The Affordable “CAR” Act?

A friend of mine posted an article called the “Affordable CAR Act” which I was hoping would be humorous satire rather than a ignorantly sarcastic attack on the Affordable Care Act, unfortunately it wasn’t, so I’ll address it for what it is, and what it is implying.

“These ‘affordable’ cars will cost an average of $54,000-$155,000 each.”

-This seems to be insinuating that everyone will be paying exorbitant premiums for their health care, which just isn’t so. The amount of people that have been cited as paying more is less then 5% of the nations population, many of them located in Republican led states that have fought the Affordable Care Act at every turn and have convinced their constituents not to purchase insurance, thereby driving up prices because of low enrollment. Either that, or they’re having to purchase new plans that actually provide coverage, because their previous plans, which covered next to nothing, have been canceled for not meeting the minimum requirements for the Affordable Care Act.

“This law has been passed because, until now, typically only wealthy and financially responsible people have been able to purchase cars. This new law ensures that every American can now have an ‘affordable’ car of their own, because everyone is ‘entitled’ to a new car. “

-Health care is a far cry from a car. Every person should be able to go to a hospital when they get sick or injured without fear that it will bankrupt them. Healthcare isn’t a luxury, especially in an industrialized nation that claims to care for all it’s people.  I also resent the implication that everyone that can’t afford health care is financially irresponsible.  What a disgusting insinuation.

“In order to make sure everyone purchases an ‘affordable car,’ the cost of owning a car will increase on average of 250-400% per year. This way, wealthy people will pay more for something that other people don’t want or can’t afford to maintain. But, to be fair, people who can’t afford to maintain their car will be regularly fined and children (under the age of 26) can use their parents car(s) to drive until they turn 27, after which date they must purchase their own car.”

-Hmm… Where to begin with this travesty of a comment. First off, the wealthy avoid paying their fair share of taxes at every turn, whether it be by putting their profits in overseas bank accounts, or finding creative ways to take advantage of loopholes, which is why our economy is currently in the toilet, so please don’t expect me to shed a tear that they will have to pay a little more in taxes for this. Also, where is it stated in the Affordable Care Act that the cost of insurance will rise every year? I also love the insinuation that people simply “don’t want” health care. Sure, they don’t want it until they find out they have cancer, or get in a devastating car accident that paralyses them, or one of their kids falls and breaks their neck, but by then it’s too late, they’re already bankrupt and overwhelmed by medical payments at that point. Also, should people who can’t afford health insurance truly not be able to go to the hospital because they can’t afford insurance? That seems to be the other point it’s trying to make. I think it’s truly sad that healthcare, a persons right to get medical treatment if they get sick, is being viewed as a luxury comparable to an expensive vehicle. As for the fine, it’s $95 or 1% the first year, and increases to a max of 2.5%. Not exactly a life ending fine, and it’s not truly even enforceable.

“If you don’t want or don’t need a car, you are required to buy one anyhow.”

-No one needs health insurance until they get sick or seriously injured, then those that didn’t purchase it are kicking themselves, because now they’re bankrupt. Just like auto insurance. No one truly needs it until their car is totaled and they’ve done thousands of dollars in damage to another persons property, and they still owe the person who gave the a loan for the car.

“If you refuse to buy one or can’t afford one, you will be regularly fined $800 until you purchase one, or face imprisonment.”

-Last time I checked there is a fine, but if you don’t pay it, nothing happens. At most it can be taken out of whatever tax return you’d get. So the implication that you will go to jail for not paying the fine is a flat out lie.  But what’s new?

“Failure to use the car will also result in fines. People living in areas with no access to roads are not exempt. Pre-existing conditions such as age, motion sickness, experience, knowledge, nor lack of desire are not acceptable excuses for not using your car.”

-What the heck does this even mean? How can you even fail to use insurance? As far as I know, there is no fine for “failing to use your insurance.” The fact that pre-existing conditions are being brought up is also disgusting. Does the author really think that those with preexisting conditions, should be denied coverage? Should they be forced into bankruptcy because they can’t afford to pay their medical bills? Should those that get sick have their policies canceled? Because that’s what’s currently happening. Then because they now have a “preexisting” condition, they are being denied new coverage.  Because that’s fair right?

“A government review board will decide everything, including when, where, how often, and for what purposes you can use your car, along with how many people can ride in your car. The board will also determine if one is too old or healthy enough to be able to use their car, and will also decide if your car has out lived its usefulness or if you must purchase specific accessories like spinning rims or a newer and more expensive car.”

-Ah, the death panels… Hasn’t this particular rumor been debunked over and over again? I feel it’s needless to say that this is a lie, since it’s been debunked so many times, but here’s a link anyway:

“Those that can afford luxury cars will be required to do so … it’s only fair. The government will also decide the color for each car. Failure to comply with these rules will result in fines and possible imprisonment.”

-Eh… No… Just… No… There is no requirement for people to purchase “luxury” plans if they don’t want to. They just have to have plans that meet minimum requirements. The government also doesn’t pick your policy, except for minimum requirements, much like the minimum requirements for auto insurance that we have. Should we not have auto insurance as well? Would any Obamacare detractors complain about forced auto insurance if someone ran a red light and plowed into them?

“Government officials are exempt from this new law. If they want a car, they and their families can obtain cars free at the expense of tax payers. This includes lifetime maintenance and automatic adjustments for fuel charges.”

