Obamacare...why the big deal?

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT
 

Okay, so yea I don't read the news much. I don't really know a whole lot about it All I know is the basic premise, it requires someone to have health insurance...that's not a bad thing...why would you not want to? And why is there so much heat over a requirement that you have something it would be stupid not to have anyway?

Could someone please explain it in a POLITICALLY NEUTRAL way? Because no one I ask can give a straight answer.

I am currently unemployed. Do you really think I can afford health insurance? I'm only affording to EAT because my parents care enough to send money to me. That's the issue. People talk about how this is supposed to be helping the poor, but all it really does is mandate another expense to come out of a paycheck that already doesn't go far enough.

On top of that, there is the very real question about whether the government has the right to dictate that you buy something. People like to draw the parallel between this and car insurance. But car insurance can be avoided by not owning or using a car. There is no way to not have to pay this. And that's a very scary thing. Many people believe that the government should not be able to pass a law requiring everyone to buy a product, no matter how "good for them" it is.

Aris Khandr:
I am currently unemployed. Do you really think I can afford health insurance? I'm only affording to EAT because my parents care enough to send money to me. That's the issue. People talk about how this is supposed to be helping the poor, but all it really does is mandate another expense to come out of a paycheck that already doesn't go far enough.

And guess what: it has exemptions up the butthole. Might wanna look into that; it's entirely possible that you don't actually have to get health insurance due to your low income, lack of job, or any number of other factors.

On top of that, there is the very real question about whether the government has the right to dictate that you buy something. People like to draw the parallel between this and car insurance. But car insurance can be avoided by not owning or using a car. There is no way to not have to pay this. And that's a very scary thing. Many people believe that the government should not be able to pass a law requiring everyone to buy a product, no matter how "good for them" it is.

You know what's funny about this? Almost everyone owns a car. A car is an absolutely vital necessity for almost all Americans. That's a pretty decent comparison. If all it takes is a flimsy conditional, even one that applies to almost everyone, how about "everyone who wants to be a legally registered citizen"? I think that's about as easy to clear as "don't own a car in a non-urban area".

Stagnant:

Aris Khandr:
I am currently unemployed. Do you really think I can afford health insurance? I'm only affording to EAT because my parents care enough to send money to me. That's the issue. People talk about how this is supposed to be helping the poor, but all it really does is mandate another expense to come out of a paycheck that already doesn't go far enough.

And guess what: it has exemptions up the butthole. Might wanna look into that; it's entirely possible that you don't actually have to get health insurance due to your low income, lack of job, or any number of other factors.

Which is rather my point. The entire purpose of this bill is to help the poor. But it has exceptions. They're not going to swoop down and just give me health insurance because I have no money. I'm just allowed to do without. Net result: the really poor still have no health insurance. Who were we helping again?

On top of that, there is the very real question about whether the government has the right to dictate that you buy something. People like to draw the parallel between this and car insurance. But car insurance can be avoided by not owning or using a car. There is no way to not have to pay this. And that's a very scary thing. Many people believe that the government should not be able to pass a law requiring everyone to buy a product, no matter how "good for them" it is.

You know what's funny about this? Almost everyone owns a car. A car is an absolutely vital necessity for almost all Americans. That's a pretty decent comparison. If all it takes is a flimsy conditional, even one that applies to almost everyone, how about "everyone who wants to be a legally registered citizen"? I think that's about as easy to clear as "don't own a car in a non-urban area".

Requiring a product for anyone who wants to be a citizen? Do you even realize how blatantly unconstitutional that sounds?

I'm not quite sure I understand the question. Are you asking about the healthcare law in general or the "individual mandate" provision that is at the center of the current court debate?

renegade7:
Okay, so yea I don't read the news much. I don't really know a whole lot about it All I know is the basic premise, it requires someone to have health insurance...that's not a bad thing...why would you not want to? And why is there so much heat over a requirement that you have something it would be stupid not to have anyway?

Could someone please explain it in a POLITICALLY NEUTRAL way? Because no one I ask can give a straight answer.

As a general rule of thumb, people that don't have health insurance don't have it because they cannot afford it. Obamacare requires those people to have it regardless, without significantly lowering the cost.

Companies that don't offer health insurance or offer limited health insurance where they can legally do so tend to do so in order to lower the overhead on keeping employees, y'know, employed. Costs of overhead go up, and so does unemployment rates.

