What is it people don't like about ObamaCare?

[Norman Bernstein]

Maybe this explains it:

[David G]

Pitts had a good column is today's paper:

http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/06/3...acts-were.html

Indeed, falsehoods are harder to kill than a Hollywood zombie. Run them through with fact, and still they shamble forward, fueled by echo chamber media, ideological tribalism, cognitive dissonance, a certain imperviousness to shame, and an understanding that a lie repeated long enough, loudly enough, becomes, in the minds of those who need to believe it, truth.
That is the lesson of the birthers and truthers, of Sen. Jon Kyl’s “not intended to be a factual statement” about Planned Parenthood, of Glenn Beck’s claim that conservatives founded the Civil Rights Movement, and of pretty much every word Michele Bachmann says. It seems that not only are facts no longer important, but they are not even the point.
Rather, the point is the construction and maintenance of an alternate narrative designed to enhance and exploit the receiver’s fears, his or her sense of prerogatives, entitlement, propriety and morality under siege from outside forces.
This is the state of American political discourse, particularly on the political right, where a sense of dislocation, disaffection and general been-done-wrongness has become sine qua non, coin of the realm, lingua franca of the true believers — and of their true belief in the desperate need to turn back the unrighteous Other and his unwelcome change.

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/06/3...#storylink=cpy

[Paul Pless]

What is it people don't like about ObamaCare?

I'm down with it. I think its just the cat's meow. . .

[Mrleft8]

I'm down with it. I think its just the cat's meow. . .

Gastric by-pass surgery might be covered..... In your case.....

[Norman Bernstein]

ndeed, falsehoods are harder to kill than a Hollywood zombie. Run them through with fact, and still they shamble forward, fueled by echo chamber media, ideological tribalism, cognitive dissonance, a certain imperviousness to shame, and an understanding that a lie repeated long enough, loudly enough, becomes, in the minds of those who need to believe it, truth.

Probably the truest statement ever heard, in the bilge.

[hanleyclifford]

Obamacare may be the premature charge down the middle that should be preceded by a good "softening up" of the greedy health care establishment (akin to the French cavalry charge at Waterloo). The insurance companies know what is on the horizon and their troops (like Sen McConnell) are digging in. My guess is that Obamacare will be repealed after the election, but the concept will keep returning until we have the western European set up the insurance companies so fear.

[Norman Bernstein]

Incidentally, 'This Week' with George Stephanopulis is available online, and I just watched it.... interesting exchanges. Donna Brazille, George Will, and even Keith Olbermann.

The 'spin' from the right wing types is that the SCOTUS decision is a victory for conservatives.

In a limited sense, they might be right. In the short term, it's undeniable that this was a big win for Obama......

....but in the long run, not so much. What SCOTUS did, by rejecting the constitutionality of ObamaCare on the basis of the commerce clause, was to establish a precedent which will make it far harder for Congress to legislate things which might be important.... even desperately important... under the aegis of that clause. It is impossible to know just what events and situations could arise, in the future, which might demand some sweeping legislation which might otherwise need the imprimatur of the commerce clause as its justification.... but that route will be closed off, by this precedent.

[spirit]

It's a triple conflict, in my mind.
(1) The GOP want Obama out, for all kinds of reasons, so they attack his policies. They make so much noise (as noted above) that non-thinking people think there must be a reason to not like good policy.
(2) It's a conflict between business interests (medical insurance companies and health care providers, on one hand) and sensible medicine for all. Everyone knows that we would save 20-40% on our national health budget with a well-regulated single-payer system (like what the rest of the world has).
(3) There is a real budget problem with providing near total medical coverage for the US population, without doing the hard work of regulating medical costs. It is absolutely necessary to limit absurd costs of medical services and drugs. Massachusetts is the leader in trying to do this (after Romneycare), and it isn't easy. Eventually we will get to regulated costs.

[Gerarddm]

Saw an article today that after the SCOTUS decision, support for ACA is up incrementally.

We shall see just how large that increment becomes by November.

[Arizona Bay]

Saw an article today that after the SCOTUS decision, support for ACA is up incrementally.

We shall see just how large that increment becomes by November.

