable Care Act's patient protections," said AAFP President Glen Stream, M.D., M.B.I., of Spokane, Wash. "Economic realities dictate that ensuring coverage for all Americans depends on participation of all Americans."
Stream cited a 2001 Institute of Medicine report that says virtually all Americans, regardless of their health status, use health care services. "Without broad participation in a health care coverage system, health care for all cannot be obtained, let alone sustained," said Stream. "The Affordable Care Act reduces numerous financial barriers to care by requiring coverage despite pre-existing conditions, eliminating annual and lifetime limits on benefits, and eliminating cost sharing for preventive services."
datGuy writes:
The man from the state with the poorest people and worst healthcare in USA is telling us the system that gave us the most expensive healthcare on Earth is best. Huh? Please put a sock in sock in it Nunnelee.
-guy
LarsJ writes:
and America's medical schools ...
Washington, D.C., June 28, 2012—AAMC (Association of American Medical Colleges) President and CEO Darrell G. Kirch, M.D., issued the following statement in response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling on the Affordable Care Act:
“The AAMC is extremely pleased that the Supreme Court has upheld virtually all of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). This law is an important step toward an improved health care system that gives all Americans access to the care they need when they need it. :"
And the children's hospital association ...
"ALEXANDRIA, Va., June 28 -- The Children's Hospital Association (formerly the National Association of Children's Hospitals and Related Institutions) issued the following news release:
The Supreme Court ruled today in the case of the Department of Health and Human Services, et. al v. Florida, et. al and upheld the Affordable Care Act (ACA). The Children's Hospital Association supports the Court's ruling which ensures children's health care will continue to benefit from specific ACA provisions."
LarsJ writes:
Rep Nunnelee, you should start by apologizing to your constituents for this awful OpEd and for your praising of the silly sham votes to "repeal Obamacare". (http://www.npr.org/2012/07/09/1564744...)
Then admit that your meaningless last phrase of your OpEd is a joke -- Obamacare WAS the Republican alternative to single payer and the individual mandate was first proposed by REPUBLICANS at the Heritage Foundation.
You and other Republicans are being partisans and hypocrites when you attack it now.
You offer NOTHING as an alternative.
MDTiger writes:
Nothing but socialist propaganda. All you have te sell is class envy and shared misery.
LarsJ writes:
Your clueless and/or dishonest use of the term "socialism" to refer to the ACA marks you as a joke.
Matt Miller got it just right ...
"You may have noticed that Republicans have been struggling to come up with a credible alternative to the Affordable Care Act once they repeal it. Why is it so hard? Because Obamacare WAS the Republican alternative. It was the conservative-designed mandate and subsidy approach. Republicans are in such an intellectual cul-de-sac on this issue that Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) actually blasted Obamacare for being a sop to the president’s “cronies” in the insurance industry. Oy!
I feel like a broken record, but some truths bear repeating. Only in America could a Democratic president pass Mitt Romney’s health plan and fund it partly through John McCain’s best idea from the last campaign (taxing some employer-provided plans) and be branded a “socialist.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinion...
LarsJ writes:
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/200...
Obama12 writes:
Rep. “Noneelee”, your column is hogwash. Physicians, pediatricians, and other intelligent and informed persons support the ACA.
From family physicians:
"The AAFP is recognizing a Supreme Court decision upholding all provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, saying in a prepared statement that "as a result of this decision, more Americans will have access to meaningful insurance coverage and to the primary care physicians who are key to high-quality, affordable health services."
Read and learn.
Obama12 writes:
Thank you for that clueless and dishonest garbage. I loved the part where you misuse the term “socialist” to try and smear President Obama.
Hilarious!
Obama12 writes:
Yes, it will. When Obama is reelected in a landslide.
Go, Obama, Go!
Vril writes:
The ACA is flawed, but it is a move in the right direction. The primary reason it has the defects it does is a reflection of the hold the deep-pocketed Big Health lobbies have over political outcomes. Just take a look back at the donations the AMA PAC and the health insurance PACs made to both political perties, and it should become clear why the AMA and major healthcare insurers are advocates of the ACA.
You can expect healthcare costs to continue to rise sharply in future years, with or without the ACA. They have you right where they want you. A well-managed single payer system is the only way out.
JimMaynard writes:
This is a stupid column by a stupid Tea Party congressmen..
50 million people have to health insurance. The ACA is not the best solution (we need a single-payer, public system like Medicare for All), but Obamacare does expand health insurance to millions, including allowing 20 million POOR people to qualify for Medicaid. States will get 100% of the costs of expanding Medicaid covered by the Fed. Gov. so those backward states like MS that opt out of of the Medicaid expansion are costing their states million of dollars in federal money, and stopping millions of their poor citizens from getting on Medicaid...