People keep comparing Obamacare to the UHC systems in other countries, when it has little in common. Instead of privatized health care, or socialized healthcare, this measure is government regulated private health care, a system that removes the free market aspect of private care, but doesn't add in the whole "no direct cost to you" perk of socialized.

This is all on top of the fact that I apparently can't trust this government to run their own affairs without screwing it up worse than a certain company known as Enron did, so why on earth would I let that same government manage the affairs of a business that was doing just fine before they started meddling?

Stagnant:

You know what's funny about this? Almost everyone owns a car. A car is an absolutely vital necessity for almost all Americans. That's a pretty decent comparison. If all it takes is a flimsy conditional, even one that applies to almost everyone, how about "everyone who wants to be a legally registered citizen"? I think that's about as easy to clear as "don't own a car in a non-urban area".

A.) quite a few people don't own a car, because they don't want it, can't afford it, or don't need it. There is absolutely no reason in hell a person should have to buy car insurance if they don't own a car, I'm not even convinced requiring it for people who do own one is the right thing.

Also, so now, in order to avoid paying for a product the government is now pushing on me, you think I should have to renounce my citizenship? Is that what you are trying to say? I'm in pretty much the same boat as the guy above. I'm getting by for the most part, but almost every scrap of the money I earn is accounted for. Paying for medical insurance quite simply is not going to happen.

Aris Khandr:

Stagnant:

Aris Khandr:
I am currently unemployed. Do you really think I can afford health insurance? I'm only affording to EAT because my parents care enough to send money to me. That's the issue. People talk about how this is supposed to be helping the poor, but all it really does is mandate another expense to come out of a paycheck that already doesn't go far enough.

And guess what: it has exemptions up the butthole. Might wanna look into that; it's entirely possible that you don't actually have to get health insurance due to your low income, lack of job, or any number of other factors.

Which is rather my point. The entire purpose of this bill is to help the poor. But it has exceptions. They're not going to swoop down and just give me health insurance because I have no money. I'm just allowed to do without. Net result: the really poor still have no health insurance. Who were we helping again?

The law overall is designed to help the many people who before were unable to get insurance because the insurance companies did not want to take on anyone that would lose them money.

Sooooo...... pass a law making it illegal for insurance companies to discriminate against customers. Problem solved, and no questions of constitutionality.

*sigh* And both of you miss my point. Not everyone has car insurance, but everyone who owns a car has it. A car is, in most parts of the country, absolutely necessary, to the degree where living without one is nearly impossible.

pyrate:

The law overall is designed to help the many people who before were unable to get insurance because the insurance companies did not want to take on anyone that would lose them money.

So instead of simply requiring that people not be turned away on that basis, perhaps even subsidizing their bills, we have this overblown monstrosity?

Stagnant:
*sigh* And both of you miss my point. Not everyone has car insurance, but everyone who owns a car has it. A car is, in most parts of the country, absolutely necessary, to the degree where living without one is nearly impossible.

Far less necessary than you may think, even in suburban and rural areas there are plenty of alternatives, but regardless.

People are required to have car insurance because they are liable to go out and cause a lot of damage to other property and other people with the things, with the insurance in place to make sure any liability is covered.

The same CANNOT be said for medical, the comparison fails.

I think the primary issue is this:
The currently proposed system doesn't help the people it's supposed to help.

The proposal was to make Healthcare available to the poor, to ensure every American can have acceptable Healthcare.
Unfortunately, they included enough exclusions so that Healthcare can be denied to the poor... because they're poor. So, if you can't afford Healthcare, you don't get Healthcare. Which begs the question "the fuck are we doing?"

This transforms the proposal from "Free Healthcare to the Poor" to something closer to "Mandatory Healthcare to those who can afford to pay for it."

The correct comparison is closer to:
Take a Product. This product costs US$1,000.00 a year, and is considered a good thing.
If your wages are insufficent, or you're unemployed, you don't have to get the Product. However, if the Government says you can afford it, you're required by law to pay for the Product. You have no choice in this matter as the product is considered "a good thing".

To me, this is a wonderful Law... for the insurance companies, who are now essentially immortal money making machines like the Internal Revenue Service.

Aris Khandr:
Sooooo...... pass a law making it illegal for insurance companies to discriminate against customers. Problem solved, and no questions of constitutionality.

Heronblade:

pyrate:

The law overall is designed to help the many people who before were unable to get insurance because the insurance companies did not want to take on anyone that would lose them money.

So instead of simply requiring that people not be turned away on that basis, perhaps even subsidizing their bills, we have this overblown monstrosity?

