8 ms·

As someone who doesn't live in the States, can anyone explain the opposition to Obamacare other than the recent technical problems (which seem to happen anytime

by ancarda 13y ago

As someone who doesn't live in the States, can anyone explain the opposition to Obamacare other than the recent technical problems (which seem to happen anytime governments go near a computer)?

gdubs 13y ago
On the left, people are upset it didn't go further and provide universal coverage via a single-payer system. On the right, people are upset that they are being mandated to buy insurance from a private company. There's irony in there somewhere. When voters are polled on the individual components of the plan, it is very popular. When polled on the plan as a whole, it is unpopular.
ctdonath 13y ago
Summary: my health care insurance is a matter between me, my doctor, and my chosen insurer - which is none of the government's business. Disrupting my insurance because of issues not relevant to my treatment is intolerable.
- walshemj 13y ago
  So you wont be accepting medicad and medicare when youre eligible then?
  - ctdonath 13y ago
    Both should be limited to the truly needy, rather than becoming de facto norms for _everyone_ in broad categories. I have no qualms about using a program I was compelled to paid into, while considering I shouldn't have been compelled to pay into it and that I'm a prime example of what's wrong with the system. And yes, I've said "no" to comparable "here, take even more taxpayer money" programs.
- mkramlich 13y ago
  Ok that's an understandable position. Let's continue that logic and apply it everywhere else in life: The relationship between your neighbors and you is a matter solely between them and you. The government should not interfere. So, if for example your neighbor were to choose to rob your house, or murder a loved one, clearly, the government should not get involved. When you're driving, that's a matter between you, your car, and perhaps the road. And your relationship with other drivers or pedestrians is solely up to you and them. You should all be able to do whatever you want and/or work out any disputes between each other as they come up. Laws would be pesky and just be government interference. And by the way, as to your point about disrupting your insurance for reasons not relevant to your treatment. That's a big whoosh that misses the point of the ACA. The whole core point of the ACA was in reaction to private insurance companies which would deny or drop people who were seriously sick. Thus, effectively denying treatment, or forcing them to rely on rush-to-emergency-room treatment, rather than cheaper and less stressful preventative care, or experience catastrophic costs, which then either bankrupt them and/or get passed on to all other taxpayers and customers, against those others parties wishes, anyway. Making sure more people get more and better treatment, more consistently, is the whole point of the ACA. It's not perfect, nobody claims that. But it has a heck of a lot of objectively good elements which are pro-health.
  - ctdonath 13y ago
    Malicious non-sequiturs are not persuasive. Some industries do develop systemic defects, and it is appropriate for government to apply regulations to correct those. There is a vast difference between coming up with a regulation amounting to "you cannot drop coverage just because a case proves costly" or "you must accept pre-existing conditions for coverage-transferring customers by accepting them at exactly the same plan/cost as a current customer facing the same treatment costs", vs. taking over the entire industry and compelling a multitude of costly irrelevancies and disruptive non-sequiturs. And you're missing a heck of a lot of objectively bad elements which are anti-health. The point of a discussion is to address both sides of the issue, not just loudly ignore the opposition's objections.
mynewwork 13y ago
You know how when the US invaded Iraq and you said "Wow, the American government is evil". And then when the US did a terrible job of handling the Hurricane Katrina disaster you said "Wow, the American government is incompetent". And then when the US bailed out well-connected wall street banks in the financial crisis you said "Wow, the American government is corrupt". It turns out, some Americans don't want that same evil, incompetent, corrupt government controlling their healthcare.
- jack-r-abbit 13y ago
  You just won the Internet with that summary. I might have to use it to impress my friends later. Thank you. :)
mackal 13y ago
Well, they claim its because of the individual mandate (you must have health insurance). This idea has been the sole thing the Democrats and Republicans have disagreed on since the late 80s. The Democrats didn't want it, the Republicans didn't want health care reform without it. Now Obama really wanted to pass health care reform, so him and the Democratic strategists sat down and decided to adopt the idea of an individual mandate. This pissed off the Republicans since it meant they had nothing to complain about without looking like a dick, so they decided to abandon the idea. OE they are just racist dicks. I know few of the more vocal advocates for an individual mandate were asked why they are Noe against it and they basically said Obama shouldn't have supported it and left it at that.
jeremyt 13y ago
Sure. The health care system was structured poorly before any of this got started. Basically, how health insurance worked in the US is that about 90% of people get health insurance through their employer. This happened for two reasons: during the wage freezes around World War II, companies started offering fringe benefits to get around it, and there is a standard tax deduction for companies to offer health insurance. Individuals cannot claim this deduction. For the remaining 10%, about half of them buy insurance on the open market, which is really cheap and easy for people that are young and healthy, expensive for older people, and pretty much impossible if you have an existing condition. The remaining 5% go uninsured either by choice or because they can't afford insurance at all. That doesn't mean they can't get health care, that just means they use free clinics and pay cash at places like urgent care centers. The ACA made changes to the insurance market. Among the changes were new minimum requirements for what companies could sell as "health insurance". For example, even if you are a single 25-year-old male, you now have to pay for maternity coverage, mental health coverage, childhood mental health care, and other things that you're very unlikely to need. Further, health insurance is no longer allowed to have a cap on coverage, and companies are not allowed to charge old, sick people more than a small multiple of what they charge young and healthy people. Mind you, a key campaign promise while passing the bill was that "if you like your health insurance you can keep it". After the bill was passed in rules were promulgated, it turns out that if health insurance companies make any change at all in a plan (even changing the deductible by five dollars), then they are no longer able to offer the old plan and have to switch to a plan that qualifies. This rule is resulting in millions of people having their health insurance canceled, and they are being forced to go on to the (nonworking) exchanges to buy health insurance that in most cases is much more expensive (if you're relatively healthy and young). New insurance results in you having to pick all new doctors, most likely, also. So the main opposition comes from conservatives who oppose it on the grounds that government is interfering in the healthcare market, healthy people who are now being forced to pay sometimes more than twice as much, and young people who now get to subsidize the insurance of old people. An additional philosophical objection comes from the individual mandate, which technically was upheld by the Supreme Court but many conservatives think that the Chief Justice had to contort himself into a pretzel to do it. Essentially, the ruling said that the government doesn't have the power to force you to buy something but they do have the ability, under the taxing power to tax you for not buying something. This was not written into the law, and the Supreme Court had to, in effect, change a clause in the law to make this work. There is a populist opposition to the law because there are many large companies and labor unions (and Congress itself, including the president) that have been exempted from the law... And there are rumors that the president is going to further exempt certain well-connected labor unions from the tax on high-cost health plans. There are legal objections to the law because the president decided to postpone a tax on employers that was written into the law. Many legal conservatives don't believe that the president has the power to rewrite portions of a law after it's been passed by Congress. There are religious objections the law because it requires private companies run by very religious people to offer abortion and contraception coverage in the health insurance they offer their employees. And finally, because the Democrats and the President decided to pass this law without any Republican votes (And using a questionable tactic called reconciliation that enabled them to pass it with 50 votes instead of 60 in the Senate), there is no political downside to opposing the law on the Republican side. Mostly, Republicans dislike the law and therefore their representatives in Congress get more kudos as their objections to the law get louder and louder. And there is no end in sight.

