I am not a Republican, but I certainly have some issues with Obamacare that I can articulate. Yes, I like and appreciate the sentiment behind it, and despite that I think it’s not the best way to solve the problems and left the worst parts in place, I was still trying to be optimistic about it. As it played out, for me (young, healthy) me and most of my peers got hit hard. The year it went into effect, my company dropped their coverage from what it was, which was decent but not exceptional, to essentially the bare minimum required by the law and, worse, my costs actually went UP. So, I ended up paying almost twice as much for less coverage. This was true for almost all of my peers with the exception of those who already had extensive health coverage because of their pre-existing health issues. Similarly, my mom who retired not long afterward but with not much in her retireemnt was able to get inexpensive health care as a result of Obama care.
So, yes, it’s great that people who are sick or don’t have much money were able to get coverage, and I appreciate that, but it’s coming at the expense of others. My issue with this is two fold. First, unlike other forms of insurance like car insurance, I’m not paying based on my own risk, but rather based on a collective risk. So, where the state government does mandate a minimum coverage for car insurance, since I’m a safe driver, I pay less than someone who isn’t. And more, even though I’m a safe driver and never been at fault in an accident, I still pay for some extra services and coverage. Second, I take my health seriously, and I don’t see a doctor often because I don’t get sick or injured often, at least not to the point that I feel the need to go to the doctor. My diet, while leaving much to be desired, is better than many of my peers, I have a strict exercise regimen, etc. I’m actively taking steps, at my own time and expense, and I pay the same as someone else that is male and the same age and doesn’t smoke, but may drink 6 sodas a day, eat nothing but pure junk food, and never exercises. It creates a counter-incentive to take responsibility for one’s own health.
I think the issue arises in that it IS good that everyone have health insurance, and it’s complicated by the fact that everyone is alive but not everyone owns a car or a house or other things that might need to be insured, but it sort of goes about this by taking the worst of two options. If the government is going to require it, I think it should be either much more free-market, such that it’s disconnected from my work, allowing companies to compete more in terms of price and coverage packages, providing an incentive to shop around and take an active role in one’s own health care which would reduce expenses and also not potentially leave people uncovered between jobs, or go to the opposite extreme and go single-payer and have it funded by taxes, which might not include personal incentive to take one’s health seriously, but would include the other benefits.
Personally I prefer the former job-agnostic free-market approach, but I think even the latter would be vastly preferable to what we have now. And if there IS going to be some kind of hybrid, then it should be that the government provides the mandated emergency care and regular check-ups and that those who want some kind of supplemental coverage can still go out and get that, which is, again, similar to what we have with other forms of insurance.
That all said, I’m not sure how common my issues with it are among others who have issue with it, particularly Republicans. I do know some that think any form of socialism is inherently evil–this IS a form of socialism–and I know some who oppose it purely on those grounds, even if they have been personally helped by it. But, after all, the whole point of insurance is that it’s a form of socialized risk, I guess the difference being whether one enters that agreement on one’s own or because the government mandates it.