There is more to it than simply making it illegal for insurance companies to turn people away. You have to make sure that there is a set of rules that insurance companies must follow that balances customer care and company profitability. For example, insurance companies must spend at least a minimum amount of customers premiums on actual health services. You then need all the legal groundwork on what constitutes health services, exemptions and what not.

When writing laws you cannot make broad statements. Typically the broader a law is, the worst a law is. When people say "well it must be bad and we have no hope of understanding it because it is thousands of pages" they don't understand that a very large majority of those pages are going through the gritty details, trying to predict possible problems and solving them before they happen. It is more than possible to take a 1,000 page piece of legislation and summarize it in less than a page or two.

Things are not as simple as saying give people insurance. The world just does not work like that.

renegade7:
Okay, so yea I don't read the news much. I don't really know a whole lot about it All I know is the basic premise, it requires someone to have health insurance...that's not a bad thing...why would you not want to? And why is there so much heat over a requirement that you have something it would be stupid not to have anyway?

Could someone please explain it in a POLITICALLY NEUTRAL way? Because no one I ask can give a straight answer.

Ok, so. Obamacare is a lot of things, the part that is being challenged on constitutionality is the individual mandate. The supreme court is deliberating on whether or not the government can, within the confines of the constitution, require citizens to purchase a product from a private company. To be forward with you, I'd say no. If you read the Constitution, which is just the "what can the federal government do and how" you will find absolutely nothing granting the federal government the power to mandate this way. But the point here is that the arguement to keep it or not in court right now is not based on whether it is good or not. Whether or not we should do something is the why arguement, and constitutionality is not the why arguement, it's the what and how.

As far as why people wouldn't want it this way, the most common thing you'll hear is that people will be worse off from this. It's going to be more expensive for some people without actually improving the care (with the individual mandate, that is. the rest of the bill is debateable in this aspect). Health insurance can be a burden, it's not always beneficial (if you don't have any medical bills), but even if it was always a good thing, that would be the government trying to decide what is best for people, and part of freedom is determining what action is best for yourself.

But the giant arguement to not do this that nobody is talking about is the legal precedent. The Supreme Court must be consistent in its rulings, so they cannot allow this and then use an arguement that would shoot this down against someone else. Imagine this gets through the Supreme Court, they determine (probably by justification of the commerce clause) that it is within federal jurisdiction to make individuals purchase a product for the good of themselves and society. Now imagine the entire federal government goes republican and Rick Perry magically becomes president. Then they decide that everyone should be legally required to purchase a gun. What are the courts going to say to stop it? Guns are bad? Nope, 2nd amendment. Government can't make people buy things? Nope, this case. Well, I guess they can do that now. It's like right now, Obama de facto can just assassinate US citizens. That's not an exagerration; that's reality. And people say, "well, Obama's not a tyrant, he's only using that power against terrorists." But what would happen if Gingrich became president and the precedant of executively ordered execution of US citizens was still standing? We do not want that.

I hope all that made sense. It definitely wasn't unbaised at the end, but you asked for reasons why people would be against it, so you did ask for a little bit of a one-sided arguement.

pyrate:

There is more to it than simply making it illegal for insurance companies to turn people away. You have to make sure that there is a set of rules that insurance companies must follow that balances customer care and company profitability. For example, insurance companies must spend at least a minimum amount of customers premiums on actual health services.

Or, we can just not mandate people health insurance, and then when the insurance companies have an undesirable proportion between customer care and company profitability, people can stop using their services.

And yet, when you ask people about the individual features of Obamacare, they are generally all for it.

For example the whole thing about not denying coverage based on pre-existing conditions? People love it, overwhelmingly. Allowing children to stay on their parents' policy until 26 also scores highly. And the provision offering discounts to reduce the medicare prescription drug coverage gap (the "donut hole") gets a high approval rating too.

They like the lettuce, tomatoes, and carrots, but not the salad.

BTW, the "penalty"--which mind you Obamacare actually has no teeth for enforcing--is $95 the first year. Both exemptions and subsidies are available for those who need it.

Bottom line is more people will have coverage. More people covered means less uninsured folk that the insured have to subsidize. That's where your cost reduction comes in.

evilneko:

Bottom line is more people will have coverage. More people covered means less uninsured folk that the insured have to subsidize. That's where your cost reduction comes in.

What about people who aren't insured... and then pay for their health care?

