Whipple 1

Max Whipple

Stephenson

English 1010

7 Apr 2017

Exploration of Obamacare and the Lower Classes

Atlas, Scott. How Obamacare fails the poor and middle class. CNN.com, CNN, 4 Mar

2015. Web. 1 Apr 2017 http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/04/opinion/atlas-obamacare-

poor-middle-class/.

The article, written by Scott Atlas, begins with citing the number of Americans that had signed

up for Obamacare in the most recent sign-up period. Atlas claimed approximately 11 million

signed up, half of which would have been previously uninsured. Following this, he speaks of the

real effect Obamacare has on those that signed up. Atlas cites a study that investigated the

number of doctors that may end up refusing those that are freshly signed up with Obamacare, as

they were signed up through Medicaid. The number of doctors that refuse Medicaid and

Medicare has increased due to the failure of the government programs to adequately pay for care

provided.

After making claims regarding the negative impact of Obamacare on the poor and middle class,

Atlas then moves to address how the issue can be resolved. He claims three goals a health

reform plan must be focused on: helping Americans find private insurance, giving poor access to

healthcare by removing them from Medicaid, and adding mechanisms to reduce the cost of

health care.
 Whipple 2

Atlas was clearly opposed to Obamacare when he wrote the article. He makes many claims and

cites sources that are in opposition of the ACA. The claims he make do effectively argue his

point, and make it seem that despite Obamacares general appearance of being beneficial it is

actually detrimental to the poor and middle classes.

Chen, Angela. Poor, minorities, unemployed most likely to lose insurance if Obamacare is

repealed. Theverge.com. The Verge. Web. 20 Jan 2017.

http://www.theverge.com/2017/1/20/14336470/obamacare-

affordable-care-act-health- insurance-republicans-poor-unemployed-minorities. Accessed

7 Apr 2017.

In this article, Angela Chen begins by claiming the poor, unemployed, and minorities are those

most likely to lose health insurance if the ACA is repealed under the previously proposed plan

groups that are more likely to suffer from health problems in the first place. Chen cites research

performed by the journal JAMA Internal Medicine, which identified three groups that were

mostly likely to lose coverage from the repeal of the ACA. All of these groups are below the

federal poverty level. The first group consists of those below 400% of the poverty level who

bought insurance through the exchange. The second group is childless adults who dont receive

disability income with an income below 138% of poverty level. The final group consists of

adults in families with children who dont receive disability income, are enrolled in Medicaid,

and have an income between 50 and 138% of the poverty level.

Chen effectively argues her viewpoint, pointing out that the underprivileged will be heavily

affected by the repeal of Obamacare. Chen only cites one source in the article, but the article is

relatively short and effectively draws information from the one source. At the end of her article,

Chen points out the shortfalls of her source and what important information was not included in
 Whipple 3

the study of her source saying that the possibility of other data may blunt some of the

detrimental effects claimed previously.

Clemente, Frank & Pollack, Ron. How Obamacare repeal helps rich, hurts poor.

Usatoday.com, USA Today. Web. 11 Jan 2017.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2017/01/11/obamacare-repeal-helps-rich-

hurts- poor-column/96371652/#. Accessed 7 Apr 2017.

In the article, Pollack and Clemente speak of the effects the previously proposed GOP plan to

repeal Obamacare would have on Americans. They speak of how the ACA uses rich households

and big corporations to subsidize health care for the working families, thus leveling the playing

for everyone. They then claim that the repeal of Obamacare with the proposed plan would result

in a tax cut for the top 0.1% of Americans, while millions of other Americans would see their

private health insurance costs sharply raise because they would lose the subsidies provided by

the ACA. Pollack and Clemente then speak of the Americans that have gained coverage under

the ACA and how they will then lose it under the GOPs new plan.

The article ends by claiming the new system that is sought to be put in place is heavily rigged to

the benefit of the rich and powerful. By losing the tax money gained from the upper classes, the

lower classes will suffer while the upper classes continue to thrive.

This article is heavily biased towards the side of Obamacare. The data provided only supports

one side of the argument and excludes the negatives of Obamacare. While the claims made to

the benefit of Obamacare are valid and credible, it doesnt offer a look to both sides of the

debate.
 Whipple 4

Ehrenfreund, Max. The massive tax cuts for the rich inside the GOP health care plan.

Chicagotribune.com. Chicago Tribune. Web. 07 Mar 2017.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/ct-gop-health-care-plan-

tax- cuts-analysis-20170307-story.html. Accessed 13 Apr 2017.

Max Ehrenfreund begins this article with a strong claim, writing immediately as the article starts

Republicans new health-care bill is a mass transfer of wealth that cuts taxes for the wealthiest

Americans while cutting federal benefits for the middle and working class. Ehrenfreund backs

up this claim by referencing portions of the GOP plan that reverse many provisions of

Obamacare that offer help to lower income households at the expense of the wealthy. He then

references a claim Republicans often make: by eliminating regulations on health insurance, their

plan will lower the cost of coverage for the middle class, thus making up for the reduced

government support. Ehrenfreund rebuts this claim by referencing critics of the claim that say

the plan does not go nearly far enough to lower the cost of coverage.

Ehrenfreund goes on to compare the tax cuts between the rich and the lower classes. He says

that under the GOP plan the richest percentile of families will pay 77% of the current tax on high

wages and 90% of the tax on investments. This is compared to the middle classes, where

Americans would see tax cuts, but at a much smaller rate than the upper class. Lastly, these tax

cuts would negatively affect the poor as the stipulations of the GOP plan severely cut the

ability of Medicaid to provide for the lower classes.

