Tucson Citizen.com
Medicare and More -

Why are Americans against Obamacare?

by on Jun. 25, 2012, under Health

I have complained for two years that Democrats and the Obama Administration barely bothered to promote the Affordable Care Act once it was passed.  I suppose that was because in 2010, with the Tea Party rising, they thought it was probably best to not talk about it -  even while many parts of the law were being put in place.

Opinion surveys show that most Americans actually like many parts of Obamacare – when they are informed about them. But most people are against the mandate. The trouble is that very few Americans know about the parts of Obamacare they would probably like.

Media Matters for America has an article that shows why people are so misinformed on the Affordable Care Act. Here are some snippets from the article and a link to the entire piece, which can be read in full here:

The individual mandate was invented by the conservative Heritage Foundation and supported by Republicans. The idea of a mandate was introduced in a 1989 Heritage Foundation brief titled “Assuring Affordable Health Care for All Americans,” as a counterpoint to the single-payer system and the employer mandate, which were favored by Democrats.

Law professors are unable to find even a hint of the constitutional objection before Obama’s election. Andrew Koppelman, a law professor at Northwestern University wrote in Salon:  “The constitutional limits that the bill supposedly disregarded could not have been anticipated because they did not exist while the bill was being written. They were invented only in the fall of 2009, quite late in the legislative process.”

More courts have upheld the law than overturned it, but 84% of broadcast and cable segments reported on rulings striking down the law. In contrast, 10 percent of segments (just 3) reported on rulings that upheld the law.

With very little messaging from those who support Obamacare, the negative news has molded Americans’ opinions on the law – even me.  According to the New York Times, $235 million has been spent on ads attacking the law since its passage in March 2010.  Only $69 million has been spent on advertising supporting it.

I hear how The Affordable Care Act is a “job killing bill” and “it’s a government takeover of health care”, and it makes me question my support.  I don’t really know what “job killing bill” means, since I think it will help create jobs and allow more people to retire early because they can get health insurance on their own. I know it is not a “government takeover” because it leaves insurance companies in charge of paying people’s medical bills  – and collecting billions of dollars in premiums – and making very good profits.

The battle over messaging around Obamacare wasn’t lost – it was never even fought. I guess those in favor of the Affordable Care Act thought the Supreme Court would put aside politics, and rule based on the precedents established around similar issues in the case. Too bad that’s probably not going to happen. We’ll see on Thursday.

 



  • Art_Jacobson

    People will become painfully aware of the value of the Affordable Care Act when they are once again denied insurance because of a “pre-existing cact thatondition,” when their older children can no long be covered on their parents health insurance, and when folks begin to be swallowed up by the hole in the doughnut.

    Thanks for pointing out the fact that the originators of the notion of compulsory health insurance were Republicans. 

    • Dennis Byron

      I know this guy is just spouting the Democratic party talking points, but since this blog is about Medicare his incorrect statement about the donut hole should be corrected. 

      I personally think the donut hole was a stupid place to put the deductible in Part D but that’s all it is, a deductible, just like found in any other insurance policy.  If the Republicans had put the deductible up front like in most insurance policies, no seniors would have bought Part D (unless the Replublicans forced seniors to buy Part D, which everyone knows is unconstitutional).

      If Part D had had a big upfront deductible instead of a big deductible in the middle, no seniors would buy it because most of us don’t need it. Very few seniors spend more than $500 a year on drugs.  Only a few million out of 50 million come near the donut hole (about $3000 in retail cost of drugs this year). Only 1% go through the donut hole and need catastrophic coverage. (For those unfortunate folks who reach or pass through the hole, 22 states offer additional assistance. In other states, it is possible to buy a rider to cover the possibility of falling into the hole.)

      And here’s the part Democrats like this guy never want you to hear.  Before six years ago (unless you had a good retiree insurance plan or bought an expensive private drug plan), you paid for all your drug costs from dollar one… to tens of thousands if your drugs cost that much.  Thanks to George Bush, a person on Medicare that needs $26,000 worth of Enbrel a year (and isn’t the most popular pro golfer in AZ) can get it for about $4000. That’s a lot but better than $25,000. (NOTE: Prices vary by county and pharmacy around the country.)

      • Denise_Early

         Actually, people enrolled in Medicare HMO plans back in the 1990′s had drug coverage. At that time, over 40% of Medicare beneficiaries in Tucson were enrolled with these plans. And Medicare supplements (which letter was it?) had drug coverage included for a higher premium.  And yes, thanks to George Bush, $60 billion was added to the annual Medicare budget, which Republicans now claim is going broke. The drug companies certainly have lots to thank GW for.

        • Dennis Byron

          Yeah, like I said “unless they had retiree insurance or a private drug plan.” Are you now arguing that Medicare HMOs are public becuase you usually call them private and I argue the other way? (Happy 4th of July, Denise)

        • Denise_Early

          You wrote:  …”unless you had a good retiree insurance plan or bought an expensive private drug plan”…

          Medicare HMO’s in the 1990s were $0 premium, so they don’t seem to fit your description of “expensive private drug plan”. They were also paid for by Medicare and were early versions of Medicare Advantage.  So they were “private” but they used public funds.

          From my experience working for an insurance company in 2006, I saw that Part D provided and open door to reach millions of people to get them to switch to Medicare Advantage. The result was moving more people into private plans funded with taxpayer money. It was an incredible business opportunity provided by the introduction of Part D.

          Happy fourth of July to you.

  • Lydia Brewer

    Doctor Collectives are already making respectable profits off this Bill. My VA doc is soon to move to private practice and his partners have not an ounce of fear about Capitalism adjusting to this new approach to healthcare. Trust is the operative word. The irony being that you have to trust the adaptability of capitalism…quite a twist for those up and to the right who have had guaranteed profits via there own private medicare billing tricks and referring clients to their own clinics. Of course they do not like this.. their medical Amway is collapsing.  The Pharmaceuticals adore the Affordable Health Care Act. 

  • http://twitter.com/Paul_F_Danek Paul Danek

    Wow, an article citing Media Matters as its “factual” reference, completely ignoring the fact that Obama and the Democrats forced the legislation through, and failing to mention that all estimates from the CBO suggest that it will cost WAY more than Obama promised and might actually RAISE costs. Way to write a piece tailor-made to support your argument.

    • Denise_Early

       And what is your source? Fox News? I googled “CBO estimates for Obamacare” and found that the higher costs are actually offset by savings:

      “CBO and JCT have not estimated the budgetary effects in 2022 of the
      other provisions of the ACA; over the 2012-2021 period, those other
      provisions were previously estimated to reduce budget deficits,” the CBO
      report reads.

  • tunkashila

    To answer the question posited by the headline, this American does not like being forced to purchase something he knows is flawed from the outset.  Putting aside all the good things the ACA has done, it still does not put a cap on the exorbitant rates and increases imposed by the insurance companies, meaning that consumers are held hostage to them through the “individual mandate” provision.  Need anything more be said?

    • BajaDemocrats

       Well actually, the ACA doesn’t “force” anyone to buy health insurance – if you don’t buy a policy the feds aren’t going to come and sit on your chest until you yell uncle and agree to buy a policy. They’ll just send you bill, a tax penalty for not buying a policy. And I think the Supreme Court will uphold because of that – it doesn’t actually force anyone to buy anything, you just get taxed if you don’t. And  the authority of the government to levy a tax was upheld some time ago.

      • tunkashila

        Yes, unless those taxes are punitive in nature (Bailey vs. Drexel Furniture Co., 259 U.S. 20, (1922).  Your argument that the ACA doesn’t force anyone to buy health insurance is specious as the law compels people to choose to pay off one of two sets of thugs, either the insurance companies or the IRS.  Having said that, I agree with you the high court won’t see it that way, at least if their historical trends hold true.

        Frankly, an insurance company coming after money is like a starving wolf on meth chewing its way through a butcher’s case to get at the meat inside.  And if you’ve ever had a dispute with the IRS, you know it involves much more that just sending a bill.  That organization can freeze people’s bank accounts, garnish their wages and judgements and benefits and even confiscate their personal property at the mere allegation that tax is owed.  If you think they won’t misuse those powers against people, you haven’t been paying attention.  I don’t like one more tool of financial harassment being handed to the government and its agencies, even if it has good intentions paving its way.

    • Denise_Early

       I certainly don’t trust insurance companies, but the ACA has some parts that should hold down premiums. The 85% Medical Loss Ratio is one of them. The other gives the government the right to review and refuse rate increases above a certain amount (is it 10%?).

      Of course, the problem with the “reform” law is that it is only tweaking our broken system and leaves it in the hands of for-profit insurance companies.

      • tunkashila

        Which is my point entirely.  Saying that the ACA “should” hold down premiums ignores the reality that the insurance companies themselves crafted the legislation, along with any and all loopholes, which will allow them near-complete leeway in any rate decisions. 

        If you recall your history, the govt. legislated the right to review and refuse railroad shipping rate increases in 1887 through the creation of the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC).  But a far-sighted railroad lawyer pointed out, “…the commission…can be made of great use to the railroad…it satisfies the public clamor for government supervision…at the same time that supervision is almost entirely nominal.  The part of wisdom is not to destroy the commission but to utilize it.”  In other words, the watchdog had no teeth, and the railroads continued their political/social dominance for another 60 years.  Call me a cynic, but all I see is history repeating itself.

    • Your_Uncle_Karl

      “this American does not like being forced to purchase something he knows is flawed from the outset. ”

      According to the SC ruling just issued, you are not being forced to buy something.  Rather, you are being taxed for not buying something. 

      • tunkashila

        Fantastic.  How many hits off the crack pipe did the justices need to contort their excuse for logic into this pretzel? Five, I’m guessing…

  • usmctrucker

    If Obamacare is so great then how come Mrs. Giffords won’t be signing up?

    • Denise_Early

       Who is “Mrs. Giffords”? Do you mean our former Congresswoman? Gabby is under 65, so she doesn’t qualify for Medicare. I’m not sure about federal benefits for elected officials, but I would bet she gets coverage through the federal system, especially since she was hurt on the job.

      Perhaps you meant to ask, “Why don’t our elected officials have to sign up for Obamacare?”, which is a question that has been asked. The answer is: Employees of the federal government have a list of health insurance plans to choose from, with higher or lower costs based on co-pays and deductibles. This is very much like the insurance exchanges that will be made available to the general public under Obamacare. So the general public is going to get a choice of plans something like what federal employees have now.

      • tunkashila

        Actually, all members of Congress receive free health care for life just for being elected, nothing like other federal employees.  Much like their exemption from Social Security, it seems their stance on these plans amounts to “..because we said so; just not for us”. 

        All these issues would be moot if we passed a law specifying that all members of Congress must participate in all mandatory public programs they pass, removing their insulation from these programs’ negative effects.  I suspect the benefits would become much more plentiful.

        • BajaDemocrats

           Actually not for “just being elected” – they’re not vested for the health care until they’ve served 5 years.

          • tunkashila

            I stand corrected.  So when do the American people get a similar sweetheart deal? I, for one, would love guaranteed free health care for life after 5 years at the same job.

            • BajaDemocrats

              Run for Congress? Since Congress isn’t corporate owned (in a manner of speaking), there hasn’t been a big push for lower wages/less benefits like there has in the private sector.

              Actually, Progressive Democrats are rallying that if the Supreme Court strikes down “Obamacare” we should make a push for ‘Medicare for All’ / single payer system.

              • tunkashila

                Yes, I’ve been saying “single payer” for many years now.  As I recall, a courageous group of nurses attempted to ask a Congressional health care committee to consider the option during the preliminary hearings in 2009-they were all arrested for making the attempt.  Still want to claim Congress isn’t corporate-owned, even with the caveat?

                • Denise_Early

                  About.com provides this info on Congress.

                  You may have read that Members of Congress do not pay into Social Security. Well, that’s a myth.

                  Prior to 1984, neither Members of Congress nor any other federal
                  civil service employee paid Social Security taxes. Of course, they were
                  also not eligible to receive Social Security benefits. Members of
                  Congress and other federal employees were instead covered by a separate
                  pension plan called the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS). The 1983
                  amendments to the Social Security Act required federal employees first
                  hired after 1983 to participate in Social Security.

                  Members of Congress receive retirement and health benefits under the same plans available to other federal employees. They become vested after five years of full participation.

                  • tunkashila

                    Thank you for setting me straight-I was relying on old information.  

          • usmctrucker

            Exactly, which is why she voted it in for the rest of us but wouldn’t leave congress until she was vested in the Congressional plan.  Not even the retired Astronaut plan was good enough for her.  But for the rest of us, we’ll just have to eat cake.  Very Marie Antoinette-like.

    • Your_Uncle_Karl

      So, Mr. Trucker; now that the ACA has passed SC muster, I want to ask you, as a law-abiding citizen will you buy insurance or pay the tax surcharge? 

      • usmctrucker

        Actually I had planned on keeping the insurance I have now.  Just not looking forward to paying the extra taxes or the rationing of care in my old age.  And please don’t say they won’t ration care, they will have to do so, just look at Canada.

  • SeanDelevan

    I stopped reading this article as soon as you quoted media matters…

    I mean really, Media Matters.