I think they need better PR. If they sent something out to everyone which clearly explained what is coming and when, As well as what is up to the states to implement, I suspect the support would grow much faster.
From what I read, a lot of the Rep dominated states are refusing to begin setting up the infrastructure needed to have it running in time.

What I don't like about it is that Ins companies are still feeding off the sick like leeches.

[Norman Bernstein]

I think they need better PR. If they sent something out to everyone which clearly explained what is coming and when, As well as what is up to the states to implement, I suspect the support would grow much faster.

I agree that it has been badly sold. The proof of that is the public reaction to the key provisions (strongly positive), versus the overall approval (not great). All it really proves is that the negative attacks by the GOP have been very successful.

From what I read, a lot of the Rep dominated states are refusing to begin setting up the infrastructure needed to have it running in time.

We are going to see a great deal of that. The law includes a provision for the federal government to set up exchanges, in states where the government refuses to do so.

[wardd]

I think they need better PR. If they sent something out to everyone which clearly explained what is coming and when, As well as what is up to the states to implement, I suspect the support would grow much faster.
From what I read, a lot of the Rep dominated states are refusing to begin setting up the infrastructure needed to have it running in time.

What I don't like about it is that Ins companies are still feeding off the sick like leeches.

that may work politically with the base in the short run but as people see how it works in other states i wouldn't want to be a gop running in that state

[Paul Pless]

I agree that it has been badly sold

omfg, is this real criticism of Obama?

[ccmanuals]

Good article in Forbes magazine.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickunga...ed-to-mislead/

[Norman Bernstein]

omfg, is this real criticism of Obama?

Yes. Like MOST people, he deserves his share of criticism. He failed to effectively sell the plan, despite managing to get it passed.

He SHOULD have been able to more effectively sell it...considering that the key provisions are actually VERY popular.

[ccmanuals]

It's tough to over come 200 million dollars in negative ACA attack ads from the insurance industry. Not to mention the insurance industry owned their own major network (FOX) to get the word out.

[Norman Bernstein]

So, basically, you're looking at penalties of approximately the following at the following income levels:

• Less than $9,500 income = $0
• $9,500 - $37,000 income = $695
• $50,000 income = $1,000
• $75,000 income = $1,600
• $100,000 income = $2,250
• $125,000 income = $2,900
• $150,000 income = $3,500
• $175,000 income = $4,100
• $200,000 income = $4,700
• Over $200,000 = The cost of a "bronze" health-insurance plan

Only if you don't have insurance coverage.

Under ANY income level, the tax/penalty is far lower than the cost of health insurance.

So, who will pay this penalty/tax?

If you're poor or have a low income, you'll be able to get free or subsidized health insurance, and won't have to pay any penalty.

The very wealthy MIGHT opt out of buying health insurance, preferring to 'self-insure', in which case, the 'penalty/tax' is chump change.

The rest? Freeloaders.... people who will be content to pay a piddlingly small tax, and depend on the taxpayers to pick up their expenses if things go south for them.

[Norman Bernstein]

Kinda free with the free word here aren't we??

Not at all.

Providing free or subsidized health care to people who are poor and can't afford it is simply being human, and having compassion.

Letting the taxpayers pick up the tab for anyone who COULD afford it, but refuses to pay for it, is the very definition of the word 'freeloader'.

[Nicholas Scheuer]

According to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (in his own words) "It's (Omamacare) too European." McConnell is the Senator who has proclaimed repeatedly that his whole reason for being there is to obstruct the Obama Admin. Such a great public servant.

[Norman Bernstein]

So then, It would appear that this 2000 plus pages of garbage has a few rather large holes in it, donnit.............

You haven't identified any of them... but no one ever said the legislation was perfect; it was HEAVILY compromised to get it past the obstructionists.

However, the basic facts are still the same; if we are 'the greatest nation in the world', then we cannot, and should not, tolerate lack of health care. The AHCA is certainly NOT the solution to every health care problem, but it does resolve a few major ones.

If you can't understand this, then all you have to do is wait until you're uninsured, have a preexisting condition, and need a huge amount of money for some chronic and serious illness. This appears to be the ONLY way for some people to understand the issue.

