Why are Repubs so against Obamacare?

[Matt1970]

Of course by "shoved down the throats of an unwilling America" you mean "enacted by the popularly elected legislature and signed by the President".

You guys love to act like somehow this was an illegitimate piece of legislation somehow forced upon America as opposed to a natural policy outcome that came after the Democrats won overwhelming victories at every level.

I have no doubt that you don't view the Bush tax cuts as being "shoved down the throats of an unwilling America" despite them being passed through budget reconciliation and the like. The reason? 1.) You liked the Bush tax cuts, and 2.) You haven't read a website that tells you that you're supposed to think that.

No I mean they passed a law when every poll you can find during that time showed the American people didn't want it. Remember how our representatives are supposed to represent us?

 

[sportage]

Why are Repubs so against Obamacare?

Well...
They don't like Obama #1. Thats damn crystal clear.

They have no other alternatives #2. And seem to believe the status quo is just fine.
And all the while THEY enjoy pretty damn terrific healthcare of their own in congress.

They feel just because anyone can be treated at the local ER is all the healthcare one needs #3, regardless of ability to pay.
Which is maybe true to a point for one time emergencies.
But ER followed by bankruptcy is not a real healthcare "system".
Most ER visits require several if not months and years of additional medical attention. And in THAT case, the ER will not treat on an ongoing basis.
Nor, will any private doctor accept or treat those post ER patients that are uninsured.
If you do not believe or realize that, you must live on Mars.

Bottom line, the ER is NOT the answer or the solution past that original visit. PERIOD!!!!

And last but not least (as they say), republicans are once again totally detached from reality with healthcare in America, either by accident or more so by their pig headed choice.
In other words, they don't really give a crap about you, or your family and healthcare.
Bottom line, and all that....

Ps. What is really the sad part of all this, people could fix this and change this if they used their brain and would think for themselves.
Realize its better to pay either a tax of whatever you want to call it and buy insurance so that everyone is covered. Instead of taking the risk and gambling away ones future health and ones future financial security.
Price a typical ER visit lately? You'll get the point.
And try to find a doctor that will treat you with no insurance after that ER visit, which the ER "will" insist on btw. The ER is only a one-shot thing. NOT ongoing healthcare.
I have never heard of a single doctor that treats any ongoing medical condition when the person comes in uninsured.
Nor any doctor that accepts home grown chickens or garden potatoes as payment.
We could fix this by voting these republicans OUT once and for all.
And then, improve Obamacare by moving to a single payer system.
Because, the truth of the matter, Obamacare is not government healthcare.
Obamacare is simply private insurance pools or exchanges offering insurance within the guidelines of a set of standards, like accepting pre-conditions and removing limit caps.

This isn't exactly rocket science, you know....
But Im ever amazed how dense people can be.
Especially when it comes down to their own best interest.
And realizing the ER is not healthcare.
Nor that any hospital will just forget and ignore your one time $100,000 ER bill.
ICU for one day can and is easily $25,000.
Two days? $50,000.
Do the math..
Oh, and that figure doesn't include shots, IV's, cat scans (which of the going price for one cat scan/MRI is $4,500. Yep! just one!) or the ICU doctors assigned to you.
Do YOU really want to risk it? No matter your age? Really.....?
.
.
.

 

[charrison]

Well...
They don't like Obama #1. Thats damn crystal clear.
They have no other alternatives #2. And seem to believe the status quo is just fine.
And all the while THEY enjoy pretty damn terrific healthcare of their own.
They feel just because anyone can be treated at the local ER is all the healthcare one needs #3. Which is maybe true to a point for one time emergencies.
But most ER visits require several if not months and years of additional medical attention. And THAT the ER will not treat on an ongoing basis. Nor, will any private doctor accept or treat those post ER patients. Bottom line, the ER is NOT the answer or the solution past that original visit. PERIOD!!!!
And last but not least (as they say), republicans are once again totally detached from reality and healthcare in America, either by accident or more so by choice.
In other words, they don't really give a crap. Bottom line, and all....

All false.

 

[fskimospy]

You say so, but you are talking about the overall political landscape. On certain issues however the demographics of coverage are not the same. I think you should have no issue agreeing with that.

I still stand behind my point, you won't accept just any site. It's not my fault you got your feathers ruffled over it. Maybe get a thicker skin?

I don't need a thicker skin. Some people are credible, some are not. No rational person should accept any source, no matter how disreputable its content. Of course I won't just accept any site. The idea that I would have to accept a link from infowars.com the same way I would have to accept a link from the CBO is preposterous.

I'm quite sure you reject sources as well, I would imagine you just wish I would accept more right wing advocacy sources.

