General Question

josie's avatar

Other than faith, what is the basis for assuming that ObamaCare is a good thing?

Asked by josie (27503points) January 3rd, 2014

Plus, is it ironic that those who despise the notion of Faith, put it into practice when it comes to allowing the Political State to control the relationship between them and their physician.
And I am an atheist, and I still ask this question.

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

65 Answers

Myuzikalsoul's avatar

I do know that most of the people I know, including myself, cannot afford the ludicrous prices for mandatory health insurance. Mandatory or not, if I can’t afford it, I am not getting it. I don’t think that myself, nor my friends and family members, are the minority here.

I personally do not have faith in this program, and furthermore, do not welcome government control of my health care.

tom_g's avatar

@josie: “when it comes to allowing the Political State to control the relationship between them and their physician.”

I have never had a relationship with my physician. I have had one with my insurance company. It’s one of those relationships where I ask for necessary health services and they deny coverage. It is a beautiful thing! In 2013, this loving relationship was a little expensive, however.

Talk to me a little about this whole “Faith” thing.

glacial's avatar

This isn’t a question of absolutes (“good thing” vs. “bad thing”). No one is claiming it is the best thing possible, only that (1) it is better than the healthcare system that was in place before it – which was no healthcare system at all – and that (2) it was the best plan that the Republican obstructionists would allow to pass.

It doesn’t require faith to see that virtually the same plan has been successfully implemented in Massachusetts.

Adirondackwannabe's avatar

I had a call this morning from a client. They’re premiums went down this year. That’s a first in a long long time. I don’t know all the reasons why and haven’t had a chance to look into it. But a reduction is always better than the continuous increases.

johnpowell's avatar

I am finally able to afford healthcare. Thank you Obamacare!! The relationship with my doctor is irrelevant. I got a new one each time I went to the ER.

cookieman's avatar

I have no “faith” in ObamaCare. More to the point, I don’t have a dog in this race as I am lucky enough to have had employer-subsidized-healthcare for over twenty years. What I do have is friends (freelance artist-types mostly) not as lucky who went years without healthcare (short of the emergency room) because they can’t afford the independent premiums. Now, through ObamaCare, they tell me they have more affordable options.

Sounds pretty good to me so far.

zenvelo's avatar

1. Because, it will make care affordable for those who could not get it.
2. It will work to make government outlays for overall medical care decrease, lowering the federal expenses.
3. People who were excluded from coverage for a variety of reasons can no longer be excluded.

Response moderated (Unhelpful)
johnpowell's avatar

A note to Republicans. In a few years after all the bugs get worked out calling it Obamacare will go down as one one of the dumbest fucking things you could have ever done.

talljasperman's avatar

It will create employment for bureaucrats and keep CNN junkies fed until the debt ceiling hits in January… no wait it is January now, I guess the government will have to be shut down again.

johnpowell's avatar

Just for perspective.

Barack H. Obama 65,917,258 51.01%
Willard Mitt Romney 60,932,235 47.15%

Five million is the difference. Obamacare has already signed up 2 million. This should be terrifying to the GOP. They branded Obamacare and now a big chunk have healthcare that didn’t before. Oh, the democrat made it so I can see a doctor. Why should I vote for the party that wants to take my healthcare away?

DWW25921's avatar

I think people are naive enough to be optimistic. It does appear that the “Tea Party” was really the only ones that were right about this mess.

laureth's avatar

The Heritage Foundation backed most of these reforms for a good long time before Obama got them passed and Heritage wiped their site. Conservatives have backed similar health care reform since at least Nixon. Would Conservatives support a bad plan for so long?

(Also, not to nitpick, but the State isn’t controlling “the relationship between [citizen] and physician”. It is, however, regulating the sort of coverage that health insurers offer.)

johnpowell's avatar

And yeah. This is totally a Republican plan. And it is the best we can do without single-payer. Maybe after the next election.

Tropical_Willie's avatar

I have two friends that are in the insurance business, both are selling insurance to people that could not afford or were denied policy before ObamaCare. The people that complain the most are “I haven’t gone to the Doctor or Hospital in five years, Why do I need insurance?”
Those people maybe the first to complain are the “I can’t get a free ride at the hospital “when something happens to them that requires them to go to the Hospital or have to pay full price.

My PCP has been having ALL patients sign that they will be “FULLY RESPONSIBLE” for all charges that are not covered by insurance. No insurance, you pay the full amount with no negotiation to a lower amount.

glacial's avatar

@Tropical_Willie Exactly. And this is one of the reasons that this is a Republican idea – the elimination of freeloaders. It’s kind of hilarious watching them tie themselves in knots explaining how they can suddenly disapprove. Or… it would be if it weren’t hurting people.

johnpowell's avatar

@DWW25921 : what is exactly the mess?

trailsillustrated's avatar

< does not understand. Before this, people thought poor people just got a free ride at the er. Not. Your minimum wage job would be garnished, and you would be dogged to the end of the earth with dr. bills. Every tax return taken. If this helps low income people, I can’t see what’s bad.

funkdaddy's avatar

My basis is listening to my wife and her colleagues talk about the ER they work in. (she left recently)

More than half of what they see isn’t an emergency at all, (not time sensitive and not life threatening). A lot of it is pregnancy tests, notes for work, care for the elderly, the flu, a warm room and a sandwich. Not judging the people, but the reality is Obamacare can help with everything but the last.

People come in because

> They don’t have a doctor and don’t even know where to start with one after someone says they don’t take new patients who aren’t insured…
> Some find that billable rates for the uninsured are insane, don’t know they’re negotiable, and figure they might as well just go to the ER…
> Enough think it’s free when they come in that there’s an approved script that is used to explain that it’s not, but they will still get care
> The hospital never turns anyone away unless they are a threat to the staff and stable enough to go, even then you get checked out

15% pay anything… the rest result in higher prices for everyone.

People are already receiving care. If everyone has insurance then at least the facilities get something for the care and hopefully that results in slowing the increase in the costs of healthcare. Again, not blaming the patients, or the facility, it’s just caused a back and forth that has spiraled out of control. Less can pay, so the facility raises prices to keep open, and less can pay.

Keeping that from continuing is a good thing, and something needed to be done before the whole supposed safety net became unworkable.

If the new plans result in more people actually having a doctor, preventative care that will save billions of dollars, and options beyond the most expensive kind of care available, then that’s an even better thing.

Based on Medicaid, it looks like that may not be the case, at least initially. So I think the next order of business is education, but we’ll see.

No one thinks this is perfect, so I don’t know how much faith you’re actually seeing. People think it’s a start.

flutherother's avatar

The relationship you have with your physician isn’t controlled by the state. That is an odd thing to say and remember, before ‘Obamacare’ many people had no physician to have a relationship with. Caring for each other is a matter of basic human decency, you shouldn’t need faith to tell you that is a good thing.