Heronblade:

Stagnant:
*sigh* And both of you miss my point. Not everyone has car insurance, but everyone who owns a car has it. A car is, in most parts of the country, absolutely necessary, to the degree where living without one is nearly impossible.

Far less necessary than you may think, even in suburban and rural areas there are plenty of alternatives, but regardless.

I know it's a bit off-topic, but doooooooood. I've gotta know what these magical alternatives to cars in rural and suburban areas are.

tstorm823:

evilneko:

Bottom line is more people will have coverage. More people covered means less uninsured folk that the insured have to subsidize. That's where your cost reduction comes in.

What about people who aren't insured... and then pay for their health care?

You mean the people that pay for small things like a doctors visit but don't pay when an accident happens and they end up with a $50,000 hospital bill.

Having no insurance on the grounds you will pay for it when you get it is not an argument. Insurance is not about paying for the small things, it is about paying for the large costs that you cannot possibly cover yourself. The reason we do get coverage for small things is to offer something in return for paying, since most people will end up paying more in insurance overall then they would if they just paid for healthcare as they needed it. If you didn't get anything out of it except coverage for the big bills then there would be a lot more people taking the risk of not having insurance.

tstorm823:

pyrate:

There is more to it than simply making it illegal for insurance companies to turn people away. You have to make sure that there is a set of rules that insurance companies must follow that balances customer care and company profitability. For example, insurance companies must spend at least a minimum amount of customers premiums on actual health services.

Or, we can just not mandate people health insurance, and then when the insurance companies have an undesirable proportion between customer care and company profitability, people can stop using their services.

You can't have it both ways. You cannot make the insurance companies cover higher risk customers and not give them anything in return. The mandate is to increase the size of the market. Without it the percentage of risk the insurers are exposed to compared to customer premiums is a bit high.

I want to make one thing clear, OC is a piece of shit compared to what every other developed country has, but it is better than what you have. It will not lower costs, it will just stop them from increasing by stupid amounts.

The only way the US is going to bring costs back to the rest of the developed world is with a public option and single payer system. This will not happen unless Democrats have a super majority in both houses. They also have to shift focus to preventative care, which is something that is slowly happening with things like birth control being a mandatory inclusion. Preventative care is much cheaper overall.

Polarity27:
I know it's a bit off-topic, but doooooooood. I've gotta know what these magical alternatives to cars in rural and suburban areas are.

The bus? Mooching off your friends?

On a slightly more related note: It looks like a "politically neutral" explaination is a pipe dream in this case.

Capacha made me laugh: don't tase_me.

The problem with Obamacare is that it will perpetuate our current massively insurance based system. This and the effects of government subsidies result in American medical institutions catering to insurance companies and government programs instead of individual patients. Ever wondered why America spends so goddamn much more money than everywhere else on medicine and gets a worse product? It's because Doctors are incentivised to run superfluous and expensive tests because they make more money off of them and because they don't answer to the patients being tested. The result is that medical treatment is massively inefficient, and the citizens eventually get stuck footing the bill.

The Gentleman:

Polarity27:
I know it's a bit off-topic, but doooooooood. I've gotta know what these magical alternatives to cars in rural and suburban areas are.

The bus? Mooching off your friends?

On a slightly more related note: It looks like a "politically neutral" explaination is a pipe dream in this case.

Capacha made me laugh: don't tase_me.

*What* bus? The little town of 1,200 I grew up in had exactly one bus that went anywhere near it-- it went to the nearest city, an hour away, once a day at no precise time. You just stood out there at vaguely noon and hoped you weren't still standing out there an hour later. Great fun for a teenager granted a "take a friend and go to the mall once a year" trip, not terribly useful for anything else. I never met anyone else in my town that used that bus. Meanwhile, the nearest *jobs* were about 20 minutes the other way. And that's if you're lucky enough to live in the village and are able to walk to the random spot in the road the bus went by. You're SOL if you live in the town, the vague large circle around the village with no transportation at all other than your car or your friend/family member's car (and that's still, y'know, a car). You can't do rural in that area without *someone* in your family unit owning a car.