-Government officials are not exempt from Obamacare. Congress even had to give up their employer paid plans and purchase plans off the exchanges. Members of congress and their administration are employees of the Federal government, they receive insurance through their employer just like I do, just like teachers do, just like state employees do, just like doctors do. Why should members of congress not receive the federal benefits that thousands of other federal employees receive? They aren’t receiving “free” benefits, they are receiving benefits with their job, just like I do, just like millions of other working Americans do.

“Unions, bankers, and mega companies with large political affiliations ($$$), Muslims and Amish are also exempt.”

-There is a religious exemption in Obamacare… Just like in almost every other piece of legislation that exists. That goes along with the whole First Amendment thing about not making any law that would prevent the free exercise of your religion? Are Obamacare detractors advocating to get rid of that? I’m sure there are many people would be ok with that if that’s what they’re going for.  There has been some speculation that a part of the Act exempts Unions, but it is just that… Speculation. There are some waivers that were given to businesses, but they are temporary (one year) waivers, not exemptions, and it will end in 2014. It just takes a little research to find out of some very ridiculous claims are true. I keep saying it, but people keep posting this sort of garbage. Please… Do your research. _Link to the original article

(Written By: James Garcia 11/19/2013)

10 thoughts on “The Affordable “CAR” Act?

  1. chialphagirl

    I live in a swing state that usually goes blue and our medical premiums are going up by 80% in 2014. The insurance companies have to cover the cost of adding new people with pre-existing conditions. Let’s not pretend like they are not going to pass on that cost to us.

    1. Of course they are, but the obstructionism and propaganda certainly hasn’t helped enrollment. If Republicans hadn’t been encouraging people not to enroll and instead helped promote enrollment then rates wouldn’t have gone up as much, if at all. Here in California and from what I’ve heard about New York, people are actually experiencing lower results. Of course the insurance companies are going to pass the buck, but that will only last so long. There are provisions built into Act that prohibit them from raising rates unless they have good reasons to do so. Also, those that are experiencing higher rates are not counting the subsidies that they will be receiving to help pay their premiums.

      1. This is why they never should’ve passed the thing without bipartisan support, because the Republicans will never lift a finger to help. Unilateral bills like this are never good. Obstructionism goes hand-in-hand with one-upmanship. The Dems should’ve done more to get some GOPs on board for this to work.

      2. That’s one of the things that happens when one side has a supermajority that the American people voted for. Do you honestly think that if the Republicans had a supermajority they wouldn’t vote their own bills through? It’s not like they passed the bill with a minority of votes, they passed it with the majority of votes that they rightfully won in the elections following all of the rules. If congress sat around on bills waiting to get widespread bipartisan support, nothing would ever happen, especially on bills that focus on things like universal healthcare, gay rights, immigration reform, etc… Even now, with the widespread bipartisan support needed, Republicans are sitting on bills like ENDA and the immigration reform bill.

  2. Jen David

    James – I almost always appreciate the articulation of your opinion. You and I agree that people are continuously sharing scams on FB without checking to see if it is legit or an urband legend. But really? You took an article clearly indicating it is SATIRE and broke down every little comment made. And then, you state, “I keep saying it, but people keep posting this sort of garbage. Please… Do your research.” I’d recommend you “research” the article you’re reading, friend. SATIRE! It says it at the bottom of the article! It is one person’s image of what they think of ACA and the changes that are happening. Just as you share your opinion and not everyone agrees, this person did as well. No one claimed some crazy scam. No one even claimed every bit of it is fact. I wouldn’t take anyone’s opinion as fact. By posting, I shared that I enjoyed reading the article, found the comparative imagery creative, and agree with elements of the SATIRICAL article. Count your blessings that apparently your premiums aren’t going up. It seems that I know all 5% of the population who’s premiums are changing since I have seen an incredible amount of friends posting their woes about premiums going up. Anyhoo – While I think making a huge deal about a satirical article is silly, and acting as though I shared a huge lie or scam as fact, telling me I’m posting “garbage” is ridiculous, I still appreciate that you are vocal to share your opinion.

  3. chialphagirl

    I generally think that bills should not be allowed to be a thousand pages long and should not be allowed to be voted on by people who haven’t read them.

    1. “Sure, most legislation is much shorter: The average statute passed by the 109th Congress—the latest session for which figures are available—clocked in at around 15 pages, according to the Senate Library. And the recent law authorizing President Obama to give gold medals to the Apollo 11 astronauts on the 40th anniversary of the moon landing filled just two pages. But major spending bills frequently run more than 1,000. This year’s stimulus bill was 1,100 pages. The climate bill that the House passed in June was 1,200 pages. Bill Clinton’s 1993 health care plan was famously 1,342 pages long. Budget bills can run even longer: In 2007, President Bush’s ran to 1,482 pages.

      Over the last several decades, the number of bills passed by Congress has declined: In 1948, Congress passed 906 bills. In 2006, it passed only 482. At the same time, the total number of pages of legislation has gone up from slightly more than 2,000 pages in 1948 to more than 7,000 pages in 2006. (The average bill length increased over the same period from 2.5 pages to 15.2 pages.)”

  4. Amanda Ramirez

    It drives me crazy when someone posts false information and gets upset when it is proven to be incorrect. There is difference between posting opinions and posting propaganda.

  5. Amanda Ramirez

    Our premiums didn’t increase, my mothers premiums increased by $28 a month and a friends decreased from a little over $400 a month to $68 a month. Unfortunately the media is focusing on the 5% that has had a premium increase

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s