Patheos

BuddhistCatholicContemplativeEvangelicalGeneral ChristianHinduJewishLatter-day SaintMuslimNew VisionsProgressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Patheos

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos Patheos on Facebook Patheos on YouTube

Kyle Cupp

Destroying ObamaCare, Whatever the Consequences

Last updated on: January 9, 2017 at 11:49 pm   by Kyle Cupp

Destroying ObamaCare, Whatever the Consequences 2017-01-09T23:49:03-05:00 Kyle Cupp

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

800px-McMasterUMedicalThis opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal by former Senator Phil Gramm nicely illustrates the indifference to the needs of the poor you find in some prominent critics of the Affordable Care Act–critics who are in a position to attack the law. The title of the article, “A Simple Cure for ObamaCare: Freedom,” concisely summarizes Gramm’s take: the healthcare reform law is a disease that needs to be cured.

Gramm urges Republicans to get behind a feasible alternative to ObamaCare and proposes what he calls “the freedom option”: “Every American should have the right to decide not to participate in ObamaCare: If you like ObamaCare and its subsidies, you can keep it. If you don’t, you are free to buy the health insurance that fits your needs.” To be sure, this proposal would do nothing to help Americans who cannot afford the costs of health coverage. That’s not the intent of the proposal because that’s not where Gramm’s moral concern lies:

The opposition would come solely from those who understand that ObamaCare is built on coercion—and that unless young, healthy Americans are forced into the program to be exploited with above-market insurance rates, the subsidies will prove unaffordable. That will be an exceedingly difficult case to make to the public.

By extinguishing coercion, the freedom option would put ObamaCare on the path to extinction. Without the ability to exploit the young and healthy, the Affordable Care Act will collapse under its own funding weight, all but guaranteeing a 2017 revision of the entire law.

Gramm is clear: his desire is to destroy the Affordable Care Act and revise the entire thing. Somehow. Maybe. Who can say what will happen? He’s also up front about whom he thinks are the disadvantaged: young, healthy Americans of means who are required under the law to help cover the costs of those who need subsidies.

He expresses no concern for the hardship and harm his proposal would cause. That people now covered wouldn’t have access to the social good of healthcare seems to be of no consequence to him. Their losses would present no moral problem. His values are elsewhere. What’s remarkably immoral to Gramm is prosperous young and healthy Americans being coerced into helping the needy. The well-to-do have his heart. The poor not so much. “Exploitation” matters to him when it happens to the former, not so much to the latter. “The alternative will almost certainly be a long or a short path to capitulation,” he concludes. Because capitulation is apparently the worst possible outcome in all this.

ObamaCare is deeply flawed legislation. The results of the act have moved us closer to a just healthcare system, but we’re not there yet. Even people with coverage are still in the position of having to figure the financial costs into their decisions to seek care for themselves and their children. High costs still incline people away from seeking the care they might need. There are better ways to run a healthcare system, but the right response to this fact is not, as Gramm proposes, to destroy the Affordable Care Act come what may.

Follow Kyle on Facebook and Twitter.

Policy

Politics and Society

Ethics

Healthcare

ObamaCare

Phil Gramm

Previous Post



February 24, 2015

Michael Novak, Still Defending the Iraq War

Next Post



February 25, 2015 Teaching Your Children the Faith Doesn't Mean Indoctrinating Them


Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Book Reviews Confessions Culture Current Events Family Life Hermeneutics Humor LEGO Sets Mindless Monday Question Personal Philosophy Policy Politics and Society Quotes Religion in Pop Culture Series Theology Uncategorized

Select a Month April 2016 December 2015 August 2015 July 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014


Follow Us!

Follow Us on Facebook Follow Us on Twitter



TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Who was Jochebed?

Select your answer to see how you score.

David's mother Samuel's mother Moses' mother Jesus' mother

Related posts from Kyle Cupp

Catholic

Throwing Shade at Capitalism

Kyle Cupp

Catholic

Ted Cruz's Religious Politics Are Not Especially Christian

Kyle Cupp

Catholic

Who Supports Big Government Regulation of the Market,...

Kyle Cupp

Catholic

Why the Church Should Oppose All Killing

Kyle Cupp

TRENDING AT PATHEOS Catholic

Rejecting Doom: Christian Hope And Human Action

Christianity is a religion of hope. We are to have hope and...

It’s What Comes From Within Which Matters

One of the most difficult things for us to understand is why...

Why I Choose the Eucharist Over the Sermon

Choose the Eucharist, Not the Sermon What are we supposed to get...

5 Design Elements Found in Spiritually Rooted Homes

Putting Spirituality Into Home Decor Our homes are more than our living...

Credo: A Story of God Told with the...

About 10 years ago, I began to imagine a personal "Credo" that...

The Anatomy of Divine Revelation in Catholic Thought

The claim that God has made Himself known to human beings is...

view all Catholic blogs

Patheos on Facebook Patheos on YouTube

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Copyright 2008-2026, Patheos. All rights reserved.

Subscription Support Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In

Follow Patheos Patheos on Facebook Patheos on YouTube