What is the real reason GOP hates the Affordable Care Act

"Liberty" is a term that can be perverted by the privileged who have coverage through employer-administered plans that are gifted with a $250 billion annual subsidy from the taxpayer. They don't seem eager to be liberated from such dependence.

If any State has a history of championing liberty for all it is Massachusetts. Massachusetts poll finds high satisfaction under 'RomneyCare' - The Massachusetts healthcare reform law, or "RomneyCare," inspired ObamaCare. The two share several key components, including an individual mandate to provide insurance and a marketplace where the uninsured can purchase coverage.

If the Affordable Care Act is not being implemented as successfully as its Massachusetts model, "Why not?" is the pertinent question.

If there are insurmountable barriers, a new approach that covers all Americans and slashes the cost needs to be proposed.

 

the better alternative to Obama care is to have done nothing. Fewer have health insurance now then before Obama care was passed
and the fewer who have insurance are paying more
Obama care did the exact opposite of what was promised

 

If that were the case then auto insurance would be the same since most people are never going to need it. Its a mandate that most people will never need.

The cutting of reimbursements are not enough to close doctors offices and there are new grads coming out each month that will be willing to take medicare and medicaid. We see polls of which doctors are going to stop taking medicare, but where are the polls that show which new doctors are going to pick up that slack?

As Nancy Pelosi so rightfully said, you will find out what's in it, away from the fog of rhetoric and insanity.............and then you will like it.

 

Wow! Only in bubbleland does the republican idea of universal healthcare all of a sudden become a nasty mandate that they don't like.

I wonder why NOW they don't like what they proposed? Because a black man passed it? Hmmm

 

And obamacare is not it. MA had the highest insurance rates in the country. Bad model to follow. Only MA and NY and some other state with community rating are seeing premiums staying level. The rest of us with low cost models are seeing a big hike. People in MA only like it because what they had earlier was even worse.

 

This is clearly not true.

First of all, the percentage of insured is rising, not falling, as you falsely claim.

Second, we know what the effects of doing nothing are, because we have done nothing for the last twenty years.

In that period, health care costs (financed largely by insurance premiums) have increased at double the rate of inflation.

In the same period, the number of people insured went down noticably, as small and medium sized employers increasingly abandoned offering the health insurance benefit, bought plans that covered less, or passed a larger percentage of the premium on to their employees.

 

Who is "they"? The heritage foundation as an alternative to nationalized healthcare? Do they speak for all the republicans? Since when? Democrats passed this in MA. Not Romney he just signed it in the face of supermajority support. No republicans ever voted yes on this and their base isn't interested. But of course you have to play the race card and shift blame for this disaster. Your a leftist. You emote your way through life instead of using logic and reason etc..

We don't like paying more, we don't like plans cancelled, we don't like the you g bearing the costs of the old, we don't like the new taxes, we don't like the new agencies and we don't like the government taking the power to fine you if you don't buy what they mandate. We are free men, they are our civil servants. Servants do not tell their master what to do or else. "Government has forgotten its place".

- - - Updated - - -

In that period did government meddling in medicine lead to higher costs? Did seat restrictions in medical schools lead to a doctor shortage? The problem with the left is they see the disease as the cure.

 

That hasn't been my experience.

I priced individual health insurance in 2009 and 2010.

What I can buy now from private insurers is much cheaper (I mean 30 to 40% cheaper) than I could buy before.

Of course, I don't have much flexibility in choices, as the insurance industry has chosen to standardize its offering around those offered by the Obamacare exchanges, so I have to balance higher deductibles than I would like against the premium. Still, plan for plan, the choices are much cheaper.

Nor was my wife excluded for having a pre existing condition.

Sorry, but although I don't particularly like the choices I have, and I don't like having to pay for them out of my pocket directly, I know from having directly compared prices, that I am being offered far better deals under the ACA than before.

 

You are either old, in a state with community ratings, or getting a subsidy or a combination of all 3. I have BCBS, excellent insurance now getting cancelled later this year, and for a similar plan the cost of me and my wife is $705 next year, up from $208 combined this year. I am going to go with an inferior plan though at $360 something they are offering, she is keeping the same coverage she has now. She and I are both losing dental and vision at that price which is now covered under our plans. My preexisting condition was collapsed lung, internal bleeding, bad car accident etc.. 2 years before that price.

They haven't chosen to standardize anything, they have to do it otherwise the other plans they offer would lead to fines. Our story is the far more common one, as millions of people get cancellation notices and every study and insurer says its prices are going up. I even posted the letter from BCBS that I received and was mailed out to all the people whose plans were cancelled. Maybe you dont see it, but likely your neighbor is kicking in more for your plan, someone has to providing for you and your wife.

 

Even if it eventually proves as efficient as its Massachusetts model, the ACA will probably not achieve significant cost reduction that is, along with universal coverage, its other primary goal. I doubt that it will ever approximate the success of the national systems of several advanced nations in cost efficiency. As I opined, a new approach that covers all Americans whilst slashing the cost needs to be proposed, and looking to what is demonstrably superior is the sensible approach.

