Wow, you put a lot of effort into attempting to make your point.
Calvinism DOES read like parody, no argument there.
I don’t know about republicans but I can tell you about my issues with insurance since the ACA went into effect. My monthly payments have increased by 250% while I have been forced to buy an HMO because PPO’s are no longer an option where I work. To add insult to (financial) injury my family doctors, who my family has been seeing for 15 years just told us at our last check up that they are dropping our insurance (Blue Cross Anthem) over reimbursement disputes.
So to re-cap, even though President Obama promised, I repeat promised, that we would pay less and not have to change our doctor’s under Obamacare the exact opposite has happened.
So basically people like me don’t like being forced to buy something that is worse and more expensive than what it replaced.
You ask about Republicans, but seem to be stuck on Calvinism. That’s strange.
I will explain the precise reason conservatives are opposed to Obamacare.
President blackenstein advocated for it, along with democrats.
That’s it. That is the primary animus.
Because racism. How trite.
Nutshell: It’s my money,* I* should spend it how I see fit.
Since this just repeats the same talking points over and over again, I’ll repeat the same question. Why is the government forcing people to buy health insurance only an issue when proposed by a black Democratic president, and not when proposed by, say, Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney, or other Republicans?
Sounds like a benefits issue with your employer.
And if Blue Cross isn’t paying the doctor, how is that the ACA’s fault?
You mean the talking points that opposition is racist? Those talking points?
What are other specific policy proposals that forced people to buy health insurance that I was in favor of?
Plenty of straw men being propped up in this thread, as usual…
This is a biggie. The “individual mandate” is a huge sore point. The government is telling people they have to buy health insurance, whether they want to or not.
Also, people who already had health insurance are mostly seeing their premiums increase, by a lot. This is directly related to the individual mandate. The healthcare companies know that their product is not optional anymore, and are pricing accordingly. If this surprises anyone, it shouldn’t, because it was widely predicted beforehand.
Also, at the same time insurance premiums are spiking, the value of that healthcare is eroding: deductables and copays are rising sharply, meaning you could easily need to pay a couple thousand dollars before your insurance even starts to kick in. So basically, we’re paying more and getting less in return.
Please cite these federal plans that had no opposition.
I was simply stating a fact, not pointiing out a character flaw on your part.
Do you now understand the difference? We are making an effort to answer your question but so far you hsve not aknowledged it.
You evidently don’t read your own threads, either.
I gave you the answer, and you have not bothered to respond. I thought that you were serious in asking the question, but apparently not.
Personally, I have no skin in the game. I have experienced no change in my health coverage due to the ACA.
I can understand the point that people don’t like the government telling them what to spend their money on. What I haven’t heard is the answer to the related question: If an uninsured person goes to the doctor or an emergency room and can’t provide payment, what should happen? If you think they should still be treated, you are asking someone else to pay for their care. Whoever the someone else turns out to be, at least some of them don’t want to be told to pay for that care.
On the other hand, I don’t like the idea of health care as a “right”. You can’t have a right to something someone else has to provide. We can have social goals but they come with social expenses.
If only you’d put a similar level of effort in responding to a thread you created, ostensibly not as a parody.
This got too personal too fast. I got the information I wanted. Thanks to all who were not rude. Continue quietly among yourselves.
<ThelmaLou has left the thread.>
Actually health insurance is exactly the same, except that there’s also a moral dimension that makes lack of insurance an even worse travesty than lack of automobile insurance.
The purpose of mandatory auto liability insurance is to protect the public against losses incurred due to an at-fault driver who might otherwise be uninsured. One of the effects of mandatory health insurance is that it protects medical providers against losses due to the uninsured. These losses are substantial, particularly with the enactment of EMTALA-mandated ER care for the uninsured. ER physicians incur an average of around $140,000 annually in EMTALA-related bad debt. Of 110 million ER visits annually, nearly half are by the uninsured. The total costs borne by hospitals and practitioners are hard to estimate but are enormous by any measure – probably much more than $50 billion annually. Moreover, the risk factors are different – drivers might reasonably go a lifetime without making an auto insurance claim, but no one is going to last a lifetime without needing health care. In fact unless they have a life of perfect health and then have the good grace to drop dead on the spot, significant and costly medical intervention is practically guaranteed in everyone’s life.
And these cost effects ripple down to everyone in the cost of health care and the cost of insurance, insurance costs being hit by the double impact of high provider costs and lack of universal participation. Moreover, there is a moral dimension in that ER treatments are not only the most expensive and inefficient way to deliver medical care, they are also inadequate and intended only for medical stabilization and not ongoing true medical care – and this is why an estimated 45,000 Americans die every years from lack of health insurance.
Its mostly a size of government thing for those whose objections extend beyond mere partisanship.
As others have said, the fact that Obama and the democrats support it, and the fact that it expands the role of the state are the major reasons.
But other reasons include that obamacare can show that the government can make people’s lives better. Bill kristol said that Clintons health reform had succeeded, it could’ve opened the gates for more reform in other areas. I don’t know if that is true with obamacare though, our system is still pretty screwed-up and much of the benefit came. From subsidies.
Another criticism they have is that it made single payer more realistic. Vermont tried and abandoned it, but Colorado may try this year. The aca gave states an option for single payer, which could catch on and become a national program.
Missed the 5-minute edit window to actually add an answer to the OP in my earlier post #37. The original post basically explains why health insurance is essential and therefore either should be mandatory and essentially universal or, preferably, should be provided to everyone as a form of social security, as it is in all other advanced countries.
The reason Republicans object to Obamacare is pure ideology. They basically object to it because (a) Obama, (b) government should not be involved in anything, © health care is not a right and you should only get what you pay for, like when you buy a washing machine, and (d) your health is not my problem. The corollary to © and (d) is a deep-rooted abiding fear that if one is not eternally vigilant, some poor person somewhere may get a benefit that he didn’t pay for. It doesn’t matter if that happens as part of an overall system where everyone benefits from lower costs, it’s some kind of Republican “principle”.