Why are people against the ACA (Obamacare)?

Discussion in 'Business & Economics' started by Oystein, Feb 26, 2017.

  1. Oystein Registered Senior Member

    Why are people against Obamacare?

    I can't believe that people don't want their fellow citizens to get treatment for a pre-existing condition. But maybe I'm wrong and some people are that heartless. Really?

    Do people think that many are "playing" the ACA and getting something they don't deserve?

    Or is the whole thing just too damn expensive and can't be managed over the long-run?

    Does it sound too socialist?

    Should unlucky people with pre-existing diseases only be allowed to get money thru charities?

    Is ACA bad solely because it is an Obama-created policy and you hate Obama?

    Is ACA bad solely because it is a Democratic Party initiative and you hate the Dems?

    Or something else you don't like about it?
    Last edited: Feb 26, 2017
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member

    Many people are having enough trouble themselves, without the government forcing them to buy expensive health insurance plans, that include things they don't want or need, to help pay for other people. It's a Ponzi scheme, where it is only sustainable if enough healthy people pay into the system, without taking benefits, to cover the preexisting conditions that take an inordinate amount of benefits. It's basically a tax on the healthy...a penalty of not requiring health care. It's bad economics and bad incentives.

    What would help more is allowing insurers to sell plans across state lines, so there's more competition and incentive to negotiate lower payouts with healthcare providers (which may include streamlining that can alleviate workload).
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Oystein Registered Senior Member

    That doesn't seem to help the "pre-existing condition" problem.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member

    You cannot magically make preexisting conditions less costly. If the only "solution" is to penalize everyone else, that's not an ethical solution.
  8. Oystein Registered Senior Member

    It is also not ethical to let someone suffer because they couldn't afford health insurance (for various valid reasons) and then get a condition that bars them from ever getting health insurance. But I guess there is always charity.
  9. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Countries with universal health care include Austria, Belarus, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Moldova, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Serbia, Sweden, Switzerland, Ukraine, and the United Kingdom.

    Meanwhile, we in the usa have lobbyist.
    origin likes this.
  10. Oystein Registered Senior Member

    It's hard to believe that Congress has been trying for 6 year
    I think the majority of the USA's available money goes towards . . .

    - the military-industrial complex
    - outrageous CEO pay
    - outrageous banking practices
    - keeping the Trump family in their accustomed luxury

    Things those other countries don't have to the same extent. You left Canada off your list. Is that intentional? If so, why. Just curious.
  11. sculptor Valued Senior Member


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    It ain't that we don't spend the money on healthcare. Our healthcare "system" is just a dysfunctional overly expensive boondoggle.
  12. Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member

    CEOs and the Trumps (other than POTUS pay) don't get paid by the government.
    US government spends about $1.6 trillion a year on health care, but only about $0.9 trillion a year on defense, including the Departments of Defense, State, and Veterans Affairs.
    We spend as much as welfare and education combined on healthcare.
    A simple colonoscopy cost Americans nearly $7,000 when the same procedure costs $700 in the rest of the advanced nations.
    We need a more transparent free market to rein in these ridiculous costs, and government involvement always increases costs. Just like government involvement increased tuition, because colleges will simply raise prices to absorb the artificial spending power. Economics 101.
  13. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Note that the US public health expenditure is equal to or greater than that of any country except Norway. We're already paying the taxes for single payer health insurance.
    Other people's government involvement reduces their costs.
    We have more free market involvement than any other First World setup - that seems to be driving the higher costs.
    They do, substantially. Drug company CEOs make big money of off Medicare, for example, because Medicare is not allowed to negotiate discounts on drug prices.
  14. Bowser Right Here, Right Now Valued Senior Member

    I haven't been affected by it one way or another, so it's hard for me to give an opinion other than what I have heard.

    I don't believe they want people to die because of lack of healthcare; however, my understanding is that many people, without any serious health issues, are paying much more to support others. Yes, it does sound heartless, but if you are paying much more for less, I can understand the hardship.

    I haven't heard that accusation. It's the increase in cost that people are in objection.

    That is my understanding.

    I don't know about it being too "socialist," but I do suspect some people resent being forced to participate.

    I don't believe there is an easy answer. Healthcare had gone through the roof since I entered the workforce--before Obamacare. The cost is even greater for many now. There's something going on within the industry. I'm not sure the government could ever mandate a real change, but they haven't done much in trying. I suspect the industry has a powerful lobby at play.