In the article, Ehrenfreund clearly takes a negative stance towards the GOP plan. He effectively

backs up the claims with factual data that is consistent with the other sources I have seen and that

cites a variety of sources. In other articles, I have read about the ineffectiveness of Medicare

under Obamacare. Many say that Medicare already suffers after the passing of Obamacare.
 Whipple 5

Because of this I would be interested to see if the negative effects Ehrenfreund claims the GOP

plan would result in are any different or less detrimental than Obamacares effects.

Mulder, James. GOP Obamacare replacement plan hurts poor, helps middle class in

Central New York. Syracuse.com. Syracuse. Web. 09 Mar 2017.

http://www.syracuse.com/health/index.ssf/2017/03/credits.html. Accessed 13 Apr

2017

In the article, James Mulder discusses the specifics on how Obamacare and the GOPs

replacement plan affect Americans with various incomes. Mulder describes how Obamacare

provides tax credits based upon an individuals income, their local cost of insurance, and age

compared to the GOPs plan, which only bases credits upon age. From this, Mulder points out

scenarios presented by the Kaiser Family Foundation that show the negative effects of the GOPs

previously proposed plan. For example, one scenario involves a 27- year old in New York with

an annual income of $30,000 that would experience a 59% decrease in federal help under the

GOP plan. They claim the individual would get a $4,850 tax credit under Obamacare, but would

only receive a $2,000 credit under the GOP plan. In comparison, a 27-year old with a $75,000

income who does not qualify for assistance under Obamacare would also get the same $2,000

credit under the GOP plan. Mulder goes on to say that low income elderly Americans would be

heavily affected by the GOP plan. With the tax credits based purely upon age, and the ability of

insurance companies to charge the elderly more money, if these Americans would lose their jobs

or come across financial hardship they may not be able to afford healthcare.

This article is specifically speaking in regards to individual in New York, but most of what is

said could be applied to others in the country. The tax credits and specifications of the GOP plan

mentioned in the article would be country-wide. Mulder effectively points out the shortfalls in
 Whipple 6

the GOPs new plan and how some parts of their proposition are flawed. The use of the research

map presented by the Kaiser Family Foundation effectively argues the authors point. I question

what the benefits are of basing these tax credits on age. In the article, Mulder claims that the tax

credits will be easier for the IRS to validate, but I would think there is more justification behind

it.

Physician Appointment Wait Times and Medicaid and Medicare Acceptance Rates.

Merritt Hawkins, 2014.

https://www.merritthawkins.com/uploadedfiles/merritthawkings/surveys/mha2014waitsurv

pdf.pdf. Accessed 30 Mar 2017.

In this survey conducted by Merritt Hawkins in 2014, the realities of Medicaid and Medicare

patients are exposed. Merritt Hawkins makes many claims supported by the data they collected

to show that the government programs have negative effects on their users. In the data collected,

there are many data points trending towards the decrease of quality of service for Medicaid and

Medicare patients. In many locations across the United States, wait times increase while the

amount of Medicaid patients accepted decreases. The study then continues to break down what

is behind the changes of data over the years, as well as other data found such as physician to

patient ratios across the US.

The survey was effectively done, and provides a lot of impartial data points throughout. At the

end of the survey, it is effectively broken down so all of the data is explained and trends are

identified. This is a relatively impartial survey, and it does a good job of remaining that way.
 Whipple 7

Senger, Alyene. Five reasons to repeal Obamacare. Heritage.org. Heritage. Web. 21 Jan

2015. http://www.heritage.org/health-care-reform/commentary/five-reasons-repeal-

obamacare. Accessed 7 Apr 2017.

Alyene Senger provides 5 points as to why Obamacare should be replaced. The first point she

speaks of involves the increase of Government health care spending over the followings years.

Senger claims the ACA will result in $1.8 trillion of spending over the next decade, an

irresponsible number when taking into account the given deficit. Next, Senger claims that many

Americans have lost, and will lose, coverage because of Obamacares new coverage and benefit

mandates. She backs this claim by citing data collected by the Heritage Foundation in 2014.

Third, Senger speaks of the unavailability of healthcare providers due to the ACAs limitation of

providers in their networks. Fourth, Senger claims the ACA increases the cost of health coverage

all around especially those covered under employer-sponsored programs. Lastly, Senger

speaks of the 18 tax increases Obamacare imposes that heavily affect middle-class Americans.

She ends the article by recommending that congress should continue its efforts to repeal

Obamacare in its entirety.

Though well written and effectively arguing the point, the article by Senger fails to provide a lot

of evidence to back up its claims. Only a couple external sources were used to provide

credibility to the articles claims, thus making one question the validity of them.

Sprung, Andrew. Obamacare is a Boon for the Working Poor, and Thats Probably Good

for All of Us. MotherJones.com, Mother Jones, 5 May 2015. Web. 3 Apr 2017.

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2015/05/obamacare-working-poor.
 Whipple 8

This article, written by Andrew Sprung, describes the ways in which the ACA helps the working

poor, and why that is good for everyone. Sprung includes a chart that predicts the change in

income that will result from the ACA. In this chart, it is seen that the bottom 20% will see raises

in income while the other 80% see drops in income. This appeals greatly to those who believe in

income distribution.

Sprung continues to compare the incomes of those who recently signed up for Obamacare,

claiming that a majority of them are in the range that is most benefited by the ACA. This implies

that despite some positive and negatives, the Americans that are most benefited from Obamacare

are the ones that are using it.

Sprungs writing effectively conveys his point in writing to the benefits of Obamacare. His

claims are sourced and legitimate while addressing issues that opposing views have regarding it.

He often takes shots at all Republicans, often blaming them and predicting their reactions to the

ACA. This makes one think that Sprung is not completely unbiased, as he seems to hold some

disdain for Republicans as a whole.