General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWhy so much opposition to Obama cares?
Is it because this is a law which will control health care costs?
Is it that the government, whom, btw, is the #1 payee of health care, will now be able to actually control health care costs? Certainly doctors must be concerned their gravy train is coming to an end.
Is it because everyone will now be able, regardless of income, to become insured?
What other reasons are there for such opposition?
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
NJCher
(35,687 posts)That's my answer and I'm stickin' to it.
Cher
TreasonousBastard
(43,049 posts)where everyone hated Obamacare but loved the Affordable Care Act?
You can't fix stupid, but you can fix ignorance if you really want to.
SomethingFishy
(4,876 posts)the ACA or Obamacare.
Lots of people love the ACA and hate Obamacare.
Time to change the wording in the polls.
Rosa Luxemburg
(28,627 posts)
former9thward
(32,025 posts)Obamacare or the ACA does nothing to control health care costs. There is nothing in the law limiting the cost of health insurance premiums.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)I do not think that is correct, but what I am thinking is that hospital bills will be controlled. Controlled much the way Medicare sets limits on what hospitals can charge.
There is a lot of money in health care and recently costs have zoomed way beyond regular inflation.
Maybe part of it is what the RW has been labeling as 'Death Panels'? Usually health care costs are the most in the last few months of life. Is there anything in the ACA that looks at those costs?
former9thward
(32,025 posts)Nothing.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)Now, I've not read the whole ACA, have you? Are you speaking from authority?
What I do remember is that the government, being the chief provider of the money which flows into health care would finally find itself in place to say how much a certain health care activity could be priced, like Medicare does.
former9thward
(32,025 posts)1) Ask someone on Medicare about the number of doctors who will not accept Medicare patients. 2) If there was something in the ACA controlling health care costs we would have heard about it in headline form.
larkrake
(1,674 posts)Also the wording that doctors and hospitals have to actually heal, and the restricting drugs cost. Many factors will control premiums. Pharmas will have to conceed to lowering prices as well.
SomethingFishy
(4,876 posts)However to make up for the fact that there aren't "cost controls" there are subsidies. Guaranteeing that you will not spend more than 9.5% of your income on Health Care.
I'm not a huge fan of the bill, I'm hoping it's a step towards single payer, but I do believe that they got what they could at the time.
Ms. Toad
(34,075 posts)80-85% of premiums must actually go to paying for health care. If less than that is spent on care, the remainder must be refunded. Not only is that part of the bill, but in the last two years millions of dollars have been rebated because of this limitation on health insurance premiums.
former9thward
(32,025 posts)There is nothing in the ACA to control costs. Try again.
Ms. Toad
(34,075 posts)There is a limit on insurance premiums. 85% of the premium must go to providing care. Anything in excess of that must be rebated. That is a limit. You may not like that it is a limit which is related to the cost of care, rather than an absolute limit, but it is a limit.
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)Yes. Thats true. The regulated MLR creates a market incentive to increase costs in order to increase the insurers' profits. They have a set amount of the pie, but control over how big the pie gets.
Ms. Toad
(34,075 posts)One normally thinks of profits in terms of percentage of revenue (or return on investment) - and that is what is fixed.
A company which has a profit of a million dollars, out of a revenue of 100 million is typically seen as far less profitable than a company which has a profit of a million dollars, out of a revenue of 2 million to make it.
And - even if the first company has a two million dollar profit, the second company is seen as more profitable because the first only returned 2% profit, while the second returned 100% profit.
And you are conflating two separate players - the providers (who aren't really interested in increasing the insurance company profits), and the insurance companies (who are interested in increasing their profits, but since the MLR is fixed can really only increase their profits by adding more customers. And in a competitive exchange that gives them a reason to push the providers to give them lower prices so their rates will be low enough attract more customers).
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)but since the MLR is fixed can really only increase their profits by adding more customers
Or they can simply not negotiate rates with providers as aggressively so that it costs $200 dollars for a bandaid instead of $100 (making their profit double to $30). It isn't exactly like this industry has competed aggressively against each other in the past. The anti trust exemption helped
Ms. Toad
(34,075 posts)they will lose customers who can now compare head to head costs for the same coverage.
Currently if you don't have insurance, the bandaid costs $300 anyway.
This model is not significantly different than the large employer model currently, or Medicare Advantage, or the PCIP plans that have been in place for the last few years, or Romneycare in Massachusetts. Premiums rate increase - with the fixed MLR have slowed, and many companies have alreadybeen required to rebate portions of the premiums. It isn't as if this is springing up completely without any real world experience to suggest that it makes things better.