Now I live in the 'burbs. There's a bus that goes about a mile or two from my house, but it goes toward the city. There isn't really much in the way of good bus service that goes 'burb to 'burb, and the subway has the same problem-- if you want to go from my 'burb (on one color line) to one about ten miles away (on a different color line), you have to go all the way into the city and then transfer and then go all the way back out again. Many jobs in the 'burbs are literally out where buses don't run-- my house is closer to the city than many of the big tech firms are. Oh, and the buses tend to run only during peak commuting hours, with no service after 9pm and very sporadic buses after/before rush hour-- no buses on Sunday, very limited service on Saturday. (I'm told that our public transportation is considered very good in accessibility terms, which just makes me laugh considering how often elevators are busted at major subway stops.) Commuting time on the buses is double+ car commuting time. Like... a 25 minute car trip takes my husband almost *90 minutes* on days he takes the bus. Basically, it's viable if you're in a close-in suburb commuting to the city, otherwise it's either not viable or fantastically, hair-pullingly obnoxious.

randomsix:
The problem with Obamacare is that it will perpetuate our current massively insurance based system. This and the effects of government subsidies result in American medical institutions catering to insurance companies and government programs instead of individual patients. Ever wondered why America spends so goddamn much more money than everywhere else on medicine and gets a worse product? It's because Doctors are incentivised to run superfluous and expensive tests because they make more money off of them and because they don't answer to the patients being tested. The result is that medical treatment is massively inefficient, and the citizens eventually get stuck footing the bill.

Citation please? Every doctor I've *ever* spoken to-- and trust, my disabled ass sees an awful lot of them-- would tell you this is bullshit. If anything, they have to fight with insurance companies *to* test patients. They also don't make much money off being in the insurance system, every doctor I know would take private-pay patients only if they thought it was in any way ethical (and plenty do, or grossly limit which ins. companies they do take-- mine is apparently notoriously chintzy with paying doctors). If anything, they're "incentivized" (oh, love those idiotic Dilbertian neologisms!) to see as many patients as possible for as short a time as possible and to do as little for those patients as possible.

Healthcare costs are so high in the US because there's nothing holding them down. They're selling a necessity in a monopolistic manner, they'll charge corporations whatever they think the corps will pay, and then wringing the rest from the patients in an ever upward-spiraling cycle of copay increases. From everything I've seen, Medicare is much more efficient. The only truly cheap insurance I've ever seen is AARP's, and that's because they're able to bargain with the insurance companies as a massive entity.

obama care is just a stepping stone. it started out as something the democrats knew the ignorant republicans and conservatives would never go for and it was reduced to the shell we see today, but even in its original form it was a stepping stone. the democrats know that america would not accept changing to the "socialist" style of europe, no matter how much better it is than americas current system because all they would hear is "SOCIALIST SOCIALIST SOCIALIST". so instead they are going to wean the republicans and conservative public onto it with gradual steps without them actually realising whats going on. before you know it america will finally have caught up with the rest of the countries in medical care and all the republicans and conservatives will deny ever being so adamantly against it once they find out that it actually does work.

Aris Khandr:

Requiring a product for anyone who wants to be a citizen? Do you even realize how blatantly unconstitutional that sounds?

That's the problem with America, you regard health services and insurance as a product, whilst the rest of the civilisied world regards are as what it should be, a human right.

I did just did some research and came up with some interesting facts.

Obamacare bare a lot more ressemblance to European healthcare bills from over a centuary ago than to modern health services in Europe, like Otto von Bismarck's Health Insurance Bill of 1883, Accident Insurance Bill of 1884, and Old Age and Disability Insurance Bill of 1889 and the UK's National Insurance Act 1911 both of which mandated health insurance be provided for workers, workers would pay part of the cost, whilst employers and in the UK tax payers paid the rest. So it seems to me that America is a hundred years out of date when it comes to health care and some how this bill is still controversial, that's how backwards America is.

Though I should stress what I said above isn't everything to Obamacare, it is a much more complicated bill, and actually does none of what the fearmongers on Fox News will have you believe, it does not force the poor to purchase healthcare regardless of circumstance, if you can't afford you don't have to pay.

"A shared responsibility requirement, commonly called an individual mandate, requires that all persons not covered by an employer sponsored health plan, Medicaid, Medicare or other public insurance programs, purchase and comply with an approved private insurance policy or pay a penalty, unless the applicable individual is a member of a recognized religious sect exempted by the Internal Revenue Service, or waived in cases of financial hardship."

It makes numerous provisions to help fund healthcare for the poor and help small businesses provide healthcare for thier employees.

"Medicaid eligibility is expanded to include all individuals and families with incomes up to 133% of the poverty level along with a simplified CHIP enrollment process"

"Low income persons and families above the Medicaid level and up to 400% of the federal poverty level will receive federal subsidies on a sliding scale if they choose to purchase insurance via an exchange (persons at 150% of the poverty level would be subsidized such that their premium cost would be of 2% of income or $50 a month for a family of 4)."