by ancarda 13y ago

As someone who doesn't live in the States, can anyone explain the opposition to Obamacare other than the recent technical problems (which seem to happen anytime governments go near a computer)?

gdubs 13y ago

On the left, people are upset it didn't go further and provide universal coverage via a single-payer system. On the right, people are upset that they are being mandated to buy insurance from a private company. There's irony in there somewhere. When voters are polled on the individual components of the plan, it is very popular. When polled on the plan as a whole, it is unpopular.

ctdonath 13y ago

Summary: my health care insurance is a matter between me, my doctor, and my chosen insurer - which is none of the government's business. Disrupting my insurance because of issues not relevant to my treatment is intolerable.

walshemj 13y ago
So you wont be accepting medicad and medicare when youre eligible then?
- ctdonath 13y ago
  Both should be limited to the truly needy, rather than becoming de facto norms for _everyone_ in broad categories. I have no qualms about using a program I was compelled to paid into, while considering I shouldn't have been compelled to pay into it and that I'm a prime example of what's wrong with the system. And yes, I've said "no" to comparable "here, take even more taxpayer money" programs.
mkramlich 13y ago
Ok that's an understandable position. Let's continue that logic and apply it everywhere else in life: The relationship between your neighbors and you is a matter solely between them and you. The government should not interfere. So, if for example your neighbor were to choose to rob your house, or murder a loved one, clearly, the government should not get involved. When you're driving, that's a matter between you, your car, and perhaps the road. And your relationship with other drivers or pedestrians is solely up to you and them. You should all be able to do whatever you want and/or work out any disputes between each other as they come up. Laws would be pesky and just be government interference. And by the way, as to your point about disrupting your insurance for reasons not relevant to your treatment. That's a big whoosh that misses the point of the ACA. The whole core point of the ACA was in reaction to private insurance companies which would deny or drop people who were seriously sick. Thus, effectively denying treatment, or forcing them to rely on rush-to-emergency-room treatment, rather than cheaper and less stressful preventative care, or experience catastrophic costs, which then either bankrupt them and/or get passed on to all other taxpayers and customers, against those others parties wishes, anyway. Making sure more people get more and better treatment, more consistently, is the whole point of the ACA. It's not perfect, nobody claims that. But it has a heck of a lot of objectively good elements which are pro-health.
- ctdonath 13y ago
  Malicious non-sequiturs are not persuasive. Some industries do develop systemic defects, and it is appropriate for government to apply regulations to correct those. There is a vast difference between coming up with a regulation amounting to "you cannot drop coverage just because a case proves costly" or "you must accept pre-existing conditions for coverage-transferring customers by accepting them at exactly the same plan/cost as a current customer facing the same treatment costs", vs. taking over the entire industry and compelling a multitude of costly irrelevancies and disruptive non-sequiturs. And you're missing a heck of a lot of objectively bad elements which are anti-health. The point of a discussion is to address both sides of the issue, not just loudly ignore the opposition's objections.