Myuzikalsoul's avatar

Exactly how is it beneficial to a ‘low-income person’, such as myself, who is already working their asses off every day struggling to make ends meet, to decree to them that they must pay an extra $700 a month for medical care that they have already gone 30 years without. That $700 is more than my rent and is IMPOSSIBLE for myself and a lot of people I know to handle. I barely have $7 most of the time, especially this time of year.

Not to mention, the stress that this infringement adds to an already stress-laden life, complete with threats of prosecution and fees for ‘non-compliance’.

Obama is not ‘taking care’ of anybody with this plan, and if you think he is then you aren’t really struggling.

Socialism and communism look great on paper, but when applied… not so much.

glacial's avatar

@Myuzikalsoul I’m having trouble believing your premiums are literally $700 per month if you are a “low-income person”. What is your income?

Myuzikalsoul's avatar

@glacial I am a server at a waterfront restaurant that is highly seasonal. My income varies from month to month. However, the government requires that I claim 100% and many times OVER 100% of what I actually bring home. They then tax me on that at the end of the year, and they use that imaginary income to determine how much I am supposed to pay.

Myuzikalsoul's avatar

@glacial The best part is that especially during the summer, most people think that we actually receive a paycheck and barely tip, leaving us to pay the difference in taxes.

I have been a student for a few years and have recently graduated and am awaiting a chance to transfer. I have tried other 9 to 5 type jobs, but as far as jobs go around here (my hometown – the east coast), your best bet is in the service industry. When you work in a restaurant you are likely bound to work through the winter or they will not hire you. They want people who can work full time no matter what the season. The summers are great, but if you don’t have money stored for the winter (or you have some sort of emergency) – you are out of luck.

I’m ready to get off the coast and move up to the mountains. I have not yet transferred because just prior to graduation I was informed that the government would no longer allow me financial aid. I used aid (loans) for 2 years over 10 years ago when I initially went to a University fresh out of high school. Since I have been back in school, I have been awarded federal grants every year – and have maintained a 4.0. Now that I have graduated and it is time to transfer, I am stuck financially. I am already paying on past college loans and now I am looking forward <dripping with sarcasm> to being liened and garnished by the IRS because I cannot afford ObamaCare.

I want to eventually become an Occupational Therapist. Based on the credits I already have (granted they haven’t expired by the time I get there), I should enter into a University as at least a Sophomore, if not a Junior. I am hoping to get my Masters Degree as soon as possible. I would be the first of my family to earn a college degree. ( I already am, actually, but I don’t count my Associates compared to what I want to accomplish). This ObamaCare plan coupled with being taxed a few hundred dollars every year is not helping me get to school any faster. Sure I can get scholarships, but money to move, pay rent, and survive on? I can’t save money that I don’t have, and I can’t pay money that I don’t have. It’s as simple as that.

I am far from alone in this situation. My own father who has been a private business owner his own life now has a debilitating disease that doctors cannot cure or even really medicate. It is a type of arthritis coupled with some other health problems. He is already saturated in medical bills from tests and experiments that in the end did nothing to help him. Now with ObamaCare he and his wife cannot afford medical insurance. Instead, they also look forward to being fined at the end of the year. How does ObamaCare help people like him?

glacial's avatar

@Myuzikalsoul This makes no sense. The IRS taxes you on your actual income, not an imaginary income. You may be having taxes withheld by your employer at a higher amount for some reason, but that should have nothing to do with what your healthcare premiums are. Have you actually tried to sign up? Using the website, and then talking to a person on the phone if you have problems? I think you are working on some misconceptions here.

Myuzikalsoul's avatar

@glacial As a restaurant server, the IRS taxes me based upon my projected income. I call this an ‘imaginary income’ because it is based upon what I “should” have pocketed according to my sales and credit card tips. However, this is a very imperfect system.

First of all, the hours that I work are wiped away because the government takes every bit of my paycheck away in taxes alone – ( I am only making $2.13 per hour). Secondly, the government is assuming that I am taking home 100% of my tips when in reality (shockingly), not everyone knows how/wants to/cares about tipping. Furthermore, the restaurant collects a percentage of tip money as partial payment for their bartenders, bussers, food runners, etc. The restaurant abides by law and calculates what we are to tip based upon our sales and credit card tips and we are charged for credit card processing. THEN after all of that is taken out, we finally get to keep what is left over. I MUST enter a specific number into the computer that has been calculated for claimed tips based upon government law.

This number often exceeds the actual amount of money left over.

If you came in and spent $100, and paid in cash, leaving me with $5, you are literally costing me; just like if I were to show up at your 9 to 5 right before you receive your paycheck and dock it $20. You performed a job and should have been paid for it, I don’t see why a server should be any different. (We are talking about having been given excellent and accurate service – might I add).

But unfortunately, there are a lot of ignorant people out there that believe tipping is optional, or that the server is obligated to perform circus acts or to be insulted before they should be appropriately tipped. I have often said, everyone should be required to work in the service industry – no matter what you’ve been given in life – there are many lessons to be learned, invaluable lessons that the ‘haves’ of the world cannot even begin to comprehend.

ObamaCare does not work for us. It may look wonderful on paper, and to those who can afford it, but it does not work for those of us who work ‘paycheck to paycheck’, so to speak. Many of us do not have health insurance and forcing us to add another expense to our already overly taxed budgets is asinine. We have all survived fine without insurance, it’s called walk-in clinics. I have even survived a type of cancer without insurance – there are specialized fund programs out there for such things.

There are people out there who have not, will not, do not believe in going to the doctor and have their own natural ways of dealing with illness (mostly by preventing it) and they should not be forced, neither you nor I, to buy an insurance that they will not, and do not need. This is America, The Land Of The Free. Last I checked, that was supposed to mean the freedom to make your own personal decisions and I think that healthcare is just about as personal as you can get.

- Ironically, as a result of universal healthcare, the care that is received will more than likely become less and less personal. Emergencies become congruent to everything else. Have you ever had the experience of waiting to see a doctor for a broken bone in a foreign country that has implemented a universal healthcare system? You may want to bring snacks and reading material, because it will likely be quite a while before you are even seen.

And to answer your question… Yes, I have been to the website and have calculated my premiums, that is why I know how much I am expected to pay. :)

glacial's avatar

@Myuzikalsoul I’m having trouble believing this. You’ve said that the IRS takes your whole paycheque, and that you’re not allowed to keep your tips. It sounds like you are paying your employer for your job. Why would you do that? You have to be taking some money home, or you wouldn’t bother working at all. You would find something better to do with your time.