"Minimum standards for health insurance policies are to be established and annual and lifetime coverage caps will be banned"

"Firms employing 50 or more people but not offering health insurance will also pay a shared responsibility requirement if the government has had to subsidize an employee's health care."

"Very small businesses will be able to get subsidies if they purchase insurance through an exchange."

So yeah, don't believe the anti-Obamacare hype, it does nothing like the forced taxation of the poor Republicans would have you believe.

Also don't you think it's very very odd that Republicans appear to be fighting so hard for the poor? When this happens anyone with a brain and a nose should smell a rat, an alteria motive to thier behaviour and sure enough there is strong evidence of one

"- Broaden Medicare tax base for high-income taxpayers: $210.2 billion
- Annual fee on health insurance providers: $60 billion
- 40% excise tax on health coverage in excess of $10,200/$27,500: $32 billion
- Impose annual fee on manufacturers and importers of branded drugs: $27 billion
- Impose 2.3% excise tax on manufacturers and importers of certain medical devices: $20 billion
- Raise 7.5% Adjusted Gross Income floor on medical expenses deduction to 10%: $15.2 billion
- Limit contributions to flexible spending arrangements in cafeteria plans to $2,500: $13 billion
- All other revenue sources: $14.9 billion
- Original budget estimates included a provision to require information reporting on payments to corporations, which had been projected to raise $17 billion, but the provision was repealed."

So Obamacare increases increases taxes on the wealthy's health insurance as well on the manufacturers and importers of branded drugs. This is the real reason for the Republican's opposition, they don't themselves and their rich buddies to pay the equivilent of the loose change in their back pocket more on their health insurance so that poor people can live.

Heronblade:

Stagnant:
*sigh* And both of you miss my point. Not everyone has car insurance, but everyone who owns a car has it. A car is, in most parts of the country, absolutely necessary, to the degree where living without one is nearly impossible.

Far less necessary than you may think, even in suburban and rural areas there are plenty of alternatives, but regardless.

LOL. Maybe in Europe. But the states? For anything more than a few miles, which is almost everywhere in places like downeast Maine (and hell, we've got it good relatively speaking), you're nuts.

People are required to have car insurance because they are liable to go out and cause a lot of damage to other property and other people with the things, with the insurance in place to make sure any liability is covered.

The same CANNOT be said for medical, the comparison fails.

Just like a person who goes into work with a nasty disease because he couldn't afford treatment for a week, and gives it to pretty much everyone else in the department? There's no liability for that either way, but there's no denying that it does real damage to people and profits.

tstorm823:

renegade7:
Okay, so yea I don't read the news much. I don't really know a whole lot about it All I know is the basic premise, it requires someone to have health insurance...that's not a bad thing...why would you not want to? And why is there so much heat over a requirement that you have something it would be stupid not to have anyway?

Could someone please explain it in a POLITICALLY NEUTRAL way? Because no one I ask can give a straight answer.

Ok, so. Obamacare is a lot of things, the part that is being challenged on constitutionality is the individual mandate. The supreme court is deliberating on whether or not the government can, within the confines of the constitution, require citizens to purchase a product from a private company. To be forward with you, I'd say no. If you read the Constitution, which is just the "what can the federal government do and how" you will find absolutely nothing granting the federal government the power to mandate this way. But the point here is that the arguement to keep it or not in court right now is not based on whether it is good or not. Whether or not we should do something is the why arguement, and constitutionality is not the why arguement, it's the what and how.

As far as why people wouldn't want it this way, the most common thing you'll hear is that people will be worse off from this. It's going to be more expensive for some people without actually improving the care (with the individual mandate, that is. the rest of the bill is debateable in this aspect). Health insurance can be a burden, it's not always beneficial (if you don't have any medical bills), but even if it was always a good thing, that would be the government trying to decide what is best for people, and part of freedom is determining what action is best for yourself.

But the giant arguement to not do this that nobody is talking about is the legal precedent. The Supreme Court must be consistent in its rulings, so they cannot allow this and then use an arguement that would shoot this down against someone else. Imagine this gets through the Supreme Court, they determine (probably by justification of the commerce clause) that it is within federal jurisdiction to make individuals purchase a product for the good of themselves and society. Now imagine the entire federal government goes republican and Rick Perry magically becomes president. Then they decide that everyone should be legally required to purchase a gun. What are the courts going to say to stop it? Guns are bad? Nope, 2nd amendment. Government can't make people buy things? Nope, this case. Well, I guess they can do that now. It's like right now, Obama de facto can just assassinate US citizens. That's not an exagerration; that's reality. And people say, "well, Obama's not a tyrant, he's only using that power against terrorists." But what would happen if Gingrich became president and the precedant of executively ordered execution of US citizens was still standing? We do not want that.

