Why are Repubs so against Obamacare?

[boomerang]

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.

I can see that your world is a simple one. We need drones like yourself though. Not everyone can be a leader. There must be followers.

 

[Daverino]

Point by point debunking:

• It gives the government control over one sixth of the economy.

The government currently has control of 100% of the economy, through the powers of taxation and regulation. Changes in the healthcare laws did not change this.

• 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 does address the issue of cost controls. Whether it does it effectively is not yet known. Healthcare costs have gone up every year for decades. Current increases in healthcare costs are more likely part of this trend and has little to do with the ACA

• 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.

Fact-free hyperbole.

• It hurts the quality of healthcare through rationing inherent in it.

There is no rationing inherent in it. Quite the opposite, it provides insurance to those who could not carry insurance previously, including a larger segment of poor Americans, those with pre-existing conditions, and children up to the age of 26.

• It will increase our debt dramatically.

Again, the opposite is true. The CBO predicts repealing the ACA will cost us about 100 billion dollars in ten years.

• It necessitated generating 10,535 pages of regulations.

In similar font and spacing, so is the maintenance manual for a Boeing 747. What do you think is more complicated? A single jumbo-jet? Or the plan for orchestrating the health care of hundreds of millions of Americans? Regardless, arguing font size is not a real argument

• The rollout is a total disaster.

So was the software for the PS4. . . software gets fixed. Regardless, Medicaid expansion alone has provided almost a half a million Americans with new health insurance since the roll-out. Define disaster. Did people die, like in Iraq or Hurricane Katrina?

• The IRS is the enforcement arm for Obamacare. The IRS has proven themselves to be an agency that is incapable of nonpartisan enforcement.

This was debunked months ago. It should no longer be on your talking points list.

• 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.

Citation please.

• 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?

The same accounting that was used the the Paul Ryan budget. The idea of spending money now to save costs in the future is not an alien one.

• Obama has made numerous changes in the law not through the process of amending the law but at his whim.

The implementation of the law allows him to do this. All government agencies can act within the boundaries of legislation. This is nothing new.

• 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.

Fact-free hyperbole.

• It has not reduced people's premiums by $2500 as promised.

Careful. Obama's original plan, which he campaigned on in 2008, wanted to lower premiums by up to $2,500 per year per family. The actual ACA is far different from Obama's plan in 2008.

• People are not able to keep their plans as promised in fact millions are losing their plans.

Terrible plans that ripped people off and provided no real coverage are no longer legal. Yes, these plans are going away and good riddance. However, they are being replaced by better plans that actually provide meaningful insurance. People may be losing the plan they had, but they are not prevented from getting better plans at comparable or lower prices.

• People are not able to keep their doctor's as promised.

People lose their doctors when their plans change. This was true before the ACA. This is true after the ACA. If my employer changes my insurance, I may lose my doctor. The ACA had nothing to do with that.

• Deductibles are being increased.

Deductibles have been increasing for decades. This is a trend that started long before the ACA.

• Out of pocket expenditures are increasing.

Out of pocket expenditures have been increasing for decades. This is a trend that started long before the ACA.

• It mandates coverage that many don't need or will never be able to take advantage of.

And that is exactly how insurance works. Insurance works because the majority of people that have it never need it and never use it. That pays for the people who actually did need it and did use it. That's basic economics and was the same before and after the ACA.

Whew!

 

[Daverino]

I can see that your world is a simple one. We need drones like yourself though. Not everyone can be a leader. There must be followers.

Yes, my world is a simple one where the interplay of domestic and foreign politics in many countries of the past century and a half has led to the current situation in the American healthcare industry.

We need more drones like me who, I dunno, read about the history of healthcare in America before posting talking point bullet lists in the forums.

Leaders learn. Followers follow the educated or the charismatic. If I cannot have your charisma, I'll comfort myself in education.

 

[boomerang]

Yes, my world is a simple one where the interplay of domestic and foreign politics in many countries of the past century and a half has led to the current situation in the American healthcare industry.

We need more drones like me who, I dunno, read about the history of healthcare in America before posting talking point bullet lists in the forums.