Perhaps Nunlee and the tea party governors who want to reject the expansion of medicaid should take a look at this:
http://mediamatters.org/research/2012...
As for the costs, etc. that is the problem with a private, profit-driven healthcare system. We need to get rid of private insurance companies. or at least allow people the OPTION of getting Medicaid or Medicare, and not force people to buy private insurance from these people:
http://www.sickforprofit.com/ceos/
Obamacare is a step in the right dirction, but it doesn't go far enough... we need MEDICARE FOR ALL, and quit subsidizing millionaire insurance companies and their CEOS
http://www.healthcare-now.org
For more on how the Affordable Care Act HELPS Tennesse.. see
http://www.thcc2.org
TruthBeTold writes:
I'm sorry, I missed the Republican plan. Oh, I remember - end medicare as we know it and turn it into a voucher system. Great plan to see to all your needs.
Medicare for all is the only solution.
JimMaynard writes:
Here's the problem with Nunlee and the tea party argument that states should opt OUT of the Medicaid expansion:
http://my.earthlink.net/article/pol?g...
It would be stupid and immoral to deny the expansion of medicaid to poor people!
Bruno38122 writes:
I tried to read through the entire article. I really did! The problem here is that my brain has a tendency to freeze up when I read falsehoods asserted as truth. It is further compounded by the knowledge that the author is in a position to know what the truths is in all of the matters which he cites.
Graefleche writes:
ROTFLMAO
Was there any other reply that could have been made by subscribers to the Commercial Appeal? They will lock–step right off the cliff rather than admit the unconstitutional ACA law is ill suited to Americans and illegal and unsustainable for the most part.
It will FIX NOTHING that is wrong with health care in this country.
We had a group of American patriots that knew where we would be heading 240 years ago and provided a document ratified by citizens that wanted a chance to EARN a living without government interference.
Along came another group that cannot walk across the road without government intervention and convince an even bigger group of “well educated” morons that the government is here to HELP the needy.
Is there anyone out there actually willing to let people EARN a living without feeling guilty that most that don’t, don’t want to put out the effort it takes.
The poor are poor for a reason and NOT because they WANT to be poor.
BAD instructions in the beginning create BAD decisions. BAD decisions cause BAD end results. BAD results seek to lay blame on anyone that will accept that blame and social progressives are the most guilt ridden segment of our population and they will GLADLY accept the blame and happily provide MORE BAD instruction to continue the cycle.
OUR government has NEVER done anything efficiently and THIS administration has the VERY worst track record of ANY in history. But the social progressives are ready willing and able to sell the farm for some guilt relief.
You guys never fail to amaze me.
Vril writes:
The Flake says, "OUR government has NEVER done anything efficiently..."
How about World War II?
What about the G I Bill?
As a participant of Medicare, I can state that it works pretty well for me.
The WPA and CCC worked well during the Great Depression.
The Interstate Highway system works well.
Just to name a few...
MDTiger writes:
It is what I said. You should own it and be proud of it. Obama is a socialist and if you claim he is not then you are either a lier or stupid.....which is it?
Vril writes:
A person who can't spell liar isn't the sharpest pencil in the drawer, either. I suspect you really don't know much about socialism beyond what the reverberating talk show voices in your head tell you.
grannynannymccann#719546 writes:
As a Mississippian--hell, as a human being--I am embarrassed by Alan Nunnelee's stupid and baseless comments. I resent my tax dollars being wasted on a frivolous lawsuit and repeated House votes to repeal the ACA. I want everyone to know that not all Mississippians share Alan Nunnelee's views. In fact, most of us do sometimes demonstrate good sense: witness the vote on that idiotic "personhood" amendment.
meateater writes:
I think this sums up obamacare perfectly.Not my statement but it is a perfect sumnation of the idiocy of this so called healthcare bill..
Let me get this straight... We're going to be 'gifted' with a health care plan we are forced to purchase, and fined if we don't, which purportedly covers at least ten million more people, without adding a single new doctor, but provides for 16,000 new IRS agents, written by a committee whose chairman says he doesn't understand it, passed by a Congress that didn't read it but exempted themselves from it, and signed by a dumbo president who smokes, with funding administered by a treasury chief who didn't pay his taxes, for which we'll be taxed for four years before any benefits take effect, by a government which has already bankrupted Social Security and Medicare, all to be overseen by a surgeon general who is obese, and financed by a country that's broke!"
