Can someone explain in a nutshell EXACTLY what the Republicans object to re Obamacare

Certainly it’s not a perfect law. Yeah, some people have lost coverage or have to pay more (from what I read), but all in all, it’s working okay for many, many people. But saying stuff like “Im going to repeal EVERY WORD!” when millions of people who never had healthcare coverage now have it…?

The opponents don’t say, “It’s a good idea but flawed, and we can improve it,” or even, “Obama blatantly stole the provisions that were originally Republican ideas, and HE’S taking credit for them!” both of which objections would make some sense.

Why do the Republicans see it as an evil swamp thang that must be stomped to death? Apart from the visceral hated of Obama (a given). What is their problem with the law itself.

Something along the lines of “the government should not be able to tell me what kind of health insurance I need to buy. I should decide minimum levels of coverage that best suit my needs. Nor should I even have to buy this product if I don’t want to, it’s supposed to be a free country, and now the Government is forcing me to buy something whether I want it or not.”

I disagree with those arguments, but I sort of understand them. Then there are the more illogical arguments about government “takeover” of health care, socialized medicine, and related nonsense.

The only fair solutions to health care coverage are ‘Everyone must have it’ or ‘All dying people are left to their gods in the hospital lobby if they can’t provide an insurance card’.

Nothing else is logically defensible.

Can someone explain in a nutshell EXACTLY what the Republicans object to re Obama[del]care[/del]

There. I fixed your thread title and answered your question in one fell swoop! :slight_smile:

What Republicans object to is that the ACA is a law that helps millions of people, mostly poor or middle-class, saves tons of money, makes America a slightly better place, and was pushed by Obama.

Obamacare shows the difference in philosophy between liberals and conservatives. Liberals say, “If the government can do X, it should.” This is very often closely related to “the ends justify the means.”

Conservatives say, “The government should do only a few basic things, and primarily only the things that the private sector CANNOT do, or at least cannot do easily.”

Speaking for myself personally, I’ll make you a deal–
Show me where the Constitution explicitly authorizes the government to do things like Obamacare (and Social Security, etc.), and I will drop my opposition to those programs.

You can’t, of course–such authorization doesn’t exist. Well over half of what the government spends these days is blatantly unconstitutional. Unfortunately, it seems that very few people care, or even know. The public school system was long ago taken over by liberals, and therefore millions upon millions of children go through 12 years of schooling without ever learning the purpose of the Constitution.

They object to any help, particularly government help, raised from taxes they pay, going to the undeserving. This is immoral to them. Deserving people aren’t poor, and they should have made the same wealth-creating tough choices as the rich did, especially through hard work, education and inheritance. If they are now suffering, it serves as an exemplary lesson to those tempted to the same paths of idleness, hand-outs and disobedience.
To alleviate such suffering rids the moral lesson of meaning.

A cynical explanation is that health care in the United States is run by private corporations that are making high profits. One result of this is health care in America costs more than it does in most other countries. Another result is that it’s easy for health care businesses to form a special interest and lobby legislators to protect their source of income.

Here’s a list of the top twenty categories of businesses that spend money lobbying. Five of the twenty, including the top two, are closely connected with health care.

My bold. Especially being born into the correct circumstances. Being born into a poor family only validates your unworthiness.

I think a lot of people also are under the mistaken impression that Obamacare is “government health insurance,” when, in fact, it is a law that says you have to buy **private **health care.

What the Republicans object to most about Obamacare is that it was proposed by Obama.

SOME object to Obamacare on the grounds that the only proper function of the government is the protection of individual rights . . . i.e., defense, the police and the courts. Everything else should be privatized; free trade among free individuals. And they say, regarding healthcare, if it were totally privatized it would be better and cheaper.

So when you started this thread, you were looking for parody?

But Obamacare is ALL ABOUT buying **private **insurance. This is where I don’t get it.

There are laws that say you have to have automobile insurance, that you buy from **private **companies. Why is there no objection to that?


No, I really want to know what the objection is.

This notion that if you are poor, it is a sign of God’s disfavor has its roots in Calvinism (follow the link for the full text).

Those are state laws, not federal laws. The states have plenary power; the feds do not.

We discussed this in pretty much every thread about Obamacare back when it was a hot topic. Lots of folks object to the federal government forcing them to buy shit. Actually, I was going to mention that in my earlier post, but decided not to. I can see not that I should have.

I didn’t read all of those threads. So sue me.

Your entertainment of suggestions from people who are offering unserious responses indicates you were looking for parody. Let’s look at them so far:

[li]Republicans object to helping people, especially poor or middle class people.[/li][li]Republicans don’t want to save money[/li][li]Republicans don’t want to make America a better place[/li][li]Republicans don’t want anything pushed by Obama.[/li][/ul]

[li]Republicans object to helping undeserving and think this is immoral.[/li][li]Republicans think poor people are undeserving[/li][li]Republicans want people to suffer to teach them a lesson[/li][/ul]

Do you really think these are accurate representations? They read like parody.

One reason - the government shouldn’t be able to force people to buy insurance if they don’t want to. If the goal was universal coverage or care- a more appropriate way to structure it would have been to care/insurance as an entitlement. If a person can be forced to purchase insurance, there is no limit as to what a person can be forced to purchase.

Yeah, but one significant objection to Obamacare - from the left - is that it kept insurance in the hands of private insurers. In order to get sufficient Republican support, they set up a byzantine system that would not harm insurers. Obamacare itself is proof of the strength of the health industry lobby.

There are some aspects that might add additional costs on insurers - needing to respond to changing pools, offer different products. So yeah, I could imagine them opposing to being made slightly less rich…

It is possible that the health care industry might oppose it as an initial step towards price controls, single payer, etc. And that may be legitimate. I greatly dislike the ACA as written, but support it in my hopes that it will lead to something that the healthcare industry will have legitimate reasons to object to.

The ACA achieved an unhappy medium. Didn’t lower costs the way single payer would have, but sure irritated millions of Americans.

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.

Mandatory automobile insurance is not the same type of insurance as mandatory health insurance. Mandatory automobile insurance says “If you’re going to careen around on government roads with a ton of metal moving at fifty miles per hour, you must have the ability to pay for any damage you do to anyone you run into.” It does not demand that you buy insurance to cover your own losses.