Leaders learn. Followers follow the educated or the charismatic. If I cannot have your charisma, I'll comfort myself in education.

Please excuse me for I did not know I was conversing with a member of the liberal elite. You are one fart smeller.

 

[boomerang]

Point by point debunking:

• It gives the government control over one sixth of the economy.

The government currently has control of 100% of the economy, through the powers of taxation and regulation. Changes in the healthcare laws did not change this.

• 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 does address the issue of cost controls. Whether it does it effectively is not yet known. Healthcare costs have gone up every year for decades. Current increases in healthcare costs are more likely part of this trend and has little to do with the ACA

• 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.

Fact-free hyperbole.

• It hurts the quality of healthcare through rationing inherent in it.

There is no rationing inherent in it. Quite the opposite, it provides insurance to those who could not carry insurance previously, including a larger segment of poor Americans, those with pre-existing conditions, and children up to the age of 26.

• It will increase our debt dramatically.

Again, the opposite is true. The CBO predicts repealing the ACA will cost us about 100 billion dollars in ten years.

• It necessitated generating 10,535 pages of regulations.

In similar font and spacing, so is the maintenance manual for a Boeing 747. What do you think is more complicated? A single jumbo-jet? Or the plan for orchestrating the health care of hundreds of millions of Americans? Regardless, arguing font size is not a real argument

• The rollout is a total disaster.

So was the software for the PS4. . . software gets fixed. Regardless, Medicaid expansion alone has provided almost a half a million Americans with new health insurance since the roll-out. Define disaster. Did people die, like in Iraq or Hurricane Katrina?

• The IRS is the enforcement arm for Obamacare. The IRS has proven themselves to be an agency that is incapable of nonpartisan enforcement.

This was debunked months ago. It should no longer be on your talking points list.

• 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.

Citation please.

• 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?

The same accounting that was used the the Paul Ryan budget. The idea of spending money now to save costs in the future is not an alien one.

• Obama has made numerous changes in the law not through the process of amending the law but at his whim.

The implementation of the law allows him to do this. All government agencies can act within the boundaries of legislation. This is nothing new.

• 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.

Fact-free hyperbole.

• It has not reduced people's premiums by $2500 as promised.

Careful. Obama's original plan, which he campaigned on in 2008, wanted to lower premiums by up to $2,500 per year per family. The actual ACA is far different from Obama's plan in 2008.

• People are not able to keep their plans as promised in fact millions are losing their plans.

Terrible plans that ripped people off and provided no real coverage are no longer legal. Yes, these plans are going away and good riddance. However, they are being replaced by better plans that actually provide meaningful insurance. People may be losing the plan they had, but they are not prevented from getting better plans at comparable or lower prices.

• People are not able to keep their doctor's as promised.

People lose their doctors when their plans change. This was true before the ACA. This is true after the ACA. If my employer changes my insurance, I may lose my doctor. The ACA had nothing to do with that.

• Deductibles are being increased.

Deductibles have been increasing for decades. This is a trend that started long before the ACA.

• Out of pocket expenditures are increasing.

Out of pocket expenditures have been increasing for decades. This is a trend that started long before the ACA.

• It mandates coverage that many don't need or will never be able to take advantage of.

And that is exactly how insurance works. Insurance works because the majority of people that have it never need it and never use it. That pays for the people who actually did need it and did use it. That's basic economics and was the same before and after the ACA.

Whew!

I hadn't seen all this when I replied earlier. You have succeeded to the throne! You are the most gullible Obama worshiper here. Congrats! You have unseated some big players. You answer my bullet points with liberal progressive talking points - and you believe them! An extra beet ration for you comrade! Well done. Bonus points for mentioning the word "facts" in your argument. It does make you appear to be very bright.

I almost forgot. Congrats on reading a book! That is one big accomplishment there! You are rightfully very proud of an accomplishment as big as that. A red star for you comrade!

 

[fskimospy]

I hadn't seen all this when I replied earlier. You have succeeded to the throne! You are the most gullible Obama worshiper here. Congrats! You have unseated some big players. You answer my bullet points with liberal progressive talking points - and you believe them! An extra beet ration for you comrade! Well done. Bonus points for mentioning the word "facts" in your argument. It does make you appear to be very bright.

