Everyone is entitled to his or her opinion. But those of us who want to evaluate others’ opinions are entitled to know how those opinions were reached. I am interested in an impartial evaluation of the Affordable Care Act and, thus, want to inform myself on all sides of the issue.
One would think ACA must have some truly significant flaws that would motivate conservative members of Congress to try to shut down the federal government for 16 days at a cost of $24 billion in an attempt to have the act repealed. Or to try more than 40 times to enact legislation to gut the bill. I worry that this may happen again when a fiscal shutdown looms early next year.
It’s interesting that an informal poll taken in Los Angeles discovered that people think Obamacare, which they evidently hate because of the word “Obama,” and the Affordable Care Act, which they like because of the word “affordable,” are two separate acts. As such, I think it’s appropriate those in Congress who oppose the ACA so vehemently provide us with details – based on a rational, thoughtful, objective analysis, not on partisan emotions – about exactly why they oppose the act, including details about specifically who the act would harm and exactly how they would be harmed. I would like this contrasted with their understanding of the benefits people would acquire, and why they believe the harm done outweighs the benefits.
I would expect Scott Tipton, our Republican representative in Congress, to provide this information publicly, so I can objectively evaluate his position and act accordingly when the next fiscal crisis arises and Congress threatens to hold the ACA (and the American people) hostage. I would like to know if his opposition is political or if there is something fundamentally wrong with the act. Informed, objective decisions on the part of constituents will be important when he is up for re-election. That is my understanding of the democratic process.