It's never too soon to design and present such a plan.

 

Nice deflection.

In answer to your first question, not that I know of.

Secondly, seat restrictions have nothing to do with government. They are the product of a profitable and well financed group wanting to preserve their position and limit the market.

There is a lot of that in the health care industry.

Dispite the free market rantings of conservatives, the truth is that health insurance is an oligopoly in control of an inelastic commodity.

There is very little real competition.

Does the Heritage Foundation speak for the GOP?

Pretty much.

Conservatives and conservative politicians regularly parrot Heritage positions, and Heritage talking points are nearly always at the center of right wing media.

 

The percentage of Americans with health insurance has dropped from 84 percent in 2009 to 83.8 percent in 2014, The 0.2 point drop means that roughly 600,000 people
http://dailycaller.com/2014/01/27/fewer-people-have-health-insurance-now-than-in-2009/#ixzz2sGgtIihl

Obamacare: Projected Premium Increases by State
http://blog.heritage.org/2013/03/18/obamacare-projected-premium-increases-by-state/

Rate Shock: In California, Obamacare To Increase Individual Health Insurance Premiums By 64-146%
http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapot...ease-individual-insurance-premiums-by-64-146/

President Barack Obama's health care overhaul law will increase the nation's health care tab instead of bringing costs down, government economic forecasters concluded Thursday in a sobering assessment of the sweeping legislation
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/36726295/...alth-overhaul-will-increase-tab/#.Uu-kuHmYacw

Obamacare Sticker Shock Found in Deductibles, Not Premiums
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/obamacare-sticker-shock-found-deductibles-104500233.html

 

Your claim that they haven't standardized anything is obviously not true.

I am not eligible for any subsidy, yet the offerings of all four of the insurance companies that write in my state mimic the exchange products, and there are no other choices.

So, yes, standardize they have. Of course the broker all blame that ACA dispite the fact that there is no requirement that insurers offer only ACA defined products, except as a minimum offering.

I'm 56.

My wife had a pre existing condition. Before Obamacare, she was either uninsurable, or the only companies that would write here wanted nearly $1000 a month.

After the ACA was enacted, she was able to get into a state exchange for $315.

Now that the ACA is fully implimented, her premium went up $50 and the deductible went up by $2000. Still, considering the fact that we would never have been able to buy insurance for her at all under the old system, we are still better off.

Our combined premiums are about the same as yours will be.

I find it hard to belive that you were able to insure two people for $208 at all. I cant' imagine a plan like that covering much of anything.

Oh, yes, I do live in a community rating state. Perhaps you should take that up with your state legislators!

 

I don't think it will either.

I expect Hillary Clinton will campaign on bringing back the Public Option.

If that happens, small business and individuals will flock to it, and we'll be on our way to universal single payer.

 

What an interesting collection of deliberately misleading links!

Lets take them one by one:

"The percentage of Americans with health insurance has dropped from 84 percent in 2009 to 83.8 percent in 2014, The 0.2 point drop means that roughly 600,000 people
http://dailycaller.com/2014/01/27/fe...#ixzz2sGgtIihl"

Read the actual article, and you will learn the the number of people insured DID go down between 2009 and 2014. The trash blog attributes that to the ACA, even though the ACA was not fully in effect doring any of that period. In fact, that the DC piece actually illustrates, is the degree to which the old system was broken.


"Obamacare: Projected Premium Increases by State
http://blog.heritage.org/2013/03/18/...ases-by-state/"

I can't spead to this particular report, and I suspect it was discredited a long time ago, as most of these comparisons in right wing media tended to be apples to oranges. But the Heritage Foundation has a dismal history on this issue and a few others, as well. They have rountinely made false claims regarding the ACA, some of them quite spectactular lies. Remember that Heritage is not an actual think tank, it is a public relations operation, and a refuge for rigth wing pundits.


"Rate Shock: In California, Obamacare To Increase Individual Health Insurance Premiums By 64-146%
http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapoth...ums-by-64-146/"

Many of these Forbes pieces have turned out to be false, and most wither under even slight scrutiny.


"President Barack Obama's health care overhaul law will increase the nation's health care tab instead of bringing costs down, government economic forecasters concluded Thursday in a sobering assessment of the sweeping legislation
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/36726295/n.../#.Uu-kuHmYacw"

This is four years old, and does not reflect what the actual law eventually became.

"Obamacare Sticker Shock Found in Deductibles, Not Premiums
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/obamac...104500233.html"

This is the new right wing line. The hypocricy of it is laughable.

High decuctible insurance polices are something that conservative politicians have called for as one of their favorite cures for high insurance premiums for years. George W Bush even had a name for proposals like this. This is the "ownership society" at work. You own the premium and the risk! Bush enshrined the high deductible concept when he upgraded Health Savings Accounts in 2005.

 

Deregulation, increased competition, simplified, level rules.. open markets.. these are the things that promote an innovative economy, with reasonable costs & availability. Why & how can we think that bureaucrats can manage something like this? Have they managed medicare well? What is govt housing like? Look at the out of control welfare state.. why would we want to put something like our own healthcare under the supervision of these inept bureaucrats? You want the mvd running the emergency room? You would like the post office to prescribe medication & do surgery?