 

[fskimospy]

Because they knew Scott Brown would win. Are you really this lame?

or was there some other reason the senate voted on Christmas eve for this bill? And didn't recess for winter earlier?

Oh so now a lame duck session is defined as time during the normal business of a legislature where they pass a law in December because they think they will lose an election in January that will make someone of the opposing party take office in February.

Sometimes I love watching the hoops you idiots jump through in order to maintain your world view.

 

[michal1980]

Oh so now a lame duck session is defined as time during the normal business of a legislature where they pass a law in December because they think they will lose an election in January that will make someone of the opposing party take office in February.

Sometimes I love watching the hoops you idiots jump through in order to maintain your world view.

I love the levels of denial you on the left live with. If things don't perfectly line up black and white in your world your minds exploded. Can't ever see the forest for the trees.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

How could the Republicans oppose a plan that they themselves originated many years ago? The answer is that they never really supported that plan in the first place, but favored it as an alternative to (evil) socialized medicine because it would keep their wealthy insurance company executive buddies and donors in business.

To understand why they oppose it so vehemently, you have to understand what they advocate. Their ideal health care system is one of laissez-faire capitalism where the government plays no or almost no role in regulating the health care industry. In other words they wholeheartedly support allowing the poor and the sick to die. Their plan can be eloquently summarized as: "Don't get sick, and if you do get sick, die quickly."

Thus, they support the current private insurance companies / private hospitals mess that we have today (and that is the true backbone of our health care system). They also support the private insurance company death panels and "freedom of contract" health insurance contracts that allow insurance companies to bury language in contracts that will allow the death panels to rescind your insurance.

That is why they oppose "Obamacare", because they see it as creeping socialism and they support having laissez-faire capitalism for the health care system.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Because it is a bad law that does not address causes of why healthcare is expensive. It currently it will upend the system that works for a majority of the population to help the few for where the system does not work.

Are you saying that they would support a law that established bona fide socialized medicine since that has been proven to be more efficient and less expensive while providing 100% coverage in almost every other first world nation?

 

[TerryMathews]

I don't need a thicker skin. Some people are credible, some are not. No rational person should accept any source, no matter how disreputable its content. Of course I won't just accept any site. The idea that I would have to accept a link from infowars.com the same way I would have to accept a link from the CBO is preposterous.

I'm quite sure you reject sources as well, I would imagine you just wish I would accept more right wing advocacy sources.

Ive looked at every site people post, even Mother Jones.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Profit is not evil. We have terrible regulations in place that make health care expensive in this country. ACA did little to address that.

What kinds of regulations are you talking about? Would the elimination of those regulations make health care affordable and available to everyone, even the poor and the sick and the elderly?

You can go argue that if the young and the healthy did not have to pay for the health care costs of the poor, the sick, and the elderly that their premiums would go down, but would that effectively result in making health care for the poor, sick, and elderly more expensive than it is now?

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Republicans are opposed to Obamacare for a variety of reasons.

• It does not address the core problem with health care in the country, that being out of control costs. It actually increases the cost of healthcare.

So, what is the Republicans' plan for fixing our nation's health care system while providing affordable coverage for 100% of the population?

If the Republicans are so concerned about out-of-control costs and the costs of healthcare, why aren't they proposing their own solution that would provide 100% coverage at affordable costs? Why won't they even acknowledge the less expensive and more efficient health care systems in other nations that have 100% coverage and zero medical bankruptcies? (However, they do have fewer wealthy insurance company executives and a weaker yacht industry, perhaps that's the reason.)

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Because President Obama proposed the bill (modeled on a conservative think tank proposal) before a Republican was able to on a national level.

http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/graphics/2010/022310-bill-comparison.aspx

You might say that the Republicans had a plan for health care. It looked a whole lot like Obamacare.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

We have far too few makers and far too many takers. Maybe that is just a temporary or cyclical situation. That's something for deeper thinkers than myself to ponder. Regardless, it's the situation that we're in right now.

It's a little more complicated than that. Part of the problem with having "too few makers" is that our politicians and businessmen and wealthy elite shipped millions of jobs overseas. They also supported foreign work visas to displace Americans domestically, and they also supported mass immigration as a means of depressing wages. Consequently, the dramatically increased labor market used to produce goods for American consumption has resulted in falling wages--many of the "makers" simply are not receiving the income they used to receive and have not been able to benefit financially from increasing productivity. However, a small percentage of the populace (takers, in effect?) have been able to accumulate huge amounts of money as a result of wage deflation.

So, let's double down and start up a government mandated health care program. Why won't it work? The math doesn't work. Too many takers - not enough makers.