mynewwork 13y ago

You know how when the US invaded Iraq and you said "Wow, the American government is evil". And then when the US did a terrible job of handling the Hurricane Katrina disaster you said "Wow, the American government is incompetent". And then when the US bailed out well-connected wall street banks in the financial crisis you said "Wow, the American government is corrupt". It turns out, some Americans don't want that same evil, incompetent, corrupt government controlling their healthcare.

jack-r-abbit 13y ago
You just won the Internet with that summary. I might have to use it to impress my friends later. Thank you. :)

mackal 13y ago

Well, they claim its because of the individual mandate (you must have health insurance). This idea has been the sole thing the Democrats and Republicans have disagreed on since the late 80s. The Democrats didn't want it, the Republicans didn't want health care reform without it. Now Obama really wanted to pass health care reform, so him and the Democratic strategists sat down and decided to adopt the idea of an individual mandate. This pissed off the Republicans since it meant they had nothing to complain about without looking like a dick, so they decided to abandon the idea. OE they are just racist dicks. I know few of the more vocal advocates for an individual mandate were asked why they are Noe against it and they basically said Obama shouldn't have supported it and left it at that.

jeremyt 13y ago

Sure. The health care system was structured poorly before any of this got started. Basically, how health insurance worked in the US is that about 90% of people get health insurance through their employer. This happened for two reasons: during the wage freezes around World War II, companies started offering fringe benefits to get around it, and there is a standard tax deduction for companies to offer health insurance. Individuals cannot claim this deduction. For the remaining 10%, about half of them buy insurance on the open market, which is really cheap and easy for people that are young and healthy, expensive for older people, and pretty much impossible if you have an existing condition. The remaining 5% go uninsured either by choice or because they can't afford insurance at all. That doesn't mean they can't get health care, that just means they use free clinics and pay cash at places like urgent care centers. The ACA made changes to the insurance market. Among the changes were new minimum requirements for what companies could sell as "health insurance". For example, even if you are a single 25-year-old male, you now have to pay for maternity coverage, mental health coverage, childhood mental health care, and other things that you're very unlikely to need. Further, health insurance is no longer allowed to have a cap on coverage, and companies are not allowed to charge old, sick people more than a small multiple of what they charge young and healthy people. Mind you, a key campaign promise while passing the bill was that "if you like your health insurance you can keep it". After the bill was passed in rules were promulgated, it turns out that if health insurance companies make any change at all in a plan (even changing the deductible by five dollars), then they are no longer able to offer the old plan and have to switch to a plan that qualifies. This rule is resulting in millions of people having their health insurance canceled, and they are being forced to go on to the (nonworking) exchanges to buy health insurance that in most cases is much more expensive (if you're relatively healthy and young). New insurance results in you having to pick all new doctors, most likely, also. So the main opposition comes from conservatives who oppose it on the grounds that government is interfering in the healthcare market, healthy people who are now being forced to pay sometimes more than twice as much, and young people who now get to subsidize the insurance of old people. An additional philosophical objection comes from the individual mandate, which technically was upheld by the Supreme Court but many conservatives think that the Chief Justice had to contort himself into a pretzel to do it. Essentially, the ruling said that the government doesn't have the power to force you to buy something but they do have the ability, under the taxing power to tax you for not buying something. This was not written into the law, and the Supreme Court had to, in effect, change a clause in the law to make this work. There is a populist opposition to the law because there are many large companies and labor unions (and Congress itself, including the president) that have been exempted from the law... And there are rumors that the president is going to further exempt certain well-connected labor unions from the tax on high-cost health plans. There are legal objections to the law because the president decided to postpone a tax on employers that was written into the law. Many legal conservatives don't believe that the president has the power to rewrite portions of a law after it's been passed by Congress. There are religious objections the law because it requires private companies run by very religious people to offer abortion and contraception coverage in the health insurance they offer their employees. And finally, because the Democrats and the President decided to pass this law without any Republican votes (And using a questionable tactic called reconciliation that enabled them to pass it with 50 votes instead of 60 in the Senate), there is no political downside to opposing the law on the Republican side. Mostly, Republicans dislike the law and therefore their representatives in Congress get more kudos as their objections to the law get louder and louder. And there is no end in sight.