What's amazing to me is that you complain about other people using talking points to respond to what was clearly a bunch of nearly factless talking point drivel of your own.

I mean I hope you don't actually believe all those 'bullet points' that you listed. For your own sake I hope you're not that gullible.

 

[Matt1970]

Yes, my world is a simple one where the interplay of domestic and foreign politics in many countries of the past century and a half has led to the current situation in the American healthcare industry.

We need more drones like me who, I dunno, read about the history of healthcare in America before posting talking point bullet lists in the forums.

Leaders learn. Followers follow the educated or the charismatic. If I cannot have your charisma, I'll comfort myself in education.

Other countries are not the United States. Half our population basically pays no federal income taxes while at the same time complaining that they are overtaxed and the rich don't pay enough. You think those people are going to agree to fork over the muhla for a single payer system?

 

[Moonbeam]

Please excuse me for I did not know I was conversing with a member of the liberal elite. You are one fart smeller.

We can all smell you from the shit you post.

 

[Daverino]

Please excuse me for I did not know I was conversing with a member of the liberal elite. You are one fart smeller.

Not my fault you didn't pay attention in school.

And not my fault that reality and facts have a liberal bias.

 

[Daverino]

Other countries are not the United States. Half our population basically pays no federal income taxes while at the same time complaining that they are overtaxed and the rich don't pay enough. You think those people are going to agree to fork over the muhla for a single payer system?

Truth be, we already pay enough in taxes for a well-thought out healthcare system. That is what is so maddening about the American system. We pay in twice as much per capita as the rest of the first world but get back half the quality. Single payer would cost us LESS in the long run, but the political consequences of it are unfathomable. That is why nobody will do it. Wasting billions of dollars a year is politically preferable than hanging your own party with a run at single payer.

Again, health care is the ultimate political football. Single payer pretty much takes that out of everyone's hands once and for all. If the Republicans were in power and proposed it, they would be fought tooth and nail by the Democrats, labor, the health care industry and the insurance industry.

Despair.com once had a poster that said something like, "If you can't be part of the solution, then you can be paid to be part of the problem." That's the American healthcare system in a single sentence. Everyone knows how it could be fixed, but the capital in allowing it to stay broken is too great to ignore.

Imagine if tomorrow everyone woke up agreeing on abortion or gun control? What a political disaster that would be for both parties! Extreme wedge issues get people to the polls and keep the party coffers full. A 'win' in healthcare, on any level, by the Democrats is a catastrophe for the Republicans. It would be no different if the parties were reversed.

 

[Matt1970]

Truth be, we already pay enough in taxes for a well-thought out healthcare system. That is what is so maddening about the American system. We pay in twice as much per capita as the rest of the first world but get back half the quality. Single payer would cost us LESS in the long run, but the political consequences of it are unfathomable. That is why nobody will do it. Wasting billions of dollars a year is politically preferable than hanging your own party with a run at single payer.

No way, not even close. We can't even fund our current government, now you want to add single-payer to that? Taxes would have to go up, A LOT and who is going to go before the American people and tell them their taxes are only going to go up the amount they are paying in current premiums and be believed? That's one of the prices we pay when we lie our collective asses off just to get elected.

 

[Matt1970]

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.

Excellent example. Medicare spending is 3.6% of our GDP and that only for those 65 and over that needs supplemental insurance to go along with it. 13.7% of our population

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_(United_States)#Total_Medicare_spending_as_a_share_of_GDP

Canada’s is 11.6% and that covers everyone and everything no?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_Canada#Economics

 

[fskimospy]

Excellent example. Medicare spending is 3.6% of our GDP and that only for those 65 and over that needs supplemental insurance to go along with it. 13.7% of our population

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_(United_States)#Total_Medicare_spending_as_a_share_of_GDP

Canada’s is 11.6% and that covers everyone and everything no?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_Canada#Economics

You realize that Canada's system is a fully socialized, single payer system, right? ie: they have much more government control of health care, not less.