(Best would be single payer - but you need to check your speculation about out of control rate increases against the reality that already exists.)
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)Why do you think they will now magically lose customers for ridiculous rates to "competitors" that they work together with in collusion against customers?
So the system has been tinkered with to finally rain market-based goodness on its customers? Come on now. Thats just ignorance.
We really don't know what will happen. We have a history of companies operating together in an anti-trust exempt environment to screw customers. Now you are just assuming they will start competing instead of taking the obvious market incentive to collectively work to increase payouts (and thereby, their bottom line profits which are fixed)
Ms. Toad
(34,075 posts)Look at the PCIP plans.
Those are the two closest working models, and one of them is a pretty large working model - which has been working for a number of years.
It isn't perfect - it would be far better to get the insurance companies out of the middle. But it isn't the sky is falling disaster you (and others) have been predicting, and there is no reason to believe that (essentially) expanding Massachusetts to the entire country would transform it from a plan that works reasonably (although not ideally) into the kind of disaster you are predicting.
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)What I predict is that it will by no means "fix" the current disaster significantly for everyone (for some, sure, though it also codifies in law non-egalitarianism which will reverberate cultural manifestations). Yesterday was the time to start seeing the very obvious problems with this, stop cheerleading, and start leading people to fight for a real system that won't leave the lower classes high and dry, or with inadequate options
Ms. Toad
(34,075 posts)Yesterday was the first time people were able to see the real improvement over the pre-ACA status quo. It is not a full fix, but it is a major improvement over the pre-ACA, which far too many people have been denying just because it isn't perfect (and IMHO were too lazy to research, to check out the PCIP plans, to check out Romneycare, or to just crunch some numbers). Yesterday began to change that.
That is not to say the pre ACA status was not a disaster - it was. And it still needs improvement. But it is much more manageable for most Americans - and makes it possible for the first time for many of the poor and near poor, and people with chronic health conditions, to have access to non-emergent care, and to take the cost of providing that uncompensated care out of the bills which anyone using health care shares. That should lower (or at least slow the rate of increase) both because people who have access to health care by and large have better health - and people who pay for health care are not sharing the burden of the expensive care provided through the ER system
defacto7
(13,485 posts)It will make the government stronger. It will produce more trust in the Federal government which will undermine private business interests. Those are the only reasons they are against it.
It's about control and flaky ideology.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)But when I look at the EPA and see the E not being protected very well, and also look at the NRC and not seeing nuclear controlled all that well, it does give me pause.
Of course, if the republicans are agin' it, I'm for it. We can only hope that the government does do the best it can.
Given that the number one payer of health care costs is the US Government, it always made sense to me that government should have control over the whole issue. That, iirc, was Clinton's argument for getting in the game.
Our problem is we have too many republicans in government. Certainly the EPA and the NRC would be better service providers had we less republicans?
blogslut
(38,002 posts)The GOP doesn't care about policy or governing. They care about pleasing their mega-donors, gerrymandering and keeping their constituents fearful, confused and angry. Angry people show up to the polls.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)
spanone
(135,844 posts)nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)most doctors, while they make a decent income, are not in the gravy train category. Some are, but must doctors, especially younger ones, work for practices managed by hospitals. They are salaried employees. This shift started about twenty years ago.
As to the opposition, part of it is ignorance, most is ideology. If the government is broken it cannot manage something as vital as health care. The GOP also knows that this will work, be popular, and that is a problem.
As to the ignorance, I cannot forget the elderly screaming, KEEP THE GOVERNMENT OUT OF MY MEDICARE!!!! Don't try to make sense of that one.
The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,735 posts)1. Obama is for it. For some people that's enough reason to oppose something.
2. Although many of us would agree that the ACA doesn't go far enough, it does set an important precedent, which is that health insurance - something that until now was almost completely unregulated - can and should be regulated at the federal level. Some consider this to be another instance of creeping socialism!
3. The Libertarian/Objectivist view that taxpayers should not subsidize any kind of assistance toward others. Sick? Can't afford health care or health insurance? Sucks to be you...
4. Ignorance based on false information disseminated by the usual suspects because of one or more of the above reasons.
JustAnotherGen
(31,828 posts)
The guy who signed off on it is a "Muslim Kenyan Socialist Commie Tyrant Facist Witch Doctor black un'merucn".
I think that pretty much sums it up. But I like the 'Obama cares'.
Blue Meany
(1,947 posts)thing and they won't be able to get rid of it. Or it might be the first step towards single payer. For the crazies, it is because it was introduced by Obama, who being black, cannot really be their president or the world is coming to an end.
Rex
(65,616 posts)nt.
