Why do they hate Obamacare?

[90-percent]

Would they rather have things the old way?

Do they have a better plan?

Can they articulate in any way why they think Obamacare is so bad?

It just seems like they are mindlessly parroting the words of their leaders for it's own sake.

I feel the key reason for them is they simply hate hate hate anything Obama, but, don't they have any rational arguments against Obamacare?

-90% Jimmy

[trumad]

1. They hate the black man..

Why did we go to war with Iraq--- I laugh when I hear people ask that... the oil stupid.

Why do they hate Obama--- because he's fucking Black. Pure and simple.

[Enthusiast]

27. +1. Things are often not as complicated as they might appear.

Sometimes the simplest answer is the most accurate.

[Champion Jack]

2. What Trumad said, adding

They hate Obamacare because their corporate overlords command them to.

[Octafish]

3. It's got something for everybody.

And nothing for everybody.

Mandatory health insurance is better than no coverage, but universal coverage would've been best. The "compromise" is perfect argument maker, as there's something all can criticize.

[Puzzledtraveller]

10. Yeah but it was put in by a (D)

So we will love it, champion it, stump for it to no end. It's the greatest piece of legislation ever written and passed! Octafish your rates will go down, you won't have any out of pocket, you will get a refund check, c'mon!

[timweidman]

4. trumad

Trumad. Do you really think its a race thing? I am not a racist by any standard and I dont like him. Does that one fact make me racist?

[steve2470]

22. you don't like President Obama ? please explain, thanks nt

[alc]

5. here are my reasons

All opinions since we have no idea how everything will end up. And government funding only matters a little in that. How companies, health providers, and people act is more important. If too many people and businesses opt for lower fines/taxes rather than more expensive coverage and use pre-existing conditions as permission for "insurance-on-demand" the entire thing falls apart.

* It sets a precedence for the government to mandate individuals purchase a product from a private company. Argue all you want that it was done 200 years ago, but the scale, cost, and enforcement is unprecedented. If it works, what other "services" will the government decide we're better off buying individually rather than paying taxes and having the government take care of?


* while it's going to make things better for a few million people (possibly 10s of millions but unlikely)
...
* It's not going to change a thing for millions of people who need health care

* It's going to make things worse for everyone else (my opinion, but supporters did conceded from the start that most people would have to pay more)

* It's going to cost the government A LOT of money FOREVER.

* The MLR has forced insurers to return premiums. It's also says increasing medical costs are THE ONLY way to raise profits. Any CEO who wants to increase profits needs to raise medical costs. I don't think regulators will stop them, and everyone's premiums will go up.

* Rather than see this as a first step toward single payer, I see this as an impediment to any significant change in our health care system.

[RC]

8. Makes sense as this started out in a Right-wing think tank, i.e., the Heritage Center.

But we call it Obama care now, so it is wonderful.

[pampango]

11. The HF version was dumped by the Democratic Massachusetts state legislature.

Obamacare is patterned off the latter, not the HF version.

U.S. Senator from Massachusetts Edward M. Kennedy, who had made universal heath coverage his life's work, gave Romney's plan a positive reception, which encouraged Democratic legislators to work with it.

The legislature amended Romney's plan, adding a Medicaid expansion for children and imposing an assessment on firms with 11 or more workers who do not offer health coverage. The assessment is intended to equalize the contributions to the free care pool from employers that offer and do not offer coverage. The General Court also rejected Romney's provision allowing high-deductible health plans.

Romney vetoed eight sections of the health care legislation, including a $295-per-person fee on businesses with 11 employees or more that do not provide health insurance. Romney also vetoed provisions providing dental and eyeglass benefits to poor residents on the Medicaid program, and providing health coverage to senior and disabled legal immigrants not eligible for federal Medicaid. However, the state legislature overrode all of the vetoes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governorship_of_Mitt_Romney#Health_care

Romney did not get the HF version that he introduced. The Massachusetts legislature was 85% Democratic. Like Ted Kennedy, they were not known for their conservatism. They amended romney's bill as they saw fit. He vetoed their changes. The Democratic legislature promptly overrode his vetoes to achieve the bill that they, not Romney, wanted.

Obamacare is patterned after the one enacted, over romney's vetoes, by the Democrats of Massachusetts. While I would prefer a national health service or single-payer, health insurance reform patterned after the Massachusetts Democratic model is nothing to sneeze at.

[timweidman]

15. mass health

Not sure how this fits but wanted to share. I live in massachusetts. In 2009 I was laid off. My wife also wss not working. She applied to masshealth because I lost my health insurance. Could not afford cobra. She ssked specificly if my being on unemployment would affect app. Was told no it wouldn't. After 6 months of back and forth bs about paperwork we were told we didnt qualify brcause I was on unemployment! On top of that I had to pay out of pocket for my wifes treatments. Am still paying off that credit card. To add to the misery the state charged me $500 because I didn't have health insurance! I guess my point is I don't trust the govt to run a water bubbler let alone our healthcare system. All I see is a boatload og problems. Imho sorry I needed to vent! Lol

[steve2470]

25. "I guess my point is I don't trust the govt to run a water bubbler let alone our healthcare system"

You think the ACA is running our healthcare system ? Please expound on this, thanks.

[DontTreadOnMe]

28. It's those damn private health insurance companies that Obama is in charge of...

sarcasm off//

[steve2470]

29. yep that's it !

STAY OUTTA MY MEDICARE !!!!

[spanone]

6. they don't hate it as much as they fear it....like social security

they have NO PLAN. their plan is 'fuck the poor'

[Recursion]

7. The people on the left who hate it hate it because it makes the system better

Making the system better is the worst thing you can do to someone whose goal is replacing the system rather than helping people.

