RyanCare, formally known as the AHCA, has caused quite the stir but also has granted an interesting insight into the workings of politics and the economy, and the way their intertwined nature allows for the effective masking of their uniqueness.

What are the circumstances?

The AHCA was proposed by the Republican party with Paul Ryan as the spearhead of the policy, endorsing the plan as a much more desirable alternative to Obamacare. However, the parametrics of the plan were much more troubling, as the net losses pose virtually terrifying prospects for lower income families, as well as virtually anyone who is not part of the top 1 percent in the United States.

A projection by the Congressional Budget office estimated that approximately 18 million people will be out of health insurance upon implementation of this plan. 18 million losses of health insurance within the time span of 1 year is one of the most terrifying prospects that could be presented in terms of a policy. It is almost as if it is a deliberate attempt by the Republican party to create a Darwinist United States through eliminating those who are already structurally disenfranchised. If that wasn’t enough, the projections estimate a rise in removal of coverage to 21 million in 2020, and 24 million in 2026. Such drastic losses cannot simply be ignored, but what also should not be ignored are the recipients of the benefits that this plan brings to the table.

The wealthy and healthy benefit the most from the plan, receiving tax cuts ranging approximately from 33,000 to 191,000 apiece. This level of major benefits that is provided is through the allocation of tax revenue, which the rich receive large scale exemptions from. Furthermore, projections estimate that the cuts would be approximately $13 trillion out of Medicaid spending to be allocated to alternative resources.

What are the implications?

Apart from the obvious disastrous projections of the removal of healthcare, we also see the phenomenon of backtracking from the Trump administration, with predominantly advertising the healthcare plan as “RyanCare” rather than Trump attempting to take credit for involvement in the procedure, as major healthcare companies are also backtracking their support for the act. Their backtracking is incentivized by the cuts in the field of healthcare, as that would require more adamant attempts to generate revenue. This would raise competition as promised by the Republican party, but at the cost of a large portion of the lower income population to have to drop out of having healthcare entirely. Such a net harm is not only significant, it is detrimental, not only to society writ large but also for the proliferation of business of the companies involved, hence introducing one potential reason for companies to back out of support of the institution.

The more intricate part creates a far more complex yet terrifying scenario. The structural operation these types of policies present create a glaring advantage for the rich, and we realize that to be problematic. However, this creates the optimal circumstance for the overlooking of something very simplistic yet destructive. The distinct understanding that this gets across is that neo-liberal politics pervade the political sphere, and the whole notion of money dictating politics via lobbying being the most glaring representation of that takes the forefront. Politics that attempt to influence both sects simultaneously allow politicians to amalgamate the two structures effectively in order to mask the stark differences between the two, allowing the structures to operate within one another without revealing the structural differences. But here is when the main issue kicks in.

The conflation of political hierarchies and economic hierarchies being intertwined creates an illusion where the assumption is that if you can successfully climb one ladder, you can climb the other. While this is true, the same cannot be said for the opposite. The illusion comes in the form that politicians writ large, which tends to intertwine political inequality with economic inequality. This is while masking the unique forms of debilitation that those at the bottom of the ladder experience when they are at that position, thereby concealing the true problem whilst reinforcing the structure repeatedly. Political inequity of participation and economic inequality carry very unique characteristics, in terms of how the corporate representatives manipulate the general population to be subservient in each of the structures. This plan is simply yet another representation of such an instance.

Oppression can be obscured and recognized, but to combat it is a whole another story. Political and economic oppression have been so effectively normalized that it is virtually impossible to escape without abject destruction of the current civil society.