Social Question

DWW25921's avatar

What are the main cons of Obamacare?

Asked by DWW25921 (6239 points ) October 1st, 2013

This isn’t meant to be a political discussion I’d just like to gather actual facts as there’s a lot of fear mongering and misconception floating around. I mean, it’s not a bad idea in principal but in practice it seems to be a funding and healthcare disaster. Due to the way our country is set up, it would make more sense to have the individual states figure something out for themselves. Am I wrong about that? Let me know your thoughts.

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

50 Answers

Seek's avatar

The main con is that it didn’t require states to actually take care of the most needy people. Thus, 20+ states will have hundreds of thousands of people trapped in the gap of making between 22% and 75% of the poverty level with absolutely no coverage options.

DWW25921's avatar

@Seek_Kolinahr This may just be another misconception that I’ve heard but is it true that the poor and middle class will be paying for the vast majority of Obamacare?

Seek's avatar

995,000 people in Florida will be without coverage. Since they don’t make enough to pay income tax, they do not qualify for a subsidy to assist payment. And they don’t make enough to eat or live in decent housing, so how can they afford hundreds pet month in premiums, plus costs and deductibles?

Most poor and lower middle class will qualify for subsidies.

edit; read your response correctly this time… haha.

drhat77's avatar

I think the biggest con is we don’t know. We are creating something massive and untested and I feel it will cause problems in unique and unanticipated directions.
The problems with a single payor system are well known and potentially addressable. But since it is a nonstarter in the US, we decided we’d rather try this out instead.
Ultimately I think the problems will be numerous, minor, and solvable in version 2.0

DWW25921's avatar

@Seek_Kolinahr Yeah, I worded it wrong. I was supposed to say something about the rich not paying for it but I was thinking about your answer…

@drhat77 I like that… Version 2.0 Good stuff.

AstroChuck's avatar

The main con is that it doesn’t go far enough. Where’s the public option? Why not just cut out the private insurance industry altogether and make it a single-payer, not-for-profit program? Private companies could still offer supplemental coverage.

Judi's avatar

Corporations could lose their best talent as they can now get affordable insurance on the open market place. Those employees can now start their own businesses or change jobs without the fear of leaving themselves and their families vulnerable.

rojo's avatar

@Judi is that really a con? I guess it could be but loyalty should count for something.

Judi's avatar

@rojo , I am being sarcastic and trying to figure out why so much money is opposed to it.

Dutchess_III's avatar

@Seek_Kolinahr Yes, the law allowed for states to decide for themselves whether to broaden Medicare. 20 state’s Governors declined to do so, also declining the substantial federal monies offered so that the expansion would cost the states almost nothing.
That has nothing to do with the ACA and everything to do with the governors of the states.
What I want to know is why would they do that? Is it so that people will be negatively impacted, then the republican governors can sit back with a big grin and say, “I told you so?” even though it was THEM and not Obama who caused it?

Unbroken's avatar

My opinion is the main con is the very nature of it. It deals mainly with insurance companies instead of the problems with health care itself which is profit driven.

As far as making insurance more affordable that isn’t going to happen any time soon. My insurance premiums went up already. They will go up again in 2014. since my insurance is employer based and has different plans we will either be fined 40000 or all be forced no matter our life circumstances to all have the same plan.

My mother’s insurance premiums went up as did my sister’s. Their deductibles were also raised. My mother’s is 3500 per person on her plan. And when she went to the hospital for anaphaltetic shock her epi pen cost 273 out of her pocket to replace I know because I picked it up and shelled out the money.

I have a friend who is salaried opted out of health care and said he wouldn’t pay insurance even after the fine because his would be less then it would cost to be insured. Something around $100 not sure if it was per month or per year.

Some good things are the preexisting conditions being disallowed but that still doesn’t allow for major medical costs right away.

This is just my personal experience with health care and insurance.

Judi's avatar

@Unbroken , with the previous provisions of Obamacare that have been in acted, our premiums had the lowest increase in 10 years last year.

rojo's avatar

Our premiums have gone up every year DESPITE the tort reform foisted on Texas back in 2005. Sure, tort reform saved money, for the doctors on their insurance for the insurance companies themselves but not for the people.

JLeslie's avatar

I agree with @drhat77 that we don’t know what is going to be the biggest cons. One thing I don’t like about it, is it seems to still not address the lack of transparency in how doctors bill. Also, it doesn’t address ridiculousness, like forcing a patient to come back for a second appointment for a test that easily could be run while the patient is already in the office. They always blame it on insurance, but I can’t fathom that it was not some doctor’s lobby that fought for those rules.