The people on the right who hate it hate it because it makes the system better, too, but they have an ideological need to believe that it needs less rather than more government involvement.

Basically, we live in a world where realistically we will have to have significant government and corporate involvement in health care, and advocates who want one or the other out of the picture will be pissed off at any actually workable plan.

[geek tragedy]

9. Yep. Without qualification or restriction. nt

[Freddie]

12. They violently oppose universal coverage in any form

Because once people have it, they will like it and never give it up. They will blame the Repugs for fighting against it all these years and reward the Democratic Party at the polls. That's all.

[hughee99]

13. They see it as a progressive step toward single payer,

which the live in fear of. They do hate the idea of the government telling them they HAVE to buy anything. Even if it's something they already are buying.

Talking with some of my freeper relatives, here's their argument as best as I can understand it. Please keep in mind, some of these things make no sense or have a clear counter-argument, but here's what I got, basically...

Making sure everyone has health care IS NOT a concern of theirs. Spending money on keeping everyone healthy isn't a concern. Making sure people can see a doctor BEFORE their health condition becomes serious (and expensive) isn't a concern of theirs. They don't see it as a right, it's something you get if you can afford it. They don't want to pay for their health care AND pay for someone else's too, and if the government starts paying for everyone's health care, there's not a real incentive for providers to keep costs down (they're not big believers in the bargaining power of the federal government to control costs based on the myth of the $600 hammer).

They think anytime the government provides subsidies for a certain behavior, it encourages it. If the government is willing to provide money for low income people to buy health insurance, it's going to be one less motivator for a low income person to get out of poverty.

They think they government mandating health care for everyone is the first step in some sort of big communist plan. Once they start to offer health care, employers will begin to drop their coverage to save money. Everyone eventually ends up in this government health care system. As you've seen (to a limited degree) business have started taking an active interest in what their employees do, even during off hours, under the guise of keeping costs down. Some employers won't even hire smokers, even if they only smoke at home, alone, in a well ventilated basement. Eventually (the theory goes) the government declare a financial interest in how well you take care of your body, and under that guise, start telling you what you can and can't do with it.

[LWolf]

14. "They."

I'm not a big fan of Obamacare myself.

Yes. I have a better plan. The plan that Democrats never allowed on the table for discussion when creating the supposed "Affordable Care Act."

It's called Universal, Single-Payer, Not-for-profit health care.

Even better, a National Health CARE plan that is free at point of service, paid for by taxes.

Both of those are far superior to "Obamacare." Since you asked. I've answered.

Why is the ACA "so bad?" For profit insurance corporations ensure that it won't be "affordable." It's not the family or the single person that is deciding what is "affordable" for their budget. My adult son, under the exchanges, can get "coverage" for about 1/3 of what my employer pays for my shitty insurance. It's still not within his budget.

My shitty insurance costs my employer more than my other son's mortgage every month, including taxes and insurance. For that, I get a $1500 deductible and minimum 20% copays once the deductible has been reached. That ensures that I'll pay for all the care I need, outside of a serious accident or illness, out of my own pocket despite the ridiculous amount my employer pays for the policy. An amount, I'll point out, that keeps my salary low.

We have to sign on to an insurance plan every October. The above figures for my policy are from the just-released forms for this coming October.

I've articulated my objections to you quite clearly. It's not about hate, it's about being able to afford actual care.

I am a Democrat. I'm a DUer. Just who the fuck is "they?"

[Motown_Johnny]

16. They lost a bet they can't afford to pay.

They simply have doubled down on that position. Then doubled again, and again, and again. They have no choice but to double down again and again and again and hope for a miracle.


They are trapped.

[moriah]

18. If that's the kind of trash they're reading for their talking points, yeah, that'd explain it.

Welcome to DU!

[bluesbassman]

19. Is this your blog? Basically reads like a Sean Hannity broadcast.

RW talking points down the line. It answers why teabaggers hate the ACA.

BTW, there is no such thing as "Obamacare", but you already knew that, didn't you?

[bluesbassman]

24. Here's one for you...

30) Obamacare raised the interest rate on student loans to pay for Obamacare

Obamacare raised the interest rate on students loans from 5.3% to 6.8%. The money is used to fund Obamacare.

Refuted here:

The message, meant to convey Ayotte’s stance on temporarily extending existing rates on new subsidized Stafford loans, raised some questions about where student loan interest is going, and whether government "profits" from those loans are used to help pay for the health care law.

"Under the Affordable Care Act, which amounted to a federal takeover of the student loan industry, the government borrows money at 2.8 percent and then loans money to students at 6.8 percent. Government profits are then used to help pay for the health care law," Ayotte asserted.
~snip~
The government’s Reconciliation Act of 2010 was not a takeover, but rather an elimination of a federal student loan program the government had used since 1965. Private companies are still involved in servicing the program and private lenders can still make their own student loans without a government subsidy.

The government does borrow in the 2.8 percent ballpark and loans money to students at 6.8 percent but the difference is not a profit, it helps compensate for the unanticipated losses inherent with any loan. Finally, the money saved in the Reconciliation Act of 2010, not "profits" from the direct loans, is used to fund elements of the Affordable Care Act.
http://www.politifact.com/new-hampshire/statements/2012/jun/01/kelly-ayotte/kelly-ayotte-claims-student-loan-change-government/

Just one example of distortion in your cites, but as you align with Kelly Ayotte, it's a glaring one.

[Enthusiast]

26. Jimmy, have you ever heard the lies they are telling about the ACA?

Turn on Fox "News" for a few minutes. That's all it takes to hear a stream of ridiculous lies about the ACA. No wonder they hate it.

[liberal N proud]

30. It all comes down to the fact that they are hate filled

I believe that the largest part is the hate for a black President.
The rest is their hate for anything that will help someone other than them.