[switters]

Well the insurance companies were making some pretty good profit off of the medical industry and now the government wants to subsidize it without taking away the profit, which means the I will be paying more for about the same service I have been getting. So much for the "Affordable" part of the act.

My criticism is that the bill sold out to big money interests, as usual. I dont see this as a blue/red thing either, both worship at the $ alter.

[Cuyahoga Chuck]

Obamacare may be the premature charge down the middle that should be preceded by a good "softening up" of the greedy health care establishment (akin to the French cavalry charge at Waterloo). The insurance companies know what is on the horizon and their troops (like Sen McConnell) are digging in. My guess is that Obamacare will be repealed after the election, but the concept will keep returning until we have the western European set up the insurance companies so fear.

Over the weekend I heardd numerous reporters suggest repeal is only a vague possibility because even if Romney were president and the Repubs held the senate because of the filibuster rule repeal is a very long shot. They coud attack it by cutting off funding which would quickly show how important ACA benefits are to the very sick.
You can keep on guessing but you would score higher if you looked for or listened to people who have expertice in the workings of our of government.
On a brighter note, I was in a barbershop this morning chewing on Obamacare with a bunch of old geezers like myself and your comments woud have fit right in.

[Norman Bernstein]

Well the insurance companies were making some pretty good profit off of the medical industry and now the government wants to subsidize it without taking away the profit, which means the I will be paying more for about the same service I have been getting. So much for the "Affordable" part of the act.

Hey, just think...if we end any and all subsidies for health care for low income and poor people, think of how much more money will be saved... and that would be good for YOU, PERSONALLY, right? So it would be the right thing to do?

My criticism is that the bill sold out to big money interests, as usual. I dont see this as a blue/red thing either, both worship at the $ alter.

Who do you think forced that 'sell out'..... the progressives? You think we all wanted to set up a system to line the pockets of insurors and big pharma? Or perhaps we wanted universal single payer health care? Who do you think opposed that?

[Norman Bernstein]

Over the weekend I heardd numerous reporters suggest repeal is only a vague possibility because even if Romney were president and the Repubs held the senate because of the filibuster rule the Repubs have used so effectively to date. .

Unfortunately, now the SCOTUS has defined the mandate as a tax, it means the Republicans could defenestrate the AHCA using a 'reconciliation' vote, which requires only a simple majority. Cutting off the funding could effectively repeal the bill without literally repealing it.

[Cuyahoga Chuck]

Unfortunately, now the SCOTUS has defined the mandate as a tax, it means the Republicans could defenestrate the AHCA using a 'reconciliation' vote, which requires only a simple majority. Cutting off the funding could effectively repeal the bill without literally repealing it.

That would surely work but I wonder if any Republicans are hardhearted enough to throw critically ill people to the dogs. The PR implications to jerking benefits away from critically ill patients should give them pause.

[hanleyclifford]

The victory of Obamacare can only be seen as preliminary and indecisive. Expect a strong counterattack from the health care establishment. This is getting into their rice bowl where they live by bilking the populace and government alike. As we are now seeing they have strong allies in both parties. The drive to satisfactory health care for all will depend on a strong populist groundswell that cuts across party lines. I believe this began with the Tea Party and the Occupy movements. It is still taking shape and finding itself.

[S.V. Airlie]

What has been imlimented so far has not hit most wallets. allowing 26 year olds to use their parents' insurance doesn't effect many people out here. Only those paying the insurance. Closing loopholes a good idea but there hasn't been a monetary effect. Pre existing cases. yes that's good as well,but there are thousands who have kept their insurance whereas there beng an occasional few in comparison that have lost it. As I have said before, when the law is fully enacted and people start looking at the dollars and and sense, how the TAX will be collected and by whom, this commission that has to be set up to monitor and make sure insurance companies comply; a commission that apparently has no one on it with medical backgrounds. Everyone here states this law is affordable when really what is being said, this law makes medicine accessible. I'll have to wait to find out if the law is not making medicine accessible, but monetarily affordable. regardless of these provisions in place I expect rates to jump 10-20, may be more percent everytime an invoice crosses my desk.

[Mrleft8]

That would surely work but I wonder if any Republicans are hardhearted enough to throw critically ill people to the dogs. Even if they are the PR implications of jerking benefits away from critically ill patients should give them pause.

[wardd]

Hey, just think...if we end any and all subsidies for health care for low income and poor people, think of how much more money will be saved... and that would be good for YOU, PERSONALLY, right? So it would be the right thing to do?



Who do you think forced that 'sell out'..... the progressives? You think we all wanted to set up a system to line the pockets of insurors and big pharma? Or perhaps we wanted universal single payer health care? Who do you think opposed that?

obama opposed it by wanting it, he knew the gops would be against it if he was for it

[hanleyclifford]

Watch the whole response and you see it spins a little differently. Good example of selective quoting out of context.

[David G]

Unfortunately, now the SCOTUS has defined the mandate as a tax, it means the Republicans could defenestrate the AHCA using a 'reconciliation' vote, which requires only a simple majority. Cutting off the funding could effectively repeal the bill without literally repealing it.

I don't think it's quite that clear. The only part that Roberts succeeded in defining as a tax was the penalty that would be paid by the non-participants. Murky waters, indeed, which might require more work by the courts to completely sort out.

[John Smith]

If I may, I'd like to attempt to put a perspective on the hatfield and McCoy behavior of the Republican Party.

Let's go back a few years. My son-in-law's mom says, "Bill Clinton is the lyingest president we've ever had." I ask her for a list of things he lied about. She can't think of anything past Monica. I've asked, more recently, on these board for a list of things the "big spender Obama" has inititiated and what they've aded to our defiticit. The responses speak for themselves. Bachmann, running for president, makes a statement to the effect that our founding fathers ended slavery. Who in the Republican Party admitted she was wrong?

Health care is not free. There are a variety of systems used, world wide, and ours is among the worst system. Obamacare tweaks a bad system and makes it less bad, which is a far cry from making it great.

According to CNN last night, those countries that seem to get the most bang for the healthcare buck do so with a single payer system wherein the government is the insurance carrier and the healthcare providers are private. That's the way Medicare works, and you'd be har pressed to find someone who does not like his Medicare.

the only diffference between the government being the insurance carrier and a private company being that private insurance carrier, is the private company needs 20% more money so they can make their profits.

I wish people here, and everywhere, would take their partisan blinders off for a few minutes and think about the kind of country they would like us to be. I'd really like to be proud of my country, but that is increasing difficult when my country ranks poorly in areas I wish it ranked well in and ranks very highly in areas that are hardly something to brag about, like what we spend on healthcare, how much we owe, how many are in prison, etc.

When we built the interstate highway system that benefits ALL of us, upper income tax rates were 90%. Now they are 35%. Who here thinks we could have built that highway system with today's tax rates? When we put men on the moon, the tax rate was 65%, but we had long since paid off WWII's debt. Anyone here think we could put a man on the moon with today's tax rates and the war debt we've built over the last decade?

The bottom line here is that I want a quality country, which means a quality government, which means sufficient taxes to pay for it. If it costs a little more tax dollars to insure a lot more people, count me in.

I think it is absolute BS to think that the two Bush tax cuts created a spending problem, as opposed to a revenue problem. We have seen cuts mean fewer teachers and fewer emergency response people. We hear Republican talk about how great a balanced budget amendment would be, and how raising taxes kills jobs. There is ZERO evidence to support the latter, and, in fact, two administrations that proved just the opposite. No one has explained how federal response to emergencies from storms would work under a balanced budget amendment. I suggest they've not looked that far ahead.

To bring this into the healthcare debate. Republcians come on and tell me countless times that every American has access to healthcare; simply go to the ER. That may be true, but it's also the most expensive way to get that healthcare, and if the patient is not insured and cannot pay, that bill is passed on to the rest of us. It would be cheaper for us if that patient had insurance and saw his doctor.

Unless/untill we are willing to let the uninsured go untreated, it is cheaper to insure them.

Obanacare is hardly a government takeover, although that's the phrase used by its opponents. It never contained any death panels, but that phrase was used by its opponents.

I continue to believe that once the exhanges are up and running, people in the states that have them will have health insurance similar to, if not identical to, that members of congress have. I should warn you, I have that now and it is not as good as most seem to think it is.

We tend to forget much of our history because it is unpleasant. Our health care system was/is 1/6 of our economy. It was badly broken and going down a path that could not be sustained. For all those who tell us our economy needs to be fixed, I would ask how you fix anything if you leave 1/6 of it broken?

I further believe/hope as time goes along, more and more people will not only grow to like this bill, compared to what it replaced, but they will also come to take cognizance that they had been lied to. I hope this happens before the elections. August is supposed to bring a lot of people rebates. Those rebates are a direct result of the Affordable Care Act. Will those people who oppose this act refuse those rebates?

[Dan McCosh]

Well, seems to me if you take a service provided by others. and turn it into a right provided for by the goverment, just what is it?

A fire department?

[Peter Malcolm Jardine]

Well, seems to me if you take a service provided by others. and turn it into a right provided for by the goverment, just what is it?

What it might turn out to be is a health care system that is successful. The one you have now is a dismal failure, and the rest of developed world doesn't even understand the debate over a public component to health care.

[tigerregis]

John Smith
+1
PMJ
+2

[switters]

Hey, just think...if we end any and all subsidies for health care for low income and poor people, think of how much more money will be saved... and that would be good for YOU, PERSONALLY, right? So it would be the right thing to do?



Who do you think forced that 'sell out'..... the progressives? You think we all wanted to set up a system to line the pockets of insurors and big pharma? Or perhaps we wanted universal single payer health care? Who do you think opposed that?

If health care is affordable for me personally it would be affordable for the "middle class" who make the national average income. Why don't you think that would be a good thing?

[wardd]

What it might turn out to be is a health care system that is successful. The one you have now is a dismal failure, and the rest of developed world doesn't even understand the debate over a public component to health care.

when gov is successful at anything then the people don't mind funding it which means less money flowing to the fat cats to provide that service at a profit, nevermind how well the service is provided

[Norman Bernstein]

If health care is affordable for me personally it would be affordable for the "middle class" who make the national average income. Why don't you think that would be a good thing?

Its a wonderful thing. Now all we need to do is to find a way of making sure that people who dont make the median household income be able to get health coverage....and insure that people with preexisting conditions, or those who lose their jobs, or who unfortunately need more care than insurance lifetime caps allow, can get the health care they need.....

...wait a minute: isn't that what the AHCA does?

[Mrleft8]

Well, seems to me if you take a service provided by others. and turn it into a right provided for by the goverment, just what is it?

So..... What exactly is it that you don't like? Is it that insurance company executives won't be able to get wealthier off of people's medical needs, or something else?

[bobbys]

Im a Free rider , Riding dirty......

[Todd D]

Personally I object to being pressured to buy insurance from a private insurance company. I have never had insurance from a private company. Most likely I will pay the penalty in 2014. After that it wou't be a problem since I will be back on a nice socialized plan. My wife is already covered by that socialized plan so she doesn't have to worry about being forced into the private insurance market.Incidentally, although I currently have no health insurance, I simply pay my medical bills when they happen. I find the assumption made by too many people that anyone without insurance is a freeloader offensive.

[wardd]

Personally I object to being pressured to buy insurance from a private insurance company. I have never had insurance from a private company. Most likely I will pay the penalty in 2014. After that it wou't be a problem since I will be back on a nice socialized plan. My wife is already covered by that socialized plan so she doesn't have to worry about being forced into the private insurance market.Incidentally, although I currently have no health insurance, I simply pay my medical bills when they happen. I find the assumption made by too many people that anyone without insurance is a freeloader offensive.

you're one serious accident away from being a free loader

[Peter Malcolm Jardine]

First off, I strongly believe the insurance companies are the prime mover in increasing healthcare cost. I have a catastophic health care plan and pay cash for basicly everything else. I pay 50% of what the doctor charges the insurance company. My problem with Obama care is, it is a plan to slowly squeeze everyone but the really rich into the public side, but only after the prices hit the roof. I'm not against public health. I'd just like to see it transitioned in without the huge cost spike that's coming...........It needs to be done, just not in some goofy, short sided, half baked attempt, dreamed up by the idiots in the house... most of which are gone by the way............

You are obviously very badly informed on your own health care system. The United States spends more on health care per capita that any country in the world, and yet ranks 37th in terms of performance. The problem you have is a system that endeavours to make money everywhere, from the physician and hospital group to the insurance company. The loser there is the patient. In most publicly controlled system, even the ones with a private portion, fees and income are controlled by government. What the United States has is a profit free for all, and the result is 45 million people without any health care, and a system that is the leading cause of personal bankruptcy. You must not read anything about health care systems, because this stuff is common knowledge.

[Keith Wilson]

To be fair, the low average performance rating is because the quality of care in the US is so variable. If one has good insurance, it's every bit as good as elsewhere on average, and the best is very good indeed. If one doesn't, things are very different. The cost differential is beyond doubt, however. Some things are not handled best by a free market, although not many. All the evidence suggests that heath care is one of them. And I agree, insurance companies are a major part of the problem. But the current bill is the best we could get through Congress in the face of determined Republican opposition to any significant reform at all, and it includes a very, very significant provision called the "medical loss ratio" that will force insurance companies to spend 80 or 85% of premiums on actual medical care. What a concept! (Medicare spends well over 95%, BTW) Read about it here.

One more time.

[Peter Malcolm Jardine]

I agree with you Keith, that the insurance picture makes the care variable. To be fair, the average of care is really one of the defining issues of a health care system. For the wealthy, health care is simply one more thing that they can afford at a high level, just like their shoes, cars, and restaurant meals. The USA has long touted it's reputation as a country who takes civil rights seriously, and yet here is one clear example of class structure if there ever was one.

As for free markets being the best way to do things, MBS's broke that bubble for your banking system a couple of years ago. The current recovery of the world econony from the edge of the abyss is a perfect example of government cooperation through taxation, rather than free markets correcting themselves on their own.

The free market is an excellent way to make money for the entrepreneur. The wealthy rarely have to endure the bottom of an economic turn down. They simply wait it out, and buy at the bottom. For the most part the free market is only marginally a good deal for the middle class.

[Keith Wilson]

. . . and yet here is one clear example of class structure if there ever was one.

Ya think?

The US is the wealthiest country in the world. We should arrange things so that nobody starves, nobody is homeless, no child lacks a good education, and nobody goes without medical care, no matter how worthless, lazy and irresponsible they may be. Nobody. If we don't do this, we are complicit in great evil.

[Keith Wilson]

Most likely I will pay the penalty in 2014.. After that it won't be a problem . . .

Unless you're a LOT richer than most of us, you're just one major illness away from bankruptcy and loss of all assets. One little blood clot in the wrong place, one unfortunate mutation in a liver cell, one teenager with dad's car talking on the cell phone to his girlfriend, and that's all she wrote. I sincerely hope you make it through the year.

[hanleyclifford]

Ya think?

The US is the wealthiest country in the world. We should arrange things so that nobody starves, nobody is homeless, no child lacks a good education, and nobody goes without medical care, no matter how worthless, lazy and irresponsible they may be. Nobody. If we don't do this, we are complicit in great evil.

Wow! The Force is strong in this one! Seriously, though: kinda reminds me of the army except the 1st Sgt had additional considerations for the worthless, lazy and irresponsible...

[Peter Malcolm Jardine]

Ya think?

The US is the wealthiest country in the world. We should arrange things so that nobody starves, nobody is homeless, no child lacks a good education, and nobody goes without medical care, no matter how worthless, lazy and irresponsible they may be. Nobody. If we don't do this, we are complicit in great evil.

I guess my point was that rich people are in much the same boat around the world. They can pay for whatever service they need, and as a result they get most services at a high level. You are absolutely right in your statement above, but like your country, we have failed in a lot of areas mentioned. Selfish behaviour is not exclusive to one country, or even one political party.

[Keith Wilson]

My point was that the really significant divide in heath care in the US isn't so much between the actual rich and everybody else, but between the majority that have decent insurance (or Medicare) and the minority that don't.