@DWW25921 The poor already get health care, they get medicaid. They were getting it before Obama and still will after. A man who makes a very low wage was saying to me the other day that he was going to be forced to buy healthcare insurance because of Obama and it will cost $300 a month. I don’t know of anyone being forced, if someone on the Q knows that to be true I am interested in knowing about it. As far as I know there is a penalty if you use the system and haven’t been paying. I don’t see anything wrong with that. Paying for health care if you use it? If the system was truly socialized then the poor and lower middle class would probably pay nothing or close to nothing for health care, because they pay no or close no taxes.

Unbroken's avatar

@Judi just speaking personally in 2013 my insurance went up 200 a month first time in 8 years.

JLeslie's avatar

@Unbroken I wish we knew if that is just companies using Obamacare as an excuse to raise fees, or if they really had to raise them because of Obamacare? I don’t trust it. Delta airlines talked about fuel prices raising their fares, and then when gas prices went way back down they did not lower them again. Also, they used gas prices to explan why an hour flight costs $750 round trip, and it was total bullshit. Katrina had blown through Gulfport, MS and nonstops from Memphis to Gulfport were being done by people in business servicing the area, and they just signed off, becaise the company was paying for the tickets anyway. It had nothing to do with oil prices, it had to do with seeing what the market would bear. When everyone drops their insurance things might change. But, since it is health, people are terrified to drop their insurance understandably, so we just continue to pay whatever they ask.

DWW25921's avatar

@JLeslie One of the nasty rumors that I’ve heard is that if you don’t pay the IRS will take it out of your tax return and if there’s a balance you could do jail time. Someone correct me if I’m wrong because I sincerely hope I am…

josie's avatar

I think it is the wrong law. It takes a bad circumstance and expands on it.

Only two people have a right to know what goes on between you and a physician. You, and the physician.
A good law would make it a federal crime for anyone to try to know what that decision was.
If third parties are involved, be it the Government, or an insurance company, they should do their actuarial work regarding coverage based on that level of ignorance.

As it stands, now the IRS, and who knows what other bureaucrats, staffers and curious representatives will now know what medicine you take, and other really personal stuff.
Too late now. You think the IRS is intrusive. Now they are going to be looking up your respective openings.

Dutchess_III's avatar

@JLeslie Who ever told you “the other day” that he was going to have to pay $300 didn’t know what he was talking about. Noone can know their individual situation until they sign up for it. It sounds like he was just repeating paranoid propoganda.

@DWW25921, I can see the IRS taking it out of your return, but not jail time. They got rid of debtors prison a hundred years ago.

Why would I be the least bit worried that the IRS knows I’m on blood pressure medicine, @josie? Why would I even worry about someone going out of their way to find that info out about me?

drhat77's avatar

@Dutchess_III no one cares about you. But perhaps a bureaucrat who needs to cultivate some side income can black mail politicians and celebrities based on their medical history.

Judi's avatar

@Unbroken , if your company charged more than 85% of what it cost them in actual health care costs you will be due a refund.
Are you sure your employer didn’t just increase your share of cost?

JLeslie's avatar

@DWW25921 I thought the government only tries to collect if the person uses the system and didn’t have coverage? I’m ok with it if that is the case the irony is, the right wingers who bitch about Obamacare and bitch about the government mandating payment like a tax, also bitch about people getting care for free at the emergency rooms and never paying anything. Do they want people to pay for theor health care or not? This seems to be a constant theme with too many Republicans, not being able to do math. Go to war and lower taxes equals deficit. For whatever reason they didn’t know that. Why? They keep saying democrats want “free” healthcare. No we don’t, many people want socialized healthcare, but we know we have to pay for it, that would be a tax, we get that.

rojo's avatar

I know one of the big rumors was that you could not have the same doctors that you wanted but I face the same situation now without implementation. I want to go to a certain dentist, insurance co. won’t approve said dentist. She was good enough for them at one time but not any more, so I go to another one. I guess I could “choose” a different plan but I would have to change jobs and even then I am stuck with whatever insurance company my new employer has chosen. Well, I can now anyway and maybe it will be comparable in price.

You know, if you had a single payer system, it REALLY would not matter which doctor/dentist you went to.

rojo's avatar

Another thing that was floated out was that you would not be able to keep the insurance you presently enjoy (and I use the term loosely) but the plan I now have is not the one I started with, through no choice of my own.
Each year they send me out a packet saying “This is what we are covering this year, this is what we are no longer going to cover (unless you pay more) and this is what it is going to cost you. Oh, and by the way, this is what your deductible is now (unless you want to pay more). So, consequently, I am paying more for less, with the same company, on the same policy, and with little or no recourse. So, what does it matter to me even if it were true that I could not keep the existing policy.

Dutchess_III's avatar

@drhat77 Somehow I have a feeling that people’s medical histories will NOT be transparent to the IRS, that that is just another hysterical rumor, but I don’t know for sure.

@rojo You can keep the insurance you have now. But you also have the option of looking around for something that will suit you better without having to change jobs.

BTW…I have found that if a doctor I wanted to see wasn’t on the PPO list, all I had to do was have the insurance co. send him a form to fill out and return to them, requesting that he or she be added to the list, and Presto! Try that.

flutherother's avatar

The main cons are the costs. Medical treatment isn’t cheap but what is the alternative? To let people suffer and worry? Is there a better use for money than spending it on healthcare?

starsofeight's avatar

In an article on CNN: ‘Obamacare: Your 12 biggest questions answered’, I found this list of agencies to be included in our health care matters:

“Given the scope of what the government is aiming to pull off, a little skepticism is understandable. The Federal Data Services Hub will link 51 exchanges, insurers, the IRS, the Treasury Department, Homeland Security, the Social Security Administration, and state health care agencies.”

So I ask, How did Homeland Security get in there?

snowberry's avatar

Because the state of my- and your health can directly impact the safety of the citizens at large. Of course!

But looking at it from their point of view, if they have a suspected terrorist (which could be you, me or the guy next door) they’re going to want to know absolutely everything they can know about that person, everything from medications to mental status and everything else. I can see why they’d do it, not that I’m OK with it.

DWW25921's avatar

@starsofeight I don’t watch tabloids. Do you have a non-partisan source?

starsofeight's avatar

Didn’t know CNN News was a tabloid.

DWW25921's avatar

@starsofeight It’s for the ultra liberals, that’s why most people don’t watch it. It’s not a credible news source. If it makes you feel any better, I don’t watch Fox either for the same reason. Only they go the other way, obviously.

Dutchess_III's avatar

I asked a question a few months ago about what newsites everyone would consider “reputable.” I never got a consensus, except for maybe Snopes.

If you would, please, name a news site that you would consider non-partisian, @DWW25921.

rojo's avatar

@DWW25921 no, you are thinking of MSNBC

DWW25921's avatar

I have no problem with the BBC, for example. There are a few Independent party blogs that I follow. I just have a “no tolerance” rule when it comes to propaganda. I like to think for myself and come to my own conclusions.

Dutchess_III's avatar

OK. I will check out the BBC now.

DWW25921's avatar

news.bbc.co.uk

Like most news sources it does seem a little liberal but it’s tolerable. I like the short and to the point articles. There’s a lot of facts and very little opinions.

Dutchess_III's avatar

Why do you think “most news sources seem a little liberal” @DWW25921? Is there a logical reason for that you think?

DWW25921's avatar

Honestly, I couldn’t care less as to why. All I know is it bothers me and it needs to stop. Here’s an example of a BBC world news article. It’s short, to the point and full of exact quotes and facts. Now, why can’t we do that?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-24342804

DWW25921's avatar

(Opinion section? Please…) I don’t think opinions have any place at all in the news. I want facts, untwisted and spun. I want the numbers, the names and faces. I couldn’t care less who endorses what, I want to decide for myself if it’s a good fit for me and my community. Articles like that Fox one is a good example of what I’m on about. That’s not news, it’s an opinion.

Judi's avatar

Did you look at my Fox News post? It gave numbers

DWW25921's avatar

Yes, but it was posted in the opinion section.

Judi's avatar

I thought this was hilarious.

DWW25921's avatar

@Judi That was fun. I like a good parody.

Unbroken's avatar

@JLeslie interesting idea. I have no way to prove it or stop it and they are prepping us for another price hike in 2014.

@Judi maybe I don’t understand. What it cost them to pay my health care costs specifically? I remember when I used to get little refunds. But no more I actually don’t have a choice not to use my health care. And with an office visit in the 270 to 300 range my typical lab costing 649. Not to mention scripts which are all luckily generic but still spendy then add any testing ultrasound dexa biopsy women’s wellness eye and dental and bc vaccines etc and most of those are over 1000 a pop.

So yes majorly sick person complaining. The 1% cost of living increase each year is going straight to them plus a little.

But my co pay remained the same. They cover 80% until I exceed my payout for the year and then I am covered 100. Except for dental eyes and things like acupuncture massage and counseling.

Dutchess_III's avatar

@Judi I can’t believe Fox wrote that article either! Have they gone mad??

DWW25921's avatar

Yes. They’re all nuts.

mattbrowne's avatar

That’s like asking, what are the main cons of democracy and social responsibility. Of course no system is ever perfect, but it’s the best we can do. All alternatives are worse.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther