Recently, two letters have been published that declared the Tea Party’s failed in there agenda. These short-sighted individuals like to compare the Affordable Care Act to be the same as Social Security when it was first implemented.
Let’s look at some taxes that are implemented with Affordable Care Act that are not in the Social Security. First, the medical device tax. Do we see that in Social Security?
No. But in the Affordable Care Act we see that if an individual needs a medical device such as a pacemaker they will now pay a tax. Let’s look at the additional Medicare tax. Do we see that in Social Security?
No, but if an individuals income is in the bracket they have the opportunity to pay more Medicare tax at the tune of 3.8 percent. This does not mean that they receive more for there money, as it pertains to medicare. They just pay more for the same service. Isn't this a perfect example of "share the wealth?”
Let’s see another sticking point. Are Senators and Representatives exempt from paying into Social Security? Yet again, no. But they don't have to participate in the Affordable Care Act. So, when President Obama declared that if you liked your doctor, or insurance he must have been directing the conversation to them and not the American Public. Comparing Social Security to the Affordable Care Act is laughable.
Compared to the fact that when Social Security was passed it was a truly deficit-neutral event, which is totally unlike the Affordable Care Act. The only reason that the Social Security and Medicare is looking at a funding issue, the legislatures have been using the fund for other spending that had nothing to do with Social Security. Another difference is all working individuals pay into Social Security and Medicare. With the Affordable Care Act, if you are within a certain income bracket you will receive a subsidy that would pay the entire cost. Its called cost sharing. I don't know about most people but if it doesn't cost you anything its "free." Social Security benefits are based on how much an individual pays in. That is not the case with the Affordable Care Act.
My last point to these two individuals: Last election season declared the Tea Party dead. So if the Tea Party is dead how could they have been instrumental in shutting the government down? Isn't the House responsible for funding? Isn't the House of Representatives responsibilty to determine what gets funded and what does not? Isn't the House of Representatives the checks and balances for the rest of the government? So if they did not want to fund a program isn't it within their scope of power to do so? Isn't that why we elected them? Can they really be demonized for doing their job?
Page 2 of 2 -