Talk

Advanced search

To pick your brains on why people oppose obamacare?

(32 Posts)
FayKorgasm Wed 26-Nov-14 07:57:19

Am I right in thinking it would be similar to the NHS as in universal health care for all? The healthier the population the better it bodes for the country. Is it insurance companies and doctors opposing or the general population?

I have no idea why I amthinking about it but I am.

Preciousbane Wed 26-Nov-14 08:04:01

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

EustaciaBenson Wed 26-Nov-14 08:04:43

The problem for some people is that they cant afford it so they have to pay the fine for not having it which is cheaper, so in effect they are having to pay to not have healthcare

And there are a lot of people who believe Obama is the root of all evil, some of the conspiracy theories are scarily crazy

FishCanFly Wed 26-Nov-14 08:06:41

I do not know, but seems like people are afraid of being forced to accept second-rate medical care. NHS is great, but not without problems where people actually die.

LongDistanceLove Wed 26-Nov-14 08:12:41

Obama care, has its pros and cons.

From what I've discussed with my american fiance, the cons outweigh the pros.

obamacarefacts.com/obamacare-pros-and-cons/

jetsetlil Wed 26-Nov-14 08:16:44

I read (on MN I think), that most Americans were suspicious of it as it is considered a communist idea.

RedToothBrush Wed 26-Nov-14 08:23:14

Because they are American and have to brought up to mistrust and dislike government interference in their lives. In general the belief is that the State should keep out of people's every day life as much as possible and let individuals make decisions and take responsibility for themselves. The underlying thought is that benefits and welfare make people dependent on the State too.

Its difficult to understand from a British or indeed a European point of view as our attitude to socialism is so far removed from the politics of America.

Backinthering Wed 26-Nov-14 08:29:53

It's ironic that people oppose it seeing as state spending on health in the US is a bigger proportion of budget than the UK.
However the money winds up in the pockets of the health care insurance providers.
This great con was set up by Nixon as a great scam to generate private profit from the public purse.

Preciousbane Wed 26-Nov-14 08:33:28

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

LongDistanceLove Wed 26-Nov-14 08:55:40

The biggest issue for me is that the act is more concerned about making sure everyone has insurance, rather than really looking into bringing the cost of healthcare down for everyone. In some instances people are paying more, in some cases employees are losing out on full time hours so their employers don't have to pay for insurance.

And then you've got places like hobby lobby, who won't cover some types of contraception as it goes against their religious beliefs.

cheesecakemom Wed 26-Nov-14 09:05:02

It's not as though the NHS is perfect. If you have insurance in the US you get far superior care than the NHS. For instance, I had to wait 3 months for a dermatology appt for DD on the NHS - it just wouldn't happen in the US, I would be seen ASAP. DD would also have a paediatrician vs a GP.

I remember getting a fracture in the US, I went straight to a specialist in a day. In the UK same thing happened my GP just told me to wait and see if pain killers work - it wasn't till later that I was offered an X-ray when I insisted!

I've also had to wait 5 months to see a consultant in this pregnancy despite having serious problems - that wouldn't happen in the US.

I have worked for both private and state funded hospitals in the US (as well as the NHS. Dare I say the state funded hospital I worked at was better than the NHS. We saw many patients without insurance including immigrants! One lady arrived from Italy nearly full term without insurance. So it's not true when people say you won't be seen if you have no insurance!

I'm not entirely sure about the ins and outs of Obama care, I understand that it will try to bridge the gap where some people work (low income) and therefore cannot get state health insurance - some of these people still can't afford decent insurance and end up without.

"If you have insurance in the US you get far superior care than the NHS. "

Bull.

You will probably get seen sooner but far superior? In many ways I would say it is the opposite... at least everywhere I've been.

LongDistanceLove Wed 26-Nov-14 09:15:44

www.theguardian.com/society/2014/jun/17/nhs-health

milkpudding Wed 26-Nov-14 10:15:28

"If you have insurance in the US you get far superior care than the NHS. "

Nonsense.
You will be seen sooner, in nicer surroundings, with less hassle. Your appointment will be longer. However that is not better care. You may be subject to over investigation and over treatment, because health care is charged per test/ drug/ procedure rather than on you getting better.
A doctor friend who became unwell in the US was horrified when she received her bill as they had done so many completely unnecessary tests, some which had potential harms.

sashh Wed 26-Nov-14 16:35:24

cheesecakemom

Why are you comparing the NHS to private cover in the US?

Compare what the state provides in the US with the UK and what you get privately in the US with private in the UK.

How long would your dd have waited in the US before being seen without you paying out of pocket or having insurance?

If you have insurance in the US you get far superior care than the NHS

I have no direct experiences of US health care, I do know nurses who worked in the US and told horror stories of not having time to both medicate a patient and bill them, so they just did the billing because that is what anyone would look at if there was a problem.

Also the attitude to tests is odd. A friend broke his nose, he was treated in A and E and later had an op to straighten it. Friends int he US were shocked that he had not been X-rayed. The Drs knew it was broken and checked he could breath but didn't expose him to harmful radiation for an X-ray that proved nothing.

You seem to think that