There are those that fit your last statement but those are always there – the partisan hacks that cant see the light for the letter next to the name. Those are irrelevant.
As for me, I oppose Obamacare for several reasons and now is the time to oppose it. There simply is no way of going back. Each day that passes is going to make it that much harder rolling this program back and replacing it. It is essentially impossible now but I will not end my opposition to the program because it is difficult or unlikely.
First, this represents an unprecedented increase in governmental taxing power. Something that has never before been done the government now has precedent to do: FORCE you to partake in an economic activity. The justices used a simple analogy, they said that the government is saying it has the right to fine you if you do not purchase a certain number of apples a year. That right has now been affirmed and that is flat out insane. For that reason alone, I will oppose Obamacare. That expansion is GOING to haunt us later, I guarantee it and it might be far worse than the ‘solution’ here giving them that kind of influence and control over your life.
Second, what Obamacare did was combine that new, unprecedented, power with a mandate that you make that purchase from a company! Let that sink in. A company that is supposed to work for you is now in complete control because you are MANDATED to purchase their product. I have seen what happens in these situations and it is not pretty. That company no longer has any commitment to you or your business. What are you going to do, not buy their product? Oh sorry, thatÂ’s not legal. With legally madate4d profit margins and a captured customer base, that insurance company no longer even serves a purpose other than to take your money. Before, there was at least a business in assessing risk, a practice that no longer is allowed. THAT is statist to the core, a corporatocracy. So obvious and so blatant that it is scary the government even thought they could do it and even more frightening that they actually accomplished it.
Third, Costs are slowing a bit but it is not far enough to determine that this is going to be a trend and not a singular blip as things gear up. There is little reason that ‘free’ care is going to cost less as it is going to get used more often. That is a simple fact. When people are not charged for the use of a service, they use the ever living shit out of that service. Again, I have seen that and it is not pretty. People will begin to sue their doctors every damn time the get the hiccups. While PREVENTIVE care here is a good move, the overuse of medical care for things that people do not need to go to the doctor for will be huge and NONE of that has set in yet. The root problems with cost have also not been addressed as they actually added taxes onto new medical equipment (that was completely asinine), defensive medicine has not been addressed and above all, competition is still not being allowed in the marketplace. That is one of the MAJOR driving factors of cost right now, there is ZERO competition in the market. None at all. Introducing real competition would affect prices by huge amounts.
Fourth, on those same lines, they have gone in the exact opposite direction that they needed to go by attacking employers and incentivizing employer provide3d health insurance. This is a terrible idea and another reason that the market is in shambles today. Employer provided care means that the insurance company is looking out for the employers interests (they are the customer) and the employer is looking out for the cost (as they are paying) and the doctor is looking out for the insurance company (they are actually HIS customer) and that leave no one actually looking out for your interests. When YOU buy your insurance you hold them accountable if they are not servicing you properly or you can hold them responsible if they do not cover doctors that you approve of. With the employer taking over the payment, you no longer have that ability. Even more so, employer provided insurance has removed even more competition from the market. If anything, that should have been illegalized rather than encouraged.
Fifth, and finally, we are ceding to the federal government to define the coverage limits that are available and required. The level of corruption that is involved in that is insane. We can take the obvious example of BC pills to illustrate this. BC pills are mandated that they are not only offered but are offered as free. That is clearly a political decision made for corrupt purposes and campaign stumping. My sons chemotherapy pills are not free and if he does not get those, he dies. You donÂ’t get birth control pills, you have to abstain from sex. Somehow, I donÂ’t see why one is free and the other not. Now, less controversial but by extension, what do you think the association of chiropractors is going to do now? Get a lobby going to ensure that coverage is mandated for them as well. You see where this is going now donÂ’t you? The government is going to start mandating things that should not be mandatory coverage items. They are already doing it under the last system, it is only going to get FAR worse when they can mandate free coverage and you are a captured consumer.
As a side note, you are incorrect about keeping your own plan if you want. I donÂ’t really care about this BUT the reality is that if your plan does not fit the governmental approved coverage or your employer cases to offer that plan because Obamacare, you canÂ’t keep it. I believe that this scenario is going to be far more likely than those that can keep their coverage.
It's nice to see someone put out well thought out objections (not the standard "this is the worst legislation EVER!!1!!1!").
However, on the actual mechanics of what's going to happen, I think you've got the wrong picture. The point of exchanges
is to generate competition and it looks like they're going to be able to do that. New insurers are entering the individual market in many states and there's going to be robust competition on a number of plan options in most places. That's not going to be true everywhere at first, but it looks like 90% of individual market consumers are going to be buying in more competitive markets next year. That's part of why the premiums in the exchanges next year are looking the way they are (i.e. lower than expected).
Moreover, this is competition on price and quality (including things like the provider network included, etc),
not on the ability to cull undesirable customers and shed risk. Prices now have meaning, since the market will be organized (i.e. you can make apples-to-apples comparisons between competing bronze plans, or between competing silver plans, etc) and you know what you're getting. Transparency and the ready availability of information important to the decision-making process is going to make things better for consumers, and at the same time it's going to make insurers accountable in a way they haven't been before when they could hide behind a byzantine market structure (see the example out of Oregon in my first post).
More importantly, the employer-based insurance situation is going to evolve over the next decade. The employer mandate isn't there to encourage employers to start offering coverage: ~94% of employers with 50 or more employees
already offer coverage. The primary objective is to prevent the erosion of employer-based coverage once the incentives of the individual market change next year.
But small employers are going to be able to use SHOP exchanges beginning next year. In some states next year (and in
all states starting in 2015) that's going to allow an employee choice option, meaning employers can specify a contribution and let their employees go shop for coverage on their own, instead of having the employer choose a company plan for everyone. Effectively employer-sponsored coverage will then begin to act more like the individual market, with employees choosing the right plans for their families directly from the marketplace. Starting in 2017, large employers with more than 100 employees can begin entering the exchanges and doing this, as well (this is a state prerogative).
That means even if the percentage of folks with employer-based insurance remains the same, the market and incentives at work are going to shift dramatically over the next decade as more and more people are empowered to make their own choices and do their own shopping.
That's the market for insurance. In the market for actual care, there will be changes to incentives too, since cost-sharing is an important piece of the insurance puzzle. The idea that people aren't going to be charged isn't correct, exchange plans
do have a fair amount of cost-sharing. The only things exempt from cost-sharing are evidence-based preventive services. Other things will be subject to deductibles and coinsurance, etc. The exchanges are going to have plenty of plans with enough cost-sharing to qualify for coupling with an HSA if shoppers want that. So the notion that people are about to be getting everything free isn't correct.
Argue on why it is good.