When you talk about “the government taking every bit of your paycheque”, are you talking solely about taxes withheld at source? Do you file an income tax return? If they are taking all your money from your paycheque (which… again… can’t be true), then you should be getting all of it back as a refund. There’s no way that $2.13 per hour can be making you enough yearly to be paying taxes on, surely. If your employer is withholding too much at source, that is your employer’s fault, not the government’s. Your employer should be able to adjust that amount at your request. It would mean a smaller tax return, but that’s good – you don’t want someone else holding on all year to money that you’ve earned – that should be in your pocket.

Finally, it sounds like there’s something wrong with the way your tips are being calculated. Even if your employer is demanding a cut of your tips, this should not create a gap between the amount of tips you receive and the amount of tips you report for tax purposes. Your income is your income is your income.

It sounds to me like your employer is using you badly, but I don’t see how this is the fault of the government. The fault is shared between your employer and you.

And I still have no idea how you end up with a $700 monthly ACA premium based on a $2.13 hourly wage. That sounds impossible to me.

Darth_Algar's avatar

@Myuzikalsoul If you’re low income you can qualify for subsidies. A friend of mine is in the same line of work and gets healthcare now for $200/month after subsidies.

glacial's avatar

@Darth_Algar It may depend what state she’s in… if it’s an anti-ACA state like Texas, the coverage gap might be the issue. But $700 a month sounds really, really high to me as a starting point.

Myuzikalsoul's avatar

I have worked in several different restaurants and, (with the exception of a few years ago when I wasn’t being taxed so heavily), it is always the same. It is laughable to claim that I must receive a paycheck. What I do receive is a white piece of paper with my hours, my wages, and a bunch of minus signs where the state and federal government take out taxes. The only time I receive a paycheck is when based upon my SALES, I am present at work for more hours than I am actually being compensated. In other words, at the end of two weeks, I may receive a paycheck in a very small amount when I am present at work with little to no customers coming in. We are talking $20 is a HUGE payday!!!

My employer is not taking any of this money from me. Here is an example:

I work a busy double shift and I must stop in the middle of my shift to claim my ‘morning’ tips. The computer gives me a printout that lists my sales and breaks it down by payment and tips. Every single time during that shift that I gave someone their check and checked them out, I had to eventually finalize that check by entering in a tip amount. If I do not enter a tip amount that is at least 10% of the total of the check, my ‘tips’ are adjusted automatically to reflect a percentage of what I should have been tipped.

The government expects you to report 100% of your tips and if you do not, the server, and possibly the restaurant gets audited and fined. As a result of this, the restaurant has to cover its bases and report a certain percentage of projected tips based upon cash sales (credit cards are a no-brainer). The bottom line is, many people rack up a huge bill, but do not tip accordingly, and that disrupts these percentages. It is of course, not the government who gets shortchanged.

Additionally, since the laws have become stricter on reporting, and I have been working more, I have ended up having to pay income taxes at the end of the year, whereas a few years ago, I would have obtained a refund.

As far as my premiums go, I probably was not clear that I am speaking of the combined amount that my boyfriend and I must pay together in order to be law-abiding. It is too much for our combined income.

Myuzikalsoul's avatar

@Darth_Algar I admit I have not tried to apply for subsidies because I have been preoccupied trying to keep my head above water as it is with my other necessary bills. This is the worst time of year in my line of work to demand another tax of ANY amount. Even a $100 premium is setting me back tremendously. I appreciate your tip though, and I will look further into it.

Darth_Algar's avatar

@glacial Actually she is in Texas. Dallas, to be exact.

Myuzikalsoul's avatar

I’d like to note that I must select a plan with a deductible that is not outrageous or the plan will be completely useless to me and my family. Who cares if it’s only $50/month when if I need to use it, my deductible per year is completely unattainable to me.

glacial's avatar

@Darth_Algar Thanks. Then we can thank the Texas governor for the fact that @Myuzikalsoul cannot simply go on Medicaid, which presumably would really be her option if she is making zero income at her incredibly exhausting job.

@Myuzikalsoul Your story is incredible. If you were truly making no income, you would not have this job. Period. And you have shifted your ACA premium from $700/month to $100 to $50. I don’t think you’ve even checked to see what your premium would be.

My understanding is that the deductible kicks in for things like treatment for illnesses, etc. Many people are saying that they don’t need to pay out of pocket for visits to a GP or for other forms of preventative care. Perhaps that varies regionally, I don’t know. But you should be taking advantage of that, if it’s true in your case. It’s a valuable thing.

Myuzikalsoul's avatar

@glacial I have this job because I can make more money in the service industry in one day than I would make all week at a 9 to 5. As I previously stated, my job (and my hometown as a whole), is highly seasonal, meaning that the economy struggles big time during the winter months. This means far less business for all businesses, not just for the restaurants.

As stated previously, in order to survive these times, you must save a winter fund, or go on unemployment to get by. Unemployment is avoided at all costs by the employer, however, who ensures you just meet that minimum so as to not to ‘need’ assistance.

If you want to keep your job, which becomes very valuable in the summer months, then you are required to work full time all year – through the good and the bad. Some restaurants will not even allow you to have a second job even if you can manage to squeeze one in before or after hours because they fear it will interfere with your quality of work.

I never said that I make “no income”, for if I were, as you say, I would not work, and I also would not have this problem with high insurance premiums and deductibles in the first place because there wouldn’t be a ridiculous number on my tax forms that signifies what I supposedly bring home in a year.

The fact is, I make an above-average income as far as restaurant servers go because my restaurant is of higher volume than most. When it is summertime, I make bank. However, as life is full of unexpected surprises, it is also full of unexpected expenses, and once these expenses exceed your income – suddenly, you are living as a conduit between the acquirement of the money and the passing along of the money to where it’s due. Sure, I make money, but I don’t have any left over after taxes (which I was unable to pay in full this year), and I surely don’t have enough to pay for the rising cost of living, and mandatory health care.

Also, I never shifted my premium amount. You are reading my comments without their context. I said that even IF my premium was only $100 a month that it would still bear a financial burden upon me at this point, and in another comment I mentioned that even IF I were to opt for a lower premium such as that of $50 per month the plan would be useless to me because I would never be able to afford the deductible.

If you are correct in saying that there are some circumstances in which I would not need to pay a deductible then that is AWESOME. I might as well sign up for the $0 per month plan with a $11,000 deductible then, and not have to pay anything monthly. Then maybe, if you are right, I could at least use it for some kind of preventable health-care but I’d still have to pay full price (up to the $11,000) if I was actually sick and in need of help.

Myuzikalsoul's avatar

Oh, and medicaid is not an option. Even on a poverty type income you must have children or a debilitation to be considered for medicaid.

glacial's avatar

@Myuzikalsoul “Sure, I make money, but I don’t have any left over after taxes (which I was unable to pay in full this year), and I surely don’t have enough to pay for the rising cost of living, and mandatory health care.”

Ok, then the problem is not that the government is taking all of your money in taxes – the problem is simply that you are living beyond your means. If your income varies seasonally, you definitely need to budget so that you can figure out what your monthly wage is after expenses. Blaming the IRS is denying the problem you are facing: either you need a better job, or you need to cut your expenses. Or both.

I think you would benefit greatly from sitting down with a financial advisor, to figure out how you can make your situation work for you instead of against you from a tax perspective. There is probably a solution to your problem of finding it impossible to pay your taxes even though you “make bank” in the summer. And you should also find out what ACA can do for you – it is designed to help people in situations like yours.

But living in Texas is certainly not helping you – ACA has funds for your state to expand Medicaid to cover low income employees, but your state government is not taking it, because they would rather play politics than help their own constituents. Remember that when you go to the polls.

Myuzikalsoul's avatar

@glacial I appreciate your help, however, I am not simply living beyond my means. I actually live extremely frugally, and I do not eat processed foods, or fast food (an occasional Bojangles box slips in, I AM human).

I do spend money on rent, electricity, car loan, car insurance, computer payment and internet as it is a necessity for school. I buy foods from the perimeter of the grocery store (all the natural stuff), and I save a ton of money cooking at home. I have tap water that is strongly chlorinated and I evaporate it on a daily basis for drinking, cooking and bathing water – albeit, I’ll admit that since it has gotten so cold I use the normal shower a lot more. I am very conservative of my resources, especially with money.

The reason why I previously mentioned emergency situations and unforeseen circumstances is because I have had quite an abundance of them this year.

I somehow contracted MRSA and was initially misdiagnosed as having scabies even though I have been with the same person for many years. I think I may have gotten it from a tanning bed at the gym because that is the only thing I did differently than normal in that period of time. Since I was misdiagnosed, I was treated with only one antibiotic (and a cream).

I missed quite a bit of work due to this first illness as I ran an extremely high fever, and the ulcer was in a spot on my leg that made my job very painful (I forced myself to go once I was cleared to go back to work). After the first infection healed about a week later another one began to form, I still had the creams so I tried to apply them and make it go away.

Soon, I was shocked to find that the bump had turned into a wound and that there was a red line leading up my thigh. I decided to get a second opinion. This doctor was shocked by my previous (scabies) diagnosis and immediately diagnosed me with staph and later with MRSA. The physician immediately put me on two antibiotics and assured me that if I had waited much longer I might have developed sepsis, which is life-threatening.

My point here is that I ended up losing a TON of work. The second infection gave me the worst fever I have ever had in my life. I actually returned to work after 2 weeks, and I was sent home shortly thereafter because once I walked in everything was blurry and muffled and I could not hear was a CRAZY experience. My manager said I was visibly congested, as I was, very.

Shortly after this sickness my car began to give me troubles. It ended up leaving me stranded on more than one occasion and sometimes it was in the middle of traffic in a huge intersection!!! Scary! So anyways, I had to spend beaucoups of money to get my car fixed while paying for taxi services to get myself (and my boyfriend) to and from work and the grocery store. This presented a huge financial burden.

Eventually, I was able to make it into work but I was given less hours because I had already missed so much. By the time I was integrated back to my normal schedule the season was just about over. This presented a HUGE setback for my financial situation for the following months.

This ObamaCare plan is going to cost me more monthly, than it did to be treated for something crazy like MRSA. Unless, of course, I opt for the lower priced plans with the 10 grand deductibles. I actually think that the $0 premiums with $11,000 deductibles might be the way to go for me and my family, since we don’t use insurance in the first place, and have not incurred the amount of the deductible in medical bills in our lifetimes. We’ll just keep on paying as we go essentially, (unless there are special circumstances in which the deductible can be bypassed), yet will not be penalized since we hold a plan.

glacial's avatar

@Myuzikalsoul Yeah, paying $0 for any type of coverage + no penalty has to be an improvement over not getting insurance + paying a penalty!

The bottom line is that the ACA is better than nothing, which is what people had before. And in many cases, people are doing a lot better than that. It sucks that the red states are punishing their voters they way that they have been.

But I will also add that you’ve come out pretty strongly against the ACA and the tax system in this thread, when in fact your problems are not coming from either the ACA or the tax system. If your country had universal healthcare, all of that emergency medical care would not have cost you any extra money. I’m a Canadian, and I can walk into any doctor’s office or any emergency room, any number of times over a year or a lifetime, and never see a doctor’s bill. ACA is your country’s first step towards a system that doesn’t punish people for getting sick. I think that is awesome. I know there is going to be an adjustment period, in which some people pay more than they should, but over the long term, this is a positive thing for America.

Darth_Algar's avatar

@glacial I think there’s been a bit of confusion. I was saying that my friend lives in Texas, not that Myuzikalsoul does. I have no idea where Myuzikalsoul lives.

glacial's avatar

@Darth_Algar Oh!! My comment about it mattering “which state she’s in” was about @Myuzikalsoul. Yeah, I misunderstood what you said.

Myuzikalsoul's avatar

@glacial I understand your point but I have some reservations about universal healthcare.

First of all, I wonder how this will effect the quality of healthcare given. I wonder what incentives this new system creates (or doesn’t create) for physicians, surgeons, nurses, etc. who are suddenly becoming regulated by the government and are essentially government employees rather than private workers. What will happen to doctor-patient confidentiality? What will be the incentive for medical research?

Also, taxes are only going to get worse.

But most importantly, I have a fundamental belief that our government is infringing upon our rights as citizens of the United States with this plan. The federal government does not organize projects well as it is, and for them to control my health options is nothing short of scary.

Who is to say what personal rights and choices the government will try to control next? What mandates will the government present as the ‘kinks’ get ‘ironed-out’? How might these mandates effect our right to say, a medical device, which may suddenly become rationed by the government (Hello, waiting lists)?

Oh, and I live in North Carolina :)

ragingloli's avatar

As someone living in a country that has universal healthcare, I would never trade it for the american “system”, neither pre- nor post-ACA.

Darth_Algar's avatar


“I wonder what incentives this new system creates (or doesn’t create) for physicians, surgeons, nurses, etc. who are suddenly becoming regulated by the government and are essentially government employees rather than private workers. What will happen to doctor-patient confidentiality? What will be the incentive for medical research?”

You think doctors and nurses haven’t always been regulated by the government? How exactly are they now essentially government employees rather than private workers? What makes you think anything will happen to doctor-patient confidentially? The incentive for medical research will be the same as it always has.

“Also, taxes are only going to get worse.’


“But most importantly, I have a fundamental belief that our government is infringing upon our rights as citizens of the United States with this plan. The federal government does not organize projects well as it is, and for them to control my health options is nothing short of scary.”

How is the government infringing upon our rights with this plan? How exactly are they controlling your health options?

glacial's avatar

@Myuzikalsoul What @ragingloli said. Your system is already run on a for-profit basis. A single-payer system like what we have removes a lot of the incentivizing that the American system has. Do you currently consider all doctors to be employees of the insurance companies? How is that better?

The US government already has excellent single-payer healthcare systems in place for its own government officials, for seniors, and for the military. There is no reason that all citizens shouldn’t be able to benefit from the same thing. Ask your congressman if he’s scared of having the government control his own healthcare plan – not yours.

And this business of losing personal rights baffles me. This is not a slippery slope to socialism. Why do you suppose that the only people saying that this is a concern are in the US, where you don’t have the experience of universal healthcare? You can’t name a country that has seen rights taken away as a result of universal healthcare. This is plain fear-mongering.

What it will do is give people more freedom, not less. If you hadn’t had to pay for the medical expenses you had this year, would you feel less free? No! You would feel more free, obviously.

Myuzikalsoul's avatar

Here are 18 explanations why many people are wary of this plan from They also show the pro’s. I’m getting tired and these issues align with my concerns so here goes:

There isn’t a single government agency or division that runs efficiently; do we really want an organization that developed the U.S. Tax Code handling something as complex as health care?

Quick, try to think of one government office that runs efficiently. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? The Department of Transportation? Social Security Administration? Department of Education? There isn’t a single government office that squeezes efficiency out of every dollar the way the private sector can. We’ve all heard stories of government waste such as million-dollar cow flatulence studies or the Pentagon’s 14 billion dollar Bradley design project that resulted in a transport vehicle which when struck by a mortar produced a gas that killed every man inside. How about the U.S. income tax system? When originally implemented, it collected 1 percent from the highest income citizens. Look at it today. A few years back to government published a “Tax Simplification Guide”, and the guide itself was over 1,000 pages long! This is what happens when politicians mess with something that should be simple. Think about the Department of Motor Vehicles. This isn’t rocket science – they have to keep track of licenses and basic database information for state residents. However, the costs to support the department are enormous, and when was the last time you went to the DMV and didn’t have to stand in line? If it can’t handle things this simple, how can we expect the government to handle all the complex nuances of the medical system? If any private business failed year after year to achieve its objectives and satisfy its customers, it would go out of business or be passed up by competitors. Consider the health care bill passed by the Obama administration in 2009—it’s over 2000 pages and barely scratches the surface for how the law will be implemented!

“Free” health care isn’t really free since we must pay for it with taxes; expenses for health care would have to be paid for with higher taxes or spending cuts in other areas such as defense, education, etc.

There’s an entitlement mentality in this country that believes the government should give us a number of benefits such as “free” health care. But the government must pay for this somehow. What good would it do to wipe out a few hundred dollars of monthly health insurance premiums if our taxes go up by that much or more? If we have to cut AIDS research or education spending, is it worth it?

Profit motives, competition, and individual ingenuity have always led to greater cost control and effectiveness.

Government workers have fewer incentives to do well. They have a set hourly schedule, cost-of-living raises, and few promotion opportunities. Compare this to private sector workers who can receive large raises, earn promotions, and work overtime. Government workers have iron-clad job security; private sector workers must always worry about keeping their jobs, and private businesses must always worry about cutting costs enough to survive.

Government-controlled health care would lead to a decrease in patient flexibility.

At first glance, it would appear universal health care would increase flexibility. After all, if government paid for everything under one plan, you could in theory go to any doctor. However, some controls are going to have to be put in to keep costs from exploding. For example, would “elective” surgeries such as breast implants, wart removal, hair restoration, and lasik eye surgery be covered? Then you may say, that’s easy, make patients pay for elective surgery. Although some procedures are obviously not needed, who decides what is elective and what is required? What about a breast reduction for back problems? What about a hysterectomy for fibroid problems? What about a nose job to fix a septum problem caused in an accident? Whenever you have government control of something, you have one item added to the equation that will most definitely screw things up—politics. Suddenly, every medical procedure and situation is going to come down to a political battle. The compromises that result will put in controls that limit patient options. The universal system in Canada forces patients to wait over 6 months for a routine pap smear. Canada residents will often go to the U.S. or offer additional money to get their health care needs taken care of.

The health-care industry likely will become infused with the same kind of corruption, back-room dealing, and special-interest-dominated sleaze that is already prevalent in other areas of government.

In President Obama’s push for health insurance “reform”, we saw firsthand how politics rears its ugly head. In order to secure 60 votes in the Senate, the Democrats put in special payoffs for Nebraska (the “Cornhusker kickback”), Louisiana (the “Louisiana Purchase”), and Florida in order to secure votes from reluctant senators. In other words, the merits of the bill and the good of the nation took a backseat to politics as usual. Another example was the proposed tax on “Cadillac Health Plans”, which was one of the few things in the 2000+ page bill that economists predicted would actually help reduce overall costs. Unfortunately, Obama’s biggest political supporters—big unions—were set to be hit. So of course, a deal was struck to exempt his union supporters, whereas non-union members in the same boat still faced the tax hikes. With something as important as health care, can we really have politicians and special interests taking power? How long before funding/regulatory decisions on certain drugs, treatments, research, etc. are decided based on those who give the most political support, as opposed to which will save lives and improve quality of life?

Patients aren’t likely to curb their drug costs and doctor visits if health care is free; thus, total costs will be several times what they are now.

Co-pays and deductibles were put in place because there are medical problems that are more minor annoyances than anything else. Sure, it would be nice if we had the medical staff and resources to treat every ache and pain experienced by an American, but we don’t. For example, what if a patient is having trouble sleeping? What if a patient has a minor cold, flu, or headache? There are scores of problems that we wouldn’t go to a doctor to solve if we had to pay for it; however, if everything is free, why not go? The result is that doctors must spend more time on non-critical care, and the patients that really need immediate help must wait. In fact, for a number of problems, it’s better if no medical care is given whatsoever. The body’s immune system is designed to fight off infections and other illnesses. It becomes stronger when it can fight things off on its own. Treating the symptoms can prolong the underlying problem, in addition to the societal side effects such as the growing antibiotic resistance of certain infections.

Just because Americans are uninsured doesn’t mean they can’t receive health care; nonprofits and government-run hospitals provide services to those who don’t have insurance, and it is illegal to refuse emergency medical service because of a lack of insurance.

While uninsured Americans are a problem in regards to total system cost, it doesn’t mean health care isn’t available. This issue shouldn’t be as emotional since there are plenty of government and private medical practices designed to help the uninsured. It is illegal to refuse emergency treatment, even if the patient is an illegal immigrant.

Government-mandated procedures will likely reduce doctor flexibility and lead to poor patient care.

When government controls things, politics always seep into the decision-making. Steps will have to be taken to keep costs under control. Rules will be put in place as to when doctors can perform certain expensive tests or when drugs can be given. Insurance companies are already tying the hands of doctors somewhat. Government influence will only make things worse, leading to decreased doctor flexibility and poor patient care.

Healthy people who take care of themselves will have to pay for the burden of those who smoke, are obese, etc.

Universal health care means the costs will be spread to all Americans, regardless of your health or your need for medical care, which is fundamentally unfair. Your health is greatly determined by your lifestyle. Those who exercise, eat right, don’t smoke, don’t drink, etc. have far fewer health problems than the smoking couch potatoes. Some healthy people don’t even feel the need for health insurance since they never go to the doctor. Why should we punish those that live a healthy lifestyle and reward the ones who don’t?

In an effort to cut costs, price & salary controls on drugs, medical equipment, and medical services are likely to be put in place, meaning there is less incentive to pursue medical-related research, development, and investment.

Regardless of whether medical costs are paid for publicly or privately, the costs are extremely expensive and going higher every year. Rising costs of drugs, diagnostic tests, advanced treatments, physician & nurses’ salaries, and so on all contribute to the skyrocketing overall cost. Politicians are likely to jump in and try to limit costs by putting in price caps on various items they deem “excessively profitable.” This de-incentivizes businesses from investing in new drugs or medical advances. As an example, new drugs often take over a decade to develop, test, and pass FDA standards. That means companies must spend sometimes millions of dollars over the development period without grossing dollar one! The only thing that keeps companies in the market at all is the potentially lucrative payout of that patent along with the ability to sell their new drugs at whatever cost the market will bear. Drug price controls, or even the mere threat of price controls, will likely dissuade many companies from taking on the new investment. Consequently, medical advances are likely to curtail.

A long, painful transition will have to take place involving lost insurance industry jobs, business closures, and new patient record creation.

A universal health plan means the entire health insurance industry would be unnecessary. All companies in that area would have to go out of business, meaning all people employed in the industry would be out of work. A number of hospital record clerks that dealt with insurance would also be out of work. A number of these unemployed would be able to get jobs in the new government bureaucracy, but it would still be a long, painful transition. We’d also have to once again go through a whole new round of patient record creation and database construction, which would cost huge amounts of both time and money.

Loss of private practice options and possible reduced pay may dissuade many would-be doctors from pursuing the profession.

Government jobs currently have statute-mandated salaries and civil service tests required for getting hired. There isn’t a lot of flexibility built in to reward the best performing workers. Imagine how this would limit the options of medical professionals. Doctors who attract scores of patients and do the best work would likely be paid the same as those that perform poorly and drive patients away. The private practice options and flexibility of specialties is one of things that attracts students to the profession. If you take that away, you may discourage would-be students from putting themselves through the torture of medical school and residency. A recent study showed that nearly ⅓ of doctors would leave the profession if the Obama health care bill was put into law.

Malpractice lawsuit costs, which are already sky-high, could further explode since universal care may expose the government to legal liability, and the possibility to sue someone with deep pockets usually invites more lawsuits.

When you’re dealing with any business, for example a privately-funded hospital, if an employee negligently causes an injury, the employer is ultimately liable in a lawsuit. If government funds all health care, that would mean the U.S. government, an organization with enormous amounts of cash at its disposal, would be ultimately responsible for the mistakes of health care workers. Whether or not a doctor has made a mistake, he or she is always a target for frivolous lawsuits by money-hungry lawyers & clients that smell deep pockets. Even if the health care quality is the same as in a government-funded system, the level of lawsuits is likely to increase simply because attorneys know the government has the money to make settlements and massive payouts. Try to imagine potential punitive damages alone. When the government has the ability to spend several trillion dollars per year, how much will a jury be willing to give a wronged individual who is feeble, disfigured, or dying?

Government is more likely to pass additional restrictions or increase taxes on smoking, fast food, etc., leading to a further loss of personal freedoms.

With government-paid health care, any risky or unhealthy lifestyle will raise the dollar cost to society. Thus, politicians will be in a strong position to pass more “sin” taxes on things like alcohol, high-fat food, smoking, etc. They could ban trans fat, limit MSG, eliminate high-fructose corn syrup, and so on. For some health nuts, this may sound like a good thing. But pretty soon, people will find they no longer have the option to enjoy their favorite foods, even in moderation, or alternatively, the cost of the items will be sky high. Also, it just gives the government yet another method of controlling our lives, further eroding the very definition of America, Land of the Free.

Patient confidentiality is likely to be compromised since centralized health information will likely be maintained by the government.

While a centralized computer health information system may reduce some costs of record keeping, protecting the privacy of patients will likely become very difficult. The government would have yet another way to access information about citizens that should be private. Any doctor or other health professional would be able to access your entire health history. What if hackers get into the data?

Health care equipment, drugs, and services may end up being rationed by the government.

In other words, politics, lifestyle of patients, and philosophical differences of those in power, could determine who gets what. Any time you have politicians making health care decisions instead of medical or economics professions, you open a whole group of potential rationing issues. As costs inevitably get out of control and have to be curtailed, some ways will be needed to cut costs. Care will have to be rationed. How do you determine what to do with limited resources? How much of “experimental” treatments will have to be eliminated? If you’re over 80, will the government pay for the same services as people under 30? Would you be able to get something as expensive as a pacemaker or an organ transplant if you’re old? Would your political party affiliation or group membership determine if you received certain treatments? What if you acquire AIDS through drug use or homosexual activity, would you still receive medical services? What if you get liver disease through alcoholism, or diabetes from being overweight, or lung cancer from smoking—will the government still help you? Just think of the whole can of worms opened by the abortion & birth control issue? You may or may not trust the current president & Congress to make reasonable decisions, but what about future presidents and congressional members?

Patients may be subjected to extremely long waits for treatment.

Stories constantly come out of universal health care programs in Britain and Canada about patients forced to wait months or years for treatments that we can currently receive immediately in America. With limited financial and human resources, the government will have to make tough choices about who can treatment first, and who must wait. Patients will like be forced to suffer longer or possibly die waiting for treatment.

Like social security, any government benefit eventually is taken as a “right” by the public, meaning that it’s politically near impossible to remove or curtail it later on when costs get out of control.

Social security was originally put in place to help seniors live the last few years of their lives; however, the retirement age of 65 was set when average life spans were dramatically shorter. Now that people are regular living into their 90s or longer, costs are skyrocketing out of control, making the program unsustainable. Despite the fact that all politicians know the system is heading for bankruptcy in a couple decades, no one is rushing to fix it. When President Bush tried to re-structure it with private accounts, the Democrats ran a scare campaign about Bush’s intention to “take away your social security”. Even though he promised no change in benefits, the fact that he was proposing change at all was enough to kill the effort, despite the fact that Democrats offered zero alternative plan to fix it. Despite Republican control of the presidency and both houses, Bush was not even close to having the political support to fix something that has to be fixed ASAP; politicians simply didn’t want to risk their re-elections. The same pattern is true with virtually all government spending programs. Do you think politicians will ever be able to cut education spending or unemployment insurance?...Only if they have a political death wish. In time, the same would be true of universal health care spending. As costs skyrocket because of government inefficiency and an aging population, politicians will never be able to re-structure the system, remove benefits, or put private practice options back in the system….that is, unless they want to give up hope of re-election. With record debt levels already in place, we can’t afford to put in another “untouchable” spending program, especially one with the capacity to easily pass defense and social security in cost.

glacial's avatar

@Myuzikalsoul Nice wall of text you’ve got there.

ragingloli's avatar

I find it always hilarious how people whine about the inefficiency of government, while the private sector, which reigned supreme for decades, has completely and utterly failed.

Darth_Algar's avatar

@Myuzikalsoul It’s clear that you don’t understand the issue. You copied those talking points from that site’s section on universal healthcare, which is not what “Obamacare” is or aims to be. If you’re going to criticize the ACA then maybe criticize it for what it is, rather than what it isn’t.

KNOWITALL's avatar

I have only heard good thing’s but I am afraid of the long-term affects. Some of us Republicans do care about results.

Myuzikalsoul's avatar

@Darth_Algar I didn’t simply copy those points, I cited my source and noted that they line up with my concerns, and that I was going to bed. So let’s not call plagiarism here. I never claimed to be an expert. I claimed that I have some concerns about universal healthcare. If you don’t share those concerns, then great! Only time will tell how this program will truly impact our country. I am not every citizen in this country, but I do have friends and family who are NOT signing up for this healthcare because 1.) They never wanted it to begin with. and 2.) THEY CANNOT AFFORD IT. All other issues aside, the government should not be forcing people to pay for a service that they do not want and can not afford.

No matter what “ObamaCare is or claims to be” is irrelevant. What is real are the people like myself and my loved ones who are struggling day to day and do not have the money to be forced to buy insurance. Like I said previously, if you cannot understand that then you have never truly struggled for a long period of time – and surely not for your whole life.

funkdaddy's avatar

@Myuzikalsoul – I don’t think what you’re claiming is possible. calls for just a few pieces of information and then tells you a rough estimate of whether or not you’re eligible for a reduced rate. There’s no additional checking. The only questions are State, County, Ages, income, and whether or not you’re eligible for coverage from your employer. That’s it to find out your estimated costs. It takes less than 5 minutes.

Putting in North Carolina, Brunswick County (just grabbed one), 28 years old, $24k income, not eligible for coverage from employer produces a top (platinum) plan of $255/mo eligible for $125 credit per month (estimated). That means even if you qualify for nothing because of income the best plan they offer tops out at $380/mo for a $500 deductible and a $1500/yr out of pocket maximum. That’s pretty good insurance and the most expensive plan they offer.

Plans start at $85/mo with the discount ($210 without). A long way from $700. I can’t find a single way to get premiums up to $700 for a single person. It’s less than $700/mo for me, my wife, and baby without any discounts.

If you add children, it tells you immediately if/that they are eligible for medicaid and don’t need to buy insurance for them.

I’m sorry if you find the costs to be a burden, but overstating the issue isn’t going to help you or anyone else.

Have you visited the site and actually taken a look at what costs would be? Take 5 minutes and check it out. -> “See Plans Before I Apply” on the left.

before this becomes I just don’t care, or get it, I waited tables at seasonal restaurants for about 7 years on and off. I get it. I care.

bolwerk's avatar

You almost need to have faith (in Rand We Trust?) to think healthcare reform is a bad idea. Your body almost certainly will need some maintenance over the years, and the chances of something really bad and expensive happening to you are probably high enough to warrant worrying if you’re over 40 or 50.

Darth_Algar's avatar

@Myuzikalsoul If you took “plagiarism” from my post then you completely missed the point of that post as well (especially since nowhere did I say a thing about plagiarism). The fact is this thread is about “Obamacare”. You’re talking about universal healthcare. “Obamacare” is not universal healthcare, far from it. Your post was akin to expressing concern about horse-drawn carriages in a thread about automobiles. They’re two completely different things. Whether I share your concerns about universal healthcare is not relevant, as universal healthcare is not the issue here. “Obamacare” is. Stop conflating the two.

Myuzikalsoul's avatar

If you must, check out my options based upon my actual information:

The cheapest plan available to me that does not have a ridiculously high deductible is one within $15 of $700 per month. Why would I want to pay monthly for a plan that has a deductible so high, I would never benefit from having it, unless of course I fell very sick with cancer or something to that degree? But right now, that monthly premium is asking for money that I don’t have to give, and I’d rather take my chances with the cancer, (or other debilitating condition), in the meantime, so that I can get on my feet so that I CAN afford such health insurance.

Ultimately, in a free nation, that should be my decision to make.

And yes, I have been to the website. Thanks.

As for the universal healthcare debate, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see that is where this is all heading. If you don’t believe me, how about the president?

“President Obama used a campaign-style trip to Texas on Wednesday to rally liberals on his sputtering health care law, calling it a system of “universal health care” and calling out Texas Republicans for, he said, denying health insurance to 1 million state residents.

For decades, liberals have dreamed of a “universal health care” system in America and Mr. Obama used that phrase, which he rarely does, in telling a group of volunteers that, under his leadership, it has become a reality.”

That is just the first part of this article from the Washington Times from early November of this past year (2013).

As far as the plagiarism comment goes, your comment was that I “copied” that from said website, (as if I did not cite my information), and that I “didn’t understand the issue”, which I found to be a little rude. I am sorry if that was not your intent.

I am a citizen just like you are and what affects me and my loved ones may affect you and those you know differently. We all come from different lives and various places. A difference in experience and perception does not make me ignorant of “the issues”. I can (and do) read.

There is a very fundamental principle here that ObamaCare is leeching from us, and that is our freedom to choose. If Obama wanted to help people he’d instill a system that does not punish people who can not pay.

My father is physically debilitated and is denied disability because he is a private business owner. He and his wife are required to pay the same as my boyfriend and I are, as a matter of fact, and he is not able to pay it, and will not be signing up.

My mother lives on her own and she has been living, without unemployment benefits, might I add, for 2 years in another state trying to find a job. She was with the same company for 13 years and when she and my father divorced she moved out of state to start over.

Because she was paid so highly before, and had so much experience, she could not get anyone to hire her because they did not want to pay her what she had been previously making, and (unfortunately) because of her age.

She lives penny to penny, and she is another example of someone who cannot afford ObamaCare.

When you are trying to figure out where your next meal is going to come from, the last thing you need is the government forcing you to shell out money you don’t have or threaten to penalize you.