I hope all that made sense. It definitely wasn't unbaised at the end, but you asked for reasons why people would be against it, so you did ask for a little bit of a one-sided arguement.

That was actually one of the most lucid arguments I've yet to hear. Seriously, I asked my parents and they launched into something about abortion, freedom of religion, and 'crack whores trying to take our tax dollars.'

renegade7:

That was actually one of the most lucid arguments I've yet to hear. Seriously, I asked my parents and they launched into something about abortion, freedom of religion, and 'crack whores trying to take our tax dollars.'

To be honest, "crack whores trying to take our tax dollars" would probably easier to argue the constitutionality of.

renegade7:
Okay, so yea I don't read the news much. I don't really know a whole lot about it All I know is the basic premise, it requires someone to have health insurance...that's not a bad thing...why would you not want to? And why is there so much heat over a requirement that you have something it would be stupid not to have anyway?

Could someone please explain it in a POLITICALLY NEUTRAL way? Because no one I ask can give a straight answer.

- There is argument over whether or not the Fedruhl Gubment can force people to buy things. Legally, they can and it has been done multiple times in U.S. history. The right likes to drum up debates like this because it appeals to small gubment libertarian types who think the world consists of their own sacred mental island (where everything just works because... well because).

- Left wingers dislike it because you are forced to buy from private companies that will charge you up the butt and not cover your costs when they get too high (aka when you really really need help to pay for something). Also it forces the poor to buy insurance which they couldn't do even before the mandate. The idea is that by flooding private insurers with exactly one Megafuckton of customers that it will lower costs for all. If people still can't afford the insurance then obviously the whole lowering costs thing won't happen at all.

- Right wingers call it socialist. This is utter bullshit. The facts are that if you are forced to buy from a PRIVATE company it is not in any way socialism. Actual socialists oppose the Obama plan on these grounds. "Obamacare" is actually an old Republican health plan from the 90s drafted by a conservative think tank to counter Democratic pushes for health reform. Obama is a moderate (despite what dingbats claim) and he chose this plan as a middle road. A tepid, ineffectual, pansy ass kowtow to radical scumbags.

Because hes a muslim terrorist n*gger. Thats why. Damn black communists, tryin to take ma personal freedom!

In all seriousness, probably because people dislike the idea of paying for other peoples insurance.

pyrate:

You mean the people that pay for small things like a doctors visit but don't pay when an accident happens and they end up with a $50,000 hospital bill.

This is going to blow your mind, but people pay those bills. $50,000 is a massive expenditure, but so is a car or a house, and people manage those bills, don't they? Get your assumptions out of here. After 30 minutes of google, the only studies I found even approaching the topic found that low numbers 5 or 12 percent, of the uninsured can pay their bills up front in full... but people don't pay for cars and houses with a pocket full of cash either and that's not getting people branded as social leaches, so why even point that out. I found $49 billion unpaid bills by the uninsured... which is .9% of medical spending in the US.

In comparison, 84% of Americans in 2010 were insured, and insurance companies brag about their 30% discounts. I'll use 20% to be fair, since small offices tend to discount the uninsured as well and I don't want to make too much assumption. And I'll take that 84% as the percent of expenses even though I know that statistically the insured get more medical care. So that's low as well. With just those numbers, the impact of insurance discounts on services is roughly 21% of the hypothetical US medical spendings. Way bigger than .9%. If we do the math proportionally, assume the 16% uninsured are 16% of the bills again, that unpaid $49 billion means that the uninsured pay 94% of their bills while the insurance companies get way more than 6% discounts. That means the insurance companies are doing more damage to the health system's profits than the uninsured.

And uninsured people are not going "Whoops, that number's high. Guess it's time to move." People pay for their medical care the same way they pay for their groceries. It's the honor system that they don't skip out on paying. People aren't selfish pricks the way you assume they are.

Preventative care is much cheaper overall.

Alright, here we go. I'm gonna poke the bees' nest on this one.

Prove it.

"Preventative care is cheaper!" is stated often and never supported and I have a lot of trouble believing it. I believe something like "regular cancer screenings make cancer treatment cost 10% as much as if it gets a chance to grow." But if we give that treatment to 100 people and only one has cancer, we've collectively spent 10x as much.

I've found conflicting data on this. I want you to do the leg work. Support your statement.

Enslave_All_Elves:

- There is argument over whether or not the Fedruhl Gubment can force people to buy things. Legally, they can and it has been done multiple times in U.S. history.

Citation needed.

Zeh Don:
I think the primary issue is this:
The currently proposed system doesn't help the people it's supposed to help.

The proposal was to make Healthcare available to the poor, to ensure every American can have acceptable Healthcare.
Unfortunately, they included enough exclusions so that Healthcare can be denied to the poor... because they're poor. So, if you can't afford Healthcare, you don't get Healthcare. Which begs the question "the fuck are we doing?"

This transforms the proposal from "Free Healthcare to the Poor" to something closer to "Mandatory Healthcare to those who can afford to pay for it."

The correct comparison is closer to:
Take a Product. This product costs US$1,000.00 a year, and is considered a good thing.
If your wages are insufficent, or you're unemployed, you don't have to get the Product. However, if the Government says you can afford it, you're required by law to pay for the Product. You have no choice in this matter as the product is considered "a good thing".

To me, this is a wonderful Law... for the insurance companies, who are now essentially immortal money making machines like the Internal Revenue Service.

Hooray for the destruction of competition, capitalism, and making John Smith roll around in his grave! :D

Another problem is that the bill is so long, written in such unreadable legalize, and stuffed with so many last minute previsions, NOBODY knows what will totally do until 2014.

Polarity27:

randomsix:
The problem with Obamacare is that it will perpetuate our current massively insurance based system. This and the effects of government subsidies result in American medical institutions catering to insurance companies and government programs instead of individual patients. Ever wondered why America spends so goddamn much more money than everywhere else on medicine and gets a worse product? It's because Doctors are incentivised to run superfluous and expensive tests because they make more money off of them and because they don't answer to the patients being tested. The result is that medical treatment is massively inefficient, and the citizens eventually get stuck footing the bill.

Citation please? Every doctor I've *ever* spoken to-- and trust, my disabled ass sees an awful lot of them-- would tell you this is bullshit. If anything, they have to fight with insurance companies *to* test patients. They also don't make much money off being in the insurance system, every doctor I know would take private-pay patients only if they thought it was in any way ethical (and plenty do, or grossly limit which ins. companies they do take-- mine is apparently notoriously chintzy with paying doctors). If anything, they're "incentivized" (oh, love those idiotic Dilbertian neologisms!) to see as many patients as possible for as short a time as possible and to do as little for those patients as possible.

Healthcare costs are so high in the US because there's nothing holding them down. They're selling a necessity in a monopolistic manner, they'll charge corporations whatever they think the corps will pay, and then wringing the rest from the patients in an ever upward-spiraling cycle of copay increases. From everything I've seen, Medicare is much more efficient. The only truly cheap insurance I've ever seen is AARP's, and that's because they're able to bargain with the insurance companies as a massive entity.

My current position on American healthcare was massively influenced by this article:
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2009/09/how-american-health-care-killed-my-father/7617/

I don't think it is conservative propaganda because it was penned by a Democrat and was published in a left-leaning magazine. The author is also a public figure, so I would doubt that he would lie in such a public forum.

On a side note, I find it interesting that you demand a citation of me and then rebut my claims with personal anecdotes and your own unsubstantiated claims.

tstorm823:

pyrate:

Preventative care is much cheaper overall.

Alright, here we go. I'm gonna poke the bees' nest on this one.

Prove it.

"Preventative care is cheaper!" is stated often and never supported and I have a lot of trouble believing it. I believe something like "regular cancer screenings make cancer treatment cost 10% as much as if it gets a chance to grow." But if we give that treatment to 100 people and only one has cancer, we've collectively spent 10x as much.

I've found conflicting data on this. I want you to do the leg work. Support your statement.

I should rephrase that into a less broad statement, targeted preventative care that is done well is cheaper.

I'm not going to lie, some preventative care is more expensive, that is fact. Some however is cheaper, that is also fact. It does not take a genius to figure out that if you want to save money then you go with the stuff that has been proven to be cheaper.

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp0708558

The NEJM should be good enough for you, they establish what we all know, some is more expensive, some is cheaper. As I said, it does not take a genius to work out that if you focus preventative care on areas where it will be cheaper you lower costs.

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked