Can someone please explain to me the Rationale behind the opposition to "Obamacare"

[Keith P.]

Preventative care is the best kind!

I don't think anyone should have to suffer being exposed to Santorum.

[Morrison_Lad]

It's very simple: as others have said, it's because Obama is for it.

The individual mandate was first promoted by the Heritage Foundation, a far right wing think tank. The republicans in Congress were for it. Well, they were for it before they were against it. And the only reason they are against it now is because Obama suggested it. If W. had promoted it, they would be for it.

Also, the idea that it's unconstitutional is absurd. Freakin' George Washington forced every household to have a gun. Washington! The commerce clause clearly allows the government to do this. And not only that, but it's not like automobile insurance. For instance, I don't drive, so I don't have auto insurance. That doesn't cause anyone else's insurance rates to rise. With health insurance, however, every single person will have healthcare costs at some point. And if people don't have insurance, it causes the rates for those who do to increase.

Healthcare is a sui generis situation.

[Hugin]

My objection is that I hate the current insurance system. If Obama wanted to actually overhaul it, that'd be fine, but he's just helped it dig in deeper.

[Morrison_Lad]

My objection is that I hate the current insurance system. If Obama wanted to actually overhaul it, that'd be fine, but he's just helped it dig in deeper.

I think that the ACA is FAR, FAR from perfect. What they should have done (even though it wasn't politically possible, frankly) was to institute a single payer system by extending Medicare to cover everyone.

That, unfortunately, isn't what we got. What we got was a 2,600-page document which is mostly written by the insurance companies.

All that being said, by instituting the individual mandate, along with other changes (such as extending coverage for children to age 26, et al.), the healthcare system will be improved, and prices should go down some for everyone.

So, in the end it's not perfect by any means. It's very far from it. OTOH, it's better than nothing, and people should note benefits. So, AFAIC, better that we got SOMETHING than nothing.

[zemo]

And the response to that one is that no one is required to own a car, nor is a car actually necessary for living in the United States. Like health insurance, we believe it should be a choice for people to make on their own. Now, making health care more affordable so more people can get it if they choose to do so? That I'm very much behind.

Really, it comes down to a difference in philosophy in the role of the government, which is what the differences between the parties USED to be (at least, in my feeble mind that was what it was supposed to be until I became disillusioned about politics in general and realized they all suck).

My point wasn't, however, that governmental health insurance is like a car. It is quite clear that you can live without either. I said it's like a driver's license. The driver's license is a proof that you are probably not going to be a danger and burden to others. The governmental health-care makes sure that you won't be a burden on the hospitals, which have to get the money you owe them back from other patients or via taxes.

In my eyes, not having health insurance is highly irresponsible. In the USA of the past, it couldn't be helped if you couldn't afford it. Now that there is an affordable health-insurance for everybody it's different, at least from my point of view.

[DungeonMasterJim]

In my eyes, not having health insurance is highly irresponsible. In the USA of the past, it couldn't be helped if you couldn't afford it. Now that there is an affordable health-insurance for everybody it's different, at least from my point of view.

Out of curiosity, what do you consider affordable. When I worked for Callaway Golf, I opted for the single person, PPO plan. I paid something outrageously low like $12 a week in 2009. When I lost that job due to lay-off I could continue that same coverage but I had have to pay the entire monthly premium which was around $560 a month. On a related note, I have a small house and my monthly mortgage is $731.

[Impulse]

Out of curiosity, what do you consider affordable. When I worked for Callaway Golf, I opted for the single person, PPO plan. I paid something outrageously low like $12 a week in 2009. When I lost that job due to lay-off I could continue that same coverage but I had have to pay the entire monthly premium which was around $560 a month. On a related note, I have a small house and my monthly mortgage is $731.

Holy CRAP! That's sickeningly, offensively expensive. Like Weeto, being British I can't fathom why America doesn't have free-at-the-point-of-access healthcare. I'd much rather have our levels of taxation and know that I have the NHS when I get ill than have lower taxes and be fucked if I ever get sick or injured.

[zemo]

Well, I don't know how much it's supposed to be from the top of my head, but I do know it would be considerably less than 560 a month. Additionally, while there is a fine for not purchasing health insurance under the new act, there are excemptions hardwired into it for people that simply can not afford it, even with the also included subsidies.

Here's a nice collection of numbers: http://www.doughroller.net/news-anal...facts-figures/

Me, I am paying nearly 80 Euro per month, which is because I am a PhD student, otherwise it owuld be a tad bit more. But that includes basically everything one can imagine. As an example, I recently got diagnosed with an allergy against dust mites, so I need a special cover for my matrass, blanket, and pillos, that goes under the normal one. One set of these costs 200 Euro. I got two for free, in case I get a girlfriend at some point again, which would have to use the same covers.

And the joke about this? The health insurers in my country have stocked up several millions over the last few years, so there is a discussion now of decreasing the fees for a while.

Really, in my eyes the US problem isn't whether it's possible in an American setting or not, but whether people are willing to open up their eyes and see that those great American values of the past aren't all that in some areas today.

[Morrison_Lad]

Part of the reasons for the high costs is exactly what this Act is supposed to stop. Namely, people with no insurance drive up costs for everyone else. When someone with no insurance goes to the ER for help, they have to get care. If they have no insurance, then someone pays, namely the hospital. Which then leads to higher costs, and consequently higher premiums.

This is why the individual mandate is so totally critical. Without it, the entire system will be a failure. We'll be right where we are now.

[bert]

Holy CRAP! That's sickeningly, offensively expensive. Like Weeto, being British I can't fathom why America doesn't have free-at-the-point-of-access healthcare. I'd much rather have our levels of taxation and know that I have the NHS when I get ill than have lower taxes and be fucked if I ever get sick or injured.

that's pretty standard.

when you are employed, the company typically picks up vast majority of the insurance cost (hence Jim only paying $12 per week ($48 a month).

but when no longer employed, you can keep the same level of benefits thru the "COBRA" program. . but the previous employer no longer picks up thier portion. . so you have to cover it all.. hence the jump of over $500.

yes, it's a crappy, crappy system, and THAT'S why affordable healthcare options are needed.