Paradox25's avatar

I’ve been reading about the Affordable Healthcare Act on their website since I currently have no health insurance through my employer. It appears that the costs of even the bronze plan are more than what I was paying through my last employer, but I guess I have to consider all other things here before criticizing it.

Obamacare will allow many Americans to be insured who wern’t able to afford it before. This plan will lower the national deficit in a decade, and even more drastically in two decades. If the plan works out the insurance should become even more affordable with more perks for the average person in the future. It appears, at least on paper, that Obamacare will be better than the current system where a quarter million Americans die annually due to not being insured.

Adirondackwannabe's avatar

@Myuzikalsoul Would you give it a rest. Enough bullshit is enough bullshit.

Darth_Algar's avatar

@Myuzikalsoul Debate “Obamacare” for what it is, not for what it isn’t. I don’t care how much you believe it to be leading to universal healthcare, the fact is that is it not universal healthcare and discussing talking about universal healthcare when the issue is not universal healthcare only obfuscates the matter.

“As far as the plagiarism comment goes, your comment was that I “copied” that from said website, (as if I did not cite my information), and that I “didn’t understand the issue”, which I found to be a little rude. I am sorry if that was not your intent.”

Most of what was in you post was directly copy-pasted from the site. Also noticed how I had said “that site”, as in acknowledging the site that you linked to before your wall of text copypasta. And yes, talking about universal healthcare when the issues isn’t universal healthcare lead me to believe that you didn’t have a firm understanding of the issue.

How is mandated health insurance any different from mandatory auto insurance? In both cases it’s the government requiring you to purchase a particular product.

As far as your relatives who you say are living penny-to-penny and trying to figure out where their next meal is going to come from, again, there are subsidies to help such people afford insurance. Look into them.

Myuzikalsoul's avatar

@Adirondackwannabe I am not sure what ‘bullshit’ to which you are referring, but feel free to elaborate on your already colorful description of my situation.

@Darth_Algar It seems like you are focusing on every tedious detail and are getting a little off-topic. The question posed spoke of faith in ObamaCare. I answered that question with a no. I said no, because that is what I believe. I believe (and so does the president) that ObamaCare is the beginning of a universal healthcare system. I think that to elaborate on that is a perfectly reasonable thing to do when discussing the ACA.

As for the post earlier, ALL of it was copy-pasted. That is why I prefaced with “Here are 18 explanations why many people are wary of this plan from”. Once again, the issue of universal healthcare is relevant to the ACA plan.

How is mandated health insurance any different from mandatory car insurance? Where do I begin?

How about that car insurance is NOT mandated to all Americans. Auto insurance is a price one pays in order to have the privilege of driving. Also, auto insurance exists largely to protect others from other drivers’ recklessness, not solely to protect the individual. Many states allow you to only purchase the minimum liability coverage.

Not even all licensed drivers are required to have auto insurance if they do not anticipate driving. Yet, if I don’t anticipate a hospital stay, I don’t have the choice to opt out of monthly health insurance. Where in the constitution is the federal government granted the right to mandate health insurance coverage simply for the privilege of….existing?

It doesn’t. But, the federal government has the right to levy and collect taxes. That’s why this mandate is by nature, a tax.

As far as subsidies go, it isn’t a matter of how to fit in the price of insurance, it’s more the matter of some people do not have the ability to ‘move things around in their budget’ to afford healthcare, because of things like divorce, and all the expenses that come with it, mortgages, and SURVIVING.

If I choose to ride a bike, or walk everywhere I go… not only am I promoting better health, and leaving a lighter footprint on the environment, but I am not required to buy auto insurance.

If one chooses to live a natural and healthy lifestyle, and not to rely on doctors and hospitals for their healthcare, they should not be strong-armed to pay for health insurance. Not everyone believes in going to the doctor for every bump and sneeze. Yet, with this new system, that is exactly what will happen. The system will be abused. One need not be required to live on an Indian reservation or to be Amish in order to opt out of this line of thinking.

Adirondackwannabe's avatar

@Myuzikalsoul Okay, I’m just about to hit the hay. But I’ll look it over tomorrow and reply.

Darth_Algar's avatar

@Myuzikalsoul “How about that car insurance is NOT mandated to all Americans. Auto insurance is a price one pays in order to have the privilege of driving. Also, auto insurance exists largely to protect others from other drivers’ recklessness, not solely to protect the individual. Many states allow you to only purchase the minimum liability coverage.
Not even all licensed drivers are required to have auto insurance if they do not anticipate driving. Yet, if I don’t anticipate a hospital stay, I don’t have the choice to opt out of monthly health insurance. Where in the constitution is the federal government granted the right to mandate health insurance coverage simply for the privilege of….existing?”

Of course auto insurance isn’t mandated for all Americans. The catch is, however, that unless you happen to live in a city with good public transit, or you’re lucky enough to be able to walk or ride a bike anywhere you need to go then having a car is pretty much a necessity in our society. Thus for hundreds of millions of Americans, many of whom may not be able to really afford it, auto insurance is an unavoidable requirement.

You might not anticipate a hospital stay. No one really does. Whether you anticipate it or not the fact is you could end up in a hospital at any time. Hell, you might end up in the hospital before this night is over. And if you cannot pay for your stay? What then? I’ll tell you what – the cost of your stay gets passed along to everyone else in the form of higher costs for hospital and doctor services. So the insurance mandate is as much about protecting others as it is about protecting you.

Just because a power is not explicit stated in the Constitution does not mean it is forbidden to the government.

funkdaddy's avatar

@Myuzikalsoul – you’ve either researched this to the point that you can manipulate the parameters to give the results you want, or you’ve just been extremely unlucky.

The guidance for assistance with insurance is written so that a household of two would qualify anywhere between $15,510 of income and $62.040 in income. (source)

So, let’s say next year you can make $16,000 between the two of you, your same $700 plan would be $117/mo.

your link, with income changed to $16,000

That’s for no deductible insurance for two.

If you make less than $15,510 for the two of you, then you would seem to be eligible for free insurance via Medicaid Source

I’m not sure what else to say. This seems to be doing exactly what the whole thing is intended to do. Health insurance is available at a great value for you.

(Edit to add: it looks like you may actually be eligible for Medicaid up to about $20k of income for a household of two)

mattbrowne's avatar

By three methods we may learn wisdom: First, by reflection, which is noblest; Second, by imitation, which is easiest; and third by experience, which is the bitterest.—Confucius

Health insurance for all should be imitated by the US. Use European countries as best practices. People here appreciate the system.

kritiper's avatar

No one should have to lose everything they own just because they got sick. Before “Obamacare,” what former Sen. Alan Grayson (D – Fla.) said rings true. “Don’t get sick. If you get sick, die quickly.” (Speaking to bring into view what healthcare really was at that time.)
All Americans deserve health care, hopefully, affordable health care. It should not be solely for the rich.

Answer this question




to answer.

This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.

Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther