Why Republicans Hate ObamaCare™

Simply put, because the Republicans represent the top 1% - - and just like Social Security and Medicare, the top 1% never wants to help fund something that they themselves will never need or benefit from - - and to hell with everyone else that isn't lucky enough to be filthy rich.

The top 1% doesn't need ObamaCare™. They have been installing full-fledged emergency rooms right inside their homes, each complete with an array of medical gear that mirrors what the White House has available for the President. The company that installs these emergency rooms charges up to $1 million per installation.

And that might also be another reason why the rich live longer than the poor.

But the GOP wants to cut taxes for the top 1%, while at the same time, cutting Medicare benefits for the elderly and raising the age for Social Security - - forcing old and feeble people to work longer, providing that they can find someone to hire them - - because the GOP claims we're all living longer.

I just received a newsletter from the Tea Party this morning. It promotes another Republican budget by Rep. Scott Garrett (R-NJ), who is the chairman of something called the Republican Study Commission (RSC). His budget proposal is called CUT, CAP, AND BALANCE: A Fiscal Year 2013. Besides repealing ObamaCare™, among many things, it also says:

• Terminate federal programs that are unconstitutional
• Reduce Social Security and Medicare benefits for those currently under 55 years old.
• Medicaid would be paid for with block grants to the states, to use any way they want (so it doesn't guarantee it will be used for Medicaid).
• Fund the military industrial complex at the current level, growing from $554 billion in 2013 to $699 billion in 2022. (Those figures were purposely understated - they are much higher.)
• Refers to the Jobs Through Growth Act (H.R.3400), and says "The budget keeps the tax burden at its historic average, and makes the tax code simpler, flatter, and fairer."

I found the term "historic average" odd, because it really means "historically low". (Read: Historical Tax Rates on the Rich (1862 to 2011). They say this budget would "make the tax code fairer" when the top 1% already has the most disproportionate amount tax breaks already. And the right-wing advocacy group, Americans for Prosperity, supports this plan. (Contact Brad Watson at the RSC: brad.watson@mail.house.gov and Andrew Shaw with Rep. Garrett: andrew.shaw@mail.house.gov)

The GOP wants to raise early Social Security eligibility from 62 to 64 - - and the full retirement age from 65 (unless you born before 1937) to 67, or if you born after 1960, to age 70. The GOP also wants to raise Medicare's eligibility age from 65 to 67.

A 2008 study by the Congressional Budget Office found that the life expectancy gap between the rich and poor in the United States, as well as the educated and less educated, has been growing since the 1980s.

The CBO says that raising the eligibility ages for Social Security and Medicare would also reduce people's lifetime Social Security benefits, and cause many of the people who would otherwise have enrolled in Medicare to face higher premiums for health insurance and/or higher out-of-pocket costs for health care.

Now the Supreme Court is weighing in on "the constitutionality" of ObamaCare™ and the mandate requiring everyone to contribute to the cost of universal healthcare. The provisions for pre-existing conditions, insurance riders for adult children on their parent's healthcare policy, and Medicaid for single people under the age of 65 (if they are living below the poverty level) could also be eliminated as well.

Robert Reich wrote in a recent article, “The President and the Democrats could have avoided this dilemma in the first place if they’d insisted on Medicare for All. After all, Social Security and Medicare require every working American to buy them. The purchase happens automatically in the form of a deduction from everyone’s paychecks. But because Social Security and Medicare are government programs financed by payroll taxes, they don’t feel like mandatory purchases.” (I mentioned this last month)

Most working Americans pay Social Security taxes on 100% of their "earned wages", but high earners are exempt from paying this tax on income over $110,000. As it is now, the top 1% makes most of their earnings, not from regular wages, but from capital gains, interest, rents, dividends, and royalties, etc. -- so therefore, they are exempt from paying any Social Security taxes at all on this type of "passive income".

CNN: For tax years starting on or after January 1, 2013, ObamaCare™ imposes a new 3.8% Medicare tax on "net investment income" in excess of specified amounts. Also under the new law, starting in 2013, high-income individuals will pay another 0.9 percentage points on earned income over $200,000 ($250,000 if married). The GOP may want to repeal ObamaCare™ for this reason alone.

Maybe some day the Tea Party will get the Supreme Court to weigh in on "the constitutionality" of Social Security and Medicare, and repeal those programs as well, even though the Tea Party used to carry signs saying "Hands off my Medicare!"

What it really comes down to is this: the Republicans (and those on the Supreme Court who represent the top 1%), doesn't want the top 1% to help fund anything that they won't need for themselves. But if it's just a baby sitter that they need, the top 1% has plenty of extra cash on hand.

Elite New York City nannies can command around $180,000 a year (plus a Christmas bonus) and a $3,000-a-month apartment on Central Park West. It makes one wonder how much these "job creators" pay their chauffeurs, lawyers, gardeners, stock brokers, pool boys, tailors, yacht crews, chefs, pilots, accountants, valets, golf instructors, maids, and hookers.

But not to worry. If the GOP has their way, those nannies won't cost the top 1% one single shining penny, because Paul Ryan's proposed budget would provide income tax cuts for millionaires averaging at least $187,000 a year - - and millions more for others. (Source: Citizens for Tax Justice)

Five years ago, billionaire hotelier Leona Helmsley (the arrogant “queen of mean”) died at the ripe old age of 87. At one time she had gone to prison for tax evasion (33 felony counts of trying to defraud the government, including mail fraud, tax evasion and filing false tax returns.) Read: How Mitt Romney & the 1% Evades Taxes

After she died, Leona Helmsley left $12 million to a dog named Trouble, her beloved poodle.

And yet, the GOP doesn't want to tax these people for capital gains or inheritances...but the GOP does want to tax low-income Americans to help fund a $700 billion military budget - - despite their religious beliefs or their right to a moral and conscientious objection against paying for wars that kill people (as opposed to contraception, that just blocks the fertilization of new people).

But the Republicans don't want to tax the rich for universal healthcare.

The Supreme Court and the Republicans might repeal all or part of ObamaCare™, but what will the Republicans "replace" it with? More tax cuts for the rich?

Bloomberg reports that Senator Mitch McConnell (R- Kentucky) vows to repeal ObamaCare™. But when asked about a GOP counterproposal, the Senate minority leader said the GOP does not plan on offering something of the same magnitude. "We would want to more modestly approach this with more incremental fixes, not a massive Republican alternative."

The Republicans have been making similar statements for over the past 30 years, but they have never once offered any other healthcare plan, but they did pass legislation benefiting "big pharma". Which begs one to ask, when was the last time the GOP has ever offered any proposal that might help the poor and average working Americans, but that wouldn't also benefit the top 1% far much more?

Most Americans are being denied universal healthcare, while we continue to tax the top 1% less, just so they can build their own private emergency rooms, so that they might live longer to enjoy their life of luxury and privilege. Meanwhile, everyone else is left to fend for themselves, at the mercy of corporate healthcare providers and insurance companies.

The skyrocketing cost of insurance premiums (and the actual cost of healthcare and prescriptions) should have been addressed years ago - - to cover all Americans, not just the rich ones. But the Republicans have been trying to cut food stamps, so I'll assume that if they don't care if you eat, they wouldn't care about your health either.

Former congressman Alan Grayson couldn't have said it any better. He said the Republican's healthcare plan is this: Don't get sick. And if you do get sick, and you can't afford healthcare insurance, then die quickly.

The top 1% and the Republicans treat poor and working-class human beings like dogs (except for Mitt Romney)