If you're going to provide examples you should probably avoid ones that just show me to be right.

 

[Daverino]

No way, not even close. We can't even fund our current government, now you want to add single-payer to that? Taxes would have to go up, A LOT and who is going to go before the American people and tell them their taxes are only going to go up the amount they are paying in current premiums and be believed? That's one of the prices we pay when we lie our collective asses off just to get elected.

I disagree.

Single payer makes a lot of the existing healthcare system obsolete. Right now we already pay for everyone's healthcare either by letting people get sick and injured and losing the money in the economy or by having them go to the ER or a free clinic and picking up the tab there. It's grossly inefficient and delivers second rate care for first world money. If the government provided insurance (just like every other first world country) it would cost us about the same fraction of our GDP as the rest of them. Currently we spend MORE on healthcare than all those 'socialist' countries.

The reason we cannot pay for the things we do is because we do too many things we shouldn't and do many things poorly. For example, we spend a crap load on our military that other first world countries do not feel compelled to (probably because we do it) The potential to save billions of dollars in a sane healthcare system is there. BUT:

Who wants to put the private insurance industry mostly out of business?

Nobody. Or at least no sane politician.

 

[monovillage]

If a used car salesman told as many lies about a car he sold you as Obama and his administration told us about Obamafraud, he'd be arrested and jailed. Amazing that we hold used car salesmen to a higher standard then we do Obama.

 

[Matt1970]

You realize that Canada's system is a fully socialized, single payer system, right? ie: they have much more government control of health care, not less.

If you're going to provide examples you should probably avoid ones that just show me to be right.

I am saying that if the US had single payer we would pay a hell of a lot more than 11.6% of our GDP. Our government can't even change a light bulb without having a bureaucracy oversee it and you think replacing our insurance industry with the Government is going to save money? That's a hoot.

 

[Daverino]

If a used car salesman told as many lies about a car he sold you as Obama and his administration told us about Obamafraud, he'd be arrested and jailed. Amazing that we hold used car salesmen to a higher standard then we do Obama.

And yet you cannot cite an actual lie.

Healthcare costs have always gone up. People always lose their doctors. People always lose their plans and get them replaced. The ACA never was going to stop this because, as pointed out, the ACA is not an implementation of a single payer system. Insurance companies and your employer are just as free to change you benefits now as they have been.

What they aren't allowed to do now, however, is defraud you. You cannot be blacklisted from insurance because of a previous condition. You cannot be sold worthless policies that offer you worthless coverage.

 

[Matt1970]

I disagree.

Single payer makes a lot of the existing healthcare system obsolete. Right now we already pay for everyone's healthcare either by letting people get sick and injured and losing the money in the economy or by having them go to the ER or a free clinic and picking up the tab there. It's grossly inefficient and delivers second rate care for first world money. If the government provided insurance (just like every other first world country) it would cost us about the same fraction of our GDP as the rest of them. Currently we spend MORE on healthcare than all those 'socialist' countries.

The reason we cannot pay for the things we do is because we do too many things we shouldn't and do many things poorly. For example, we spend a crap load on our military that other first world countries do not feel compelled to (probably because we do it) The potential to save billions of dollars in a sane healthcare system is there. BUT:

Who wants to put the private insurance industry mostly out of business?

Nobody. Or at least no sane politician.

You can disagree all you want but right now we spend 3.6% of our GDP to partially cover 13.7% of our population. No way we insure 8 times as many people with FULL coverage for only 3 times the cost. We can't just take the money from the Military either since the sequestration proved nobody including the left has any desire to cut military spending.

 

[Matt1970]

And yet you cannot cite an actual lie.

Healthcare costs have always gone up. People always lose their doctors. People always lose their plans and get them replaced. The ACA never was going to stop this because, as pointed out, the ACA is not an implementation of a single payer system. Insurance companies and your employer are just as free to change you benefits now as they have been.

What they aren't allowed to do now, however, is defraud you. You cannot be blacklisted from insurance because of a previous condition. You cannot be sold worthless policies that offer you worthless coverage.