JimMaynard writes:
Why Medicaid Expansion is a Offer States Can't Refust (even backward confederate states like Mississippi and Arkanas)
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum...
MDTiger writes:
Actually you know nothing about me. But let's see.
Obama took over the auto industry.
Obama took over the banks and brokerage firms.
Obama took over the health care industry.
I don't know what you call it but if it walks like a duck.....well, you get the idea.
LarsJ writes:
Impressive ignorance. Wow
MDTiger writes:
Nice comeback, you can't argue the issues so you make personal attacks.
Keep drinking the KoolAid my friend.
LarsJ writes:
Sorry, not too bright, but you are the one who posted complete sewage about "socialism" that i quickly proved was dishonest and/or ignorant.
You made a fool of yourself-- I just pointed it out.
Obama12 writes:
Thanks for conceding you misuse the term “socialism” to try and smear President Obama.
YOU are the lier. (sic)
Concession accepted!
Obama12 writes:
Tigey can't compete with informed, intelligent persons, so it posts personal attacks.
Poor thing.
I do pity him.
USAidit writes:
Ha, ha, ha, this is hilarious. Larsie talking to himself again. Check out the 9:10 PM post.
Sorry Larsie but I quit reading your broken-record posts a long time ago. Same old blah, blah, blah over and over again.
Oops, did I say Larsie? Perhaps I meant to say Londoner. hahahahahaha
cookinglawman writes:
Will one of you libs please explain to me how the recommendation to "get rid" of private for profit companies is NOT socialist? And by the way, TEA is an acronym for Taxed Enough Already. If liberals take any more of my income and give it to someone else, I will be living in poverty. Hope that makes you happy.
Vril writes:
Your confusion is so profound that you probably won't comprehend that Obama didn't "take over" any of the businesses you claim. Last time I checked, these businesses were and are still owned by private owners.
MDTiger writes:
You better take a reading comprehension course. Do you see where I said anything about ownership in my statement? By definition, government control is also a condition of socialism. Through regulation the government now controls the indudtries I mentioned. I also did not use the word businesses in my ststement, I said industries. There is a distinction that you fail to comprehend
.
You should also check your facts, because the government does own a huge chunk of GM, which is a business.
I realize you do not like being revealed as the socialist you are but that is too bad, you have been exposed.
Now you can continue making petsonsl attacks and continue to ptove my point.
electricman writes:
Anyone care to challenge Nunelee's facts?
LarsJ writes:
There weren't any facts
Obama12 writes:
Facts are anathema to Uneducated Rednecks.
TJonesMfs writes:
Yawn. Same old propaganda from the same old political party. So, exactly, who do they think in America shouldn't have insurance? Would he rather that we have to pay for them when they go to emergency rooms and can't pay and we have to handle that in our costs? But I bet he voted for the tax breaks to oil companies. There's always a vote to help out the political contributors but people who need insurance are just out of luck.
grannynannymccann#719546 writes:
Ain"t that the truth!
Vril writes:
After pumping in nearly $50 billion to save G.M., American taxpayers owned about 60 percent of the company when it emerged from Chapter 11 in the summer of 2009. The government sold the bulk of its holdings at $33 a share in the company’s public stock offering a year later.
But the administration is not eager to sell the rest (about 26% share) at a loss to taxpayers. As the company continues to improve, more stock will be sold to recoup taxpayer funds.
This certainly doesn't look like a takeover to me.
Sorry, but my pointing out the facts to a lamebrain like you doesn't qualify me as a socialist.
So, did this "petsonsl" attack "ptove" your point, bubbah?
MDTiger writes:
No matter how you rationalize it, it is still........wait.......SOCIALISM.
Now explain to me why it isn't.
Vril writes:
No matter how I might explain it to you, you would still be .....wait...CLUELESS.
MDTiger writes:
(This comment was removed by the site staff.)
electricman writes:
You wouldn't recognize a "fact" if it was dating your mother.
LarsJ writes:
Concession accepted !
Tiger2004 writes:
Now let me get this straight, a congressman gets the finest healthcare available at the Bethesda Naval Hospital. We, the working and middle class are one diagnosis from bankruptcy. It is real simple to talk about repealing Obama care…………… What is the Republican replacement?! The simple fact is there is none. My niece has a pre-existing condition and she was offered a job in another state and thanks to ObamaCare she can take the job and keep her health insurance. The plan may not be perfect, but at least it is a step in the right direction…………. More than I can say for the obstructionist Republican party.
Share your thoughts
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.