Interestingly, it does seem to work in other nations at a smaller percentage of GDP and 100% coverage. Perhaps there's more going on than a simplistic "too many takers, not enough makers" explanation.

Why won't it work? Math is at the core of why it won't work.

Have you considered the math of how much money spent on health care is used to pay people who do not provide any actual health care? A large percentage of our health care dollars are wasted on the inefficiency of private insurance companies, hospitals, advertising, insurance brokers, and business's HR/benefits departments.

 

[TerryMathews]

You might say that the Republicans had a plan for health care. It looked a whole lot like Obamacare.

Not really, there are some significant differences according to your chart:

-Medicaid expansion
-Medical malpractice reform
-Equalize tax treatment for self-employed

 

[WhipperSnapper]

You attribute "failure" to the ACA even though it hasn't even taken full effect. The parts of it that have been in place for some while aren't a failure, at all.

Obamacare will, of course, "fail", because it does nothing to actually address the real problems with our health care system. Obamacare itself, contrary to popular belief, is not even a health care system but just a mandate for people to purchase health insurance and some regulations on the insurance companies.

The actual backbone of our nation's healthcare system--private insurance companies and private hospitals--isn't really addressed by Obamacare. Our nation's healthcare system was a train wreck before Obamacare, and it will be a train wreck after Obamacare because Obamacare doesn't really do anything to actually address the structure of our nation's healthcare system.

What Obamacare might show us is that having 100% of the populace covered is more expensive than the 17+% of GDP we're currently paying. In other words, if we try to do what other nations do using our current health care system, 100% coverage, it might prove to be so inefficient that it is much more expensive as a percentage of GDP than what other nations are paying.

 

[Matt1970]

So, what is the Republicans' plan for fixing our nation's health care system while providing affordable coverage for 100% of the population?

If the Republicans are so concerned about out-of-control costs and the costs of healthcare, why aren't they proposing their own solution that would provide 100% coverage at affordable costs? Why won't they even acknowledge the less expensive and more efficient health care systems in other nations that have 100% coverage and zero medical bankruptcies? (However, they do have fewer wealthy insurance company executives and a weaker yacht industry, perhaps that's the reason.)

A good start for Republicans would be to not kick 100 million people off of their insurance while simultaneously raising premiums.

You might say that the Republicans had a plan for health care. It looked a whole lot like Obamacare.

And now you are seeing why it didn't pass back then.

Obamacare will, of course, "fail", because it does nothing to actually address the real problems with our health care system. Obamacare itself, contrary to popular belief, is not even a health care system but just a mandate for people to purchase health insurance and some regulations on the insurance companies.

If that were true we wouldn't be up to 11,000 pages of Obamacare

 

[werepossum]

No
A healthcare law was passed in Massachusetts. Are you trying to draw a correlation here? If so, please explain further.

Republicans are opposed to Obamacare for a variety of reasons.

• It gives the government control over one sixth of the economy.
• It does not address the core problem with health care in the country, that being out of control costs. It actually increases the cost of healthcare.
• It is a monstrous piece of legislation that few read and few understand. It's like blasting off a Saturn rocket for a moon mission and then deciding once the craft is in orbit how to get to the moon.
• It hurts the quality of healthcare through rationing inherent in it.
• It will increase our debt dramatically.
• It necessitated generating 10,535 pages of regulations.
• The rollout is a total disaster.
• The IRS is the enforcement arm for Obamacare. The IRS has proven themselves to be an agency that is incapable of nonpartisan enforcement.
• It was drafted using clever tricks that meant the CBO had to score the legislation without taking into account the negative ramifications that would occur after ten years.
• It double-counted in regards to Medicare. There was $500 billion set aside to sustain Medicare that was then used to fund Obamacare. How can the same funds be used for different purposes? Further, a large portion of the Medicare burden was shifted from the feds to the states. Where are the states to come up with that money? How many other budget gimmicks were used?
• Obama has made numerous changes in the law not through the process of amending the law but at his whim.
• It is a far-reaching piece of legislation that was poorly crafted, is being very poorly implemented and every week we get a new surprise.
• It has not reduced people's premiums by $2500 as promised.
• People are not able to keep their plans as promised in fact millions are losing their plans.
• People are not able to keep their doctor's as promised.
• Deductibles are being increased.
• Out of pocket expenditures are increasing.
• It mandates coverage that many don't need or will never be able to take advantage of.

These are just some of the reasons Republicans (and anyone that is capable of rational thought) are opposed to Obamacare. Now, I fully understand that none of these reasons are going to sway your opinion. I would venture a guess that nothing would sway your opinion. As is typical for the left, you are in love with the "idea" of Obamacare and how it is achieved, whether it is affordable or not or whether it accomplishes what it was set out to achieve is immaterial. You just want it.

Well said.

 

[fskimospy]

Ive looked at every site people post, even Mother Jones.

What's your point? My statement was not that I accept a greater variety of sites as credible than TerryMathews, it's the idea that it is somehow SO HARD to find a website that I will consider is laughable.

 

[werepossum]

It's a little more complicated than that. Part of the problem with having "too few makers" is that our politicians and businessmen and wealthy elite shipped millions of jobs overseas. They also supported foreign work visas to displace Americans domestically, and they also supported mass immigration as a means of depressing wages. Consequently, the dramatically increased labor market used to produce goods for American consumption has resulted in falling wages--many of the "makers" simply are not receiving the income they used to receive and have not been able to benefit financially from increasing productivity. However, a small percentage of the populace (takers, in effect?) have been able to accumulate huge amounts of money as a result of wage deflation.



Interestingly, it does seem to work in other nations at a smaller percentage of GDP and 100% coverage. Perhaps there's more going on than a simplistic "too many takers, not enough makers" explanation.



Have you considered the math of how much money spent on health care is used to pay people who do not provide any actual health care? A large percentage of our health care dollars are wasted on the inefficiency of private insurance companies, hospitals, advertising, insurance brokers, and business's HR/benefits departments.

As opposed to the legendary efficiency of government? Seriously?

I know it offends you that people make a living in health care outside of the sanctity of government, but all those functions still have to be done. Paperwork must be filed, advertising will be taken out, hospitals will be operated - government is hardly going to remove all its regulations, just the penalty for failure.

 

[fskimospy]

As opposed to the legendary efficiency of government? Seriously?

I know it offends you that people make a living in health care outside of the sanctity of government, but all those functions still have to be done. Paperwork must be filed, advertising will be taken out, hospitals will be operated - government is hardly going to remove all its regulations, just the penalty for failure.

Wait, are you saying that the private sector is more efficient than government when it comes to health care? Seriously?

 

[Matt1970]

Wait, are you saying that the private sector is more efficient than government when it comes to health care? Seriously?

The private sector is more efficient than government when it comes to just about anything.

 

[fskimospy]

The private sector is more efficient than government when it comes to just about anything.

Well then evidence of this superior efficiency in the delivery of health care should be easy to find! When can we expect it?

 

[Matt1970]

Well then evidence of this superior efficiency in the delivery of health care should be easy to find! When can we expect it?

Our government just barely dipped it's toe in the water and look what we got. 11,000 pages few people really understand, millions kicked off their insurance, they can't keep their doctors, premiums went up and a website that doesn't work.

 

[fskimospy]

Our government just barely dipped it's toe in the water and look what we got. 11,000 pages few people really understand, millions kicked off their insurance, they can't keep their doctors, premiums went up and a website that doesn't work.

Just barely dipped its toe in the water? What do you think Medicare is?

Regardless, you're dodging the question because you can't answer it. Provide evidence that the private sector dispenses (or finances) health care spending more efficiently than governments do.

In order to do this you're going to want to look at health outcomes, outcomes/GDP, overall health spending as a percentage of GDP, things like that. Since private health spending is so much more efficient than government health spending, I'm sure this information will be easily and readily available.

You can also admit that you were full of shit. Either way, really.

 

[Daverino]

The answer is actually pretty simple and it's the same answer for why we don't have government run healthcare like every other first world nation.

Healthcare is the historical pawn between governments and labor. Government control of medicine in the early 20th century was seen as a threat to labor movements. Both the Unions and the government wanted to take credit for protecting the well being of the people. As the 20th century played out, a number of wars and revolutions in Europe swung many of the countries there into autocracy or socialism to settle the debate. However, that never happened in the United States. Labor and the government continued to fight over the control of providing insurance to the people throughout most of the century. The result was an increasingly complicated and inefficient system of healthcare and higher and higher stakes in the 'who controls the healthcare' political game.

Now healthcare is the ultimate in political footballs. The influence of labor directly has waned in the US, but the Democratic party has taken up their causes indirectly. As with any good football game, half of the time you spend trying to score and the other half is spent preventing the other team from scoring. With Obama's major steps towards bringing some sanity to the American healthcare system, the Democrats are on the verge of gaining even more credit for providing healthcare to the American people. They have already 'scored' on Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. The Republicans need to have the credit for bringing sane healthcare to the American people, politically speaking. They are the minority party and have no means to provide it. Therefore they must do their utmost to see the Democratic plan fail.