Not to the tune of 10 million a year, oh, and wait till this time next year. 80 million more.

 

[fskimospy]

You can disagree all you want but right now we spend 3.6% of our GDP to partially cover 13.7% of our population. No way we insure 8 times as many people with FULL coverage for only 3 times the cost. We can't just take the money from the Military either since the sequestration proved nobody including the left has any desire to cut military spending.

Approximately 50% of lifetime medical expenditures occur after age 65, which means that the cost of insuring someone for their entire life from age 1-64 is about as costly as it is from 65 until death, which according to average US life expectancy would be about 84 (life expectancy as a whole is around 77, but life expectancy once reaching 65 is about 84). So the last 19 years = the first 64. That means that (broadly) per year the average 65+ member costs 3.3x what the average 0-64 year old costs.

Sure this is all back of the napkin math but it should be reasonably close.

So sure you're insuring 8 times as many people, but each one of them costs less than a third as much per year. Now how does that math look?

Simply put, Medicare is cheaper and more efficient than private insurance. The more people we have on medicare the less we will likely spend as a nation on health care. Even if we can't match Canada's percentage we can get closer to it and that's billions of dollars in our collective pockets each year.

 

[monovillage]

And yet you cannot cite an actual lie.

Yes I can, in fact the video has already been linked in this thread.

"“We will keep this promise to the American people. If you like your doctor you will be able to keep your doctor. Period. If you like your healthcare plan, you will be able to keep your healthcare plan. Period.”
Barack Obama, September 9, 2009

But keep on lying about it. At least you can't be prosecuted for lying about a used health care clusterfuck.

 

[Matt1970]

Approximately 50% of lifetime medical expenditures occur after age 65, which means that the cost of insuring someone for their entire life from age 1-64 is about as costly as it is from 65 until death, which according to average US life expectancy would be about 84 (life expectancy as a whole is around 77, but life expectancy once reaching 65 is about 84). So the last 19 years = the first 64. That means that (broadly) per year the average 65+ member costs 3.3x what the average 0-64 year old costs.

Sure this is all back of the napkin math but it should be reasonably close.

So sure you're insuring 8 times as many people, but each one of them costs less than a third as much per year. Now how does that math look?

Simply put, Medicare is cheaper and more efficient than private insurance. The more people we have on medicare the less we will likely spend as a nation on health care. Even if we can't match Canada's percentage we can get closer to it and that's billions of dollars in our collective pockets each year.

That's just it, reasonable close usually turns out to end up being grossly under or over estimated. But even given the benefit of the doubt, which politician is going to go before the public with a plan to end all the jobs and investments associated with the insurance industry and then push the astronomical tax raises that will be required to fund it?

 

[Daverino]

Not to the tune of 10 million a year, oh, and wait till this time next year. 80 million more.

Last year, my employer switched from Blue Cross to Aetna. My old policy was cancelled. I lost my insurance. . . Right?

 

[fskimospy]

That's just it, reasonable close usually turns out to end up being grossly under or over estimated. But even given the benefit of the doubt, which politician is going to go before the public with a plan to end all the jobs and investments associated with the insurance industry and then push the astronomical tax raises that will be required to fund it?

Well presumably people being paid to analyze that could come up with a better estimate than I did in 3 minutes with Windows Calculator. Regardless, you seemed to think that it was insane to think that we could cover eight times as many people while only tripling our expenditures. I've shown that it is most certainly not insane to think so.

I'm pretty sure that if there is an inefficient government bureaucracy that you see wasting money you would waste no time in calling for its elimination. Why on earth would we want to preserve the wasteful and inefficient private insurance bureaucracy just because it's private sector?

As for the 'astronomical tax raises' you also forget that everyone would make more money (as there would be no more health care paid for by businesses), every product you buy would be cheaper as overall costs would be lower, etc, etc. The important thing is to focus on expenditures as a percentage of GDP. That tells us if we're really paying more or less money as a society.

 

[Matt1970]

Last year, my employer switched from Blue Cross to Aetna. My old policy was cancelled. I lost my insurance. . . Right?

You said it, they "switched", they weren't dropped from Blue Cross.