    Nope. I think people simply resent that it was forced on them and that some are paying higher costs.

    Nope. See the above.

    If I were seriously ill, it would be a great reassurance. If I were young and healthy and paying higher premiums and deductibles, I might have an objection.

    It's a mess and I don't believe the Republicans can fix it or make it better. Either we are stuck with it or people are going to die.
  15. wellwisher Banned Banned

    The reason people are against ObamaCare, is it creates unjust strain on a large percent of the population. There are too many mouths to feed, who wish a free ride. Someone has to pay the tab. The rich have their own private insurance, like in Congress. While those connected by political campaign donations; unions, get to avoid having to pay the collective tab. The result is the middle class is stuck with the tab, at a time when their wages have not grown and other costs keep going up. Their family suffers. This who benefit by freebies, don't have any sense of conscience at the hardship they create for people, struggling to support them. They only think of their own problems.

    One way around this is, those who live off the medical system for free, and create a tab for others, need to do community service into an attempt to pay back. Even the gesture of trying, will go along way. The middle class families who are stuck between a rock and hard place, who don't qualify for freebies, but can't afford to pay for themselves, never mind others, will feel there is a trading of services that can free up money.
  16. Oystein Registered Senior Member

    Thank you for that graphic, kind sir.

    So, maybe if our health care costs were under control, then maybe we could work out a universal health care plan? But I think it will also require that our society (labor force) is not so divided into a small number of "haves" and the rest are "have nots". The US is starting to look like a typical Third World country where there is a ruling rich and then everyone else.
  17. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Which gives one pause when contemplating equality of access to "universal health care".(and the "care" itself)
  18. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    US citizens already pay the taxes for health care that in most other First World countries buys universal coverage and First World levels of basic care delivery.

    Right now. Already. You can see that in the linked graphic.
  19. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    One of the issues buried in the US clusterfuck insurance setup is that a lot of the tax bill for the maintenance of these private insurance operations is not labeled and visible, and is regressive - it hits the poor and the middle class harder than the rich.

    Look at how much of your sales tax outlay goes to health care, for example - notice you're paying twice, for some of it, since the sales tax not only buys health insurance for government employees and contractors but is a percentage of a purchase price which includes employer paid health care.

    Or consider how much of your property tax bill goes toward medical care - for government employees, for emergency and charity services locally, for insurance against liability costs that are primarily medical.

    In my State car insurance is mandatory, basically a tax, and includes mandatory minimum medical liability coverage.

    Or how much of your payroll deduction - not the overt, for Medicare, but the straight SS percentage that never mentions medical - goes for various aspects of medical care covered by Social Security.

    There are good reasons everybody else's setup is both cheaper and better than we have in the US, and one of them is accountability.
  20. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Hence the need for Obamacare or something better. Most of not all of those countries have a socialized and/or a single payer healthcare system.
  21. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    And your evidence for that is where? Obamacare requires everyone to pay what they can for healthcare insurance. How is that creating a financial strain? Before Obamacare there is a law which requires hospitals to treat people even if they don't have healthcare insurance. So we were paying for the uninsured before Obamacare and after Obamacare. The difference that the formerly uninsured are required to pay something for their healthcare versus nothing before Obamacare.

    The Congressional Budget Office found that Obamacare saves hundreds of millions of tax dollars.

    And you think that makes sense....seriously? Obamacare makes healthcare more affordable for middle class and poor families. Before Obamcare healthcare was unaffordable for many middle class and poor Americans. After Obamacare it is more affordable.

    You mean like physicians and drug companies? The unfortunate fact for you is Obamacare is light years better than anything Republicans have proposed, and it's better than the healthcare system which preceded it. It isn't perfect, but it is light years better than US healthcare before Obamacare.

    Republicans have politicized the issue to their advantage. They told a pack of lies, e.g. death panels, and as you have done. And now they are like the dog who caught the car. They don't know what to do with it. They have no plans and they are scrambling to develop a plan.
  22. cluelusshusbund + Public Dilemma + Valued Senior Member

    John Oliver helps to esplain some of the hate for Obamacare.!!!

  23. pjdude1219 The biscuit has risen Valued Senior Member

    paying for other people is literally the entire point of insurance. Its literally the in the fundamentals of how it works by distributing risk. its not a ponzi scheme your just ignorant.

Share This Page