The ACA is a disaster from the get go, & is doomed to fail. It is based on pie in the sky fantasies of free stuff, when the ONLY way the govt can 'give' free healthcare to one person, is if they steal the property of someone else. It is just redistribution.. govt theft.. nothing else. It is not based on freedom or responsibility, or individual sovereignty, or rights or justice. It is unjust, immoral, & a crime against humanity.

It is a lovely thought, though.. reminds me of 'the big rock candy mountain'...

In the Big Rock Candy Mountains,
There's a land that's fair and bright,
Where the handouts grow on bushes
And you sleep out every night.
Where the boxcars all are empty
And the sun shines every day
And the birds and the bees
And the cigarette trees
The lemonade springs
Where the bluebird sings
In the Big Rock Candy Mountains.

In the Big Rock Candy Mountains
All the cops have wooden legs
And the bulldogs all have rubber teeth
And the hens lay soft-boiled eggs
The farmers' trees are full of fruit
And the barns are full of hay
Oh I'm bound to go
Where there ain't no snow
Where the rain don't fall
The winds don't blow
In the Big Rock Candy Mountains.

In the Big Rock Candy Mountains
You never change your socks
And the little streams of alcohol
Come trickling down the rocks
The brakemen have to tip their hats
And the railway bulls are blind
There's a lake of stew
And of whiskey too
You can paddle all around it
In a big canoe
In the Big Rock Candy Mountains

In the Big Rock Candy Mountains,
The jails are made of tin.
And you can walk right out again,
As soon as you are in.
There ain't no short-handled shovels,
No axes, saws nor picks,
I'm bound to stay
Where you sleep all day,
Where they hung the jerk
That invented work
In the Big Rock Candy Mountains.

The difference is, the hobos knew they were fantasizing, & were making fun of themselves, but progressives are serious, & think that all these things exist somewhere, in the big rock candy mountains..

 

If employer-administered health coverage were no longer to be a subsidized perquisite, the taxpayer would save hundreds of billions annually. (I've seen figures as high as $250 billion and as low as $177 billion.) The Affordable Care Act's subsidies pale in comparison to the $177 billion it cost the taxpayer in in 2011. And subsidized private pensions cost $111 billion that year.

In 2008, a study by the Cornell Policy Research Institute showed that many Americans receiving taxpayer subsidies weren't even aware of it: 94% of those who had denied benefitting from government programmes had benefited from at least one, and the average respondent had used four.”

It would seem appropriate that those who kvetch about other folks being helped should, at the very least, first determine the extent of the often greater assistance they are receiving from the government before they insist that the US be turned into Aynrandland.

 

1. States handle auto insurance.

2. The mandated levels of coverage are the BARE MINIMUM you need, not a full comprehensive package with every imaginable option available. A valid analogy would be state governments MANDATED you carry an expensive comprehensive package on a $200 clunker.

1. We have a general physician shortage in this country that's getting WORSE, not better. This will make a bad problem worse.

2. Cutting reimbursements is similar to your boss coming to you and instead of giving you a raise, stating he's cutting your pay by a dollar an hour. Those cutting of reimbursements cost thousands of jobs across the country at hospitals.

And anyone with half a brain doesn't like it now that we KNOW what's in it.

 

....it might have something to do with people not wanting to submit to a life of debt from 30 years of Med School loans.

It doesn't matter how much money you make when student loans and taxes (physicians are in the highest tax brackets) take all of your income.

 

Because forcing someone to buy insurance is against the constitution. Remember, the Supreme Court only ruled it was legal to tax individuals. They sidestepped the entire issue of the ACA's legality. And your operative phrase "it seems" is actually right on the money. When people no longer have the freedom to chose, it is not a great service to freedom. And isn't freedom what this Republic is suppose to be about?

 

You do know that all of the plans offer the exact same coverage? Isn't that why it is called universal coverage? Sincerely though, I'm glad to hear you were able to get preexisting coverage. That is about the only part of the ACA I agree with. But did we really have to revamp the entire system for that when uncertainty after the financial collapse has hurt our economic recovery?

 

Not according to the Supreme Court...

OR

The Heritage Foundation... creators of the individual mandate.

 

Nope, the liberal idea of universal healthcare is self payer! The one we got is a republican idea............one they evidently liked when their guy was president, but once a black man got into office, its destroying our nation or something!

 

No we dont want government control of the economy, and since you dont like the ACA lets just repeal it and block you guys from letting the government run health care until they can get one program down that isnt going bankrupt.

 

Tell the AMA that, they get what they want like most unions.

Because of regulation and government meddling.

Not all the time if they cant get a single vote to support their ideas.

Stop trying to shift blame, Obamacare is all on you.

- - - Updated - - -

Can you name one socialized system that has survivor rates that match ours? In any major treatment category? ANy nation that rivals ours with medical innovation? Do you think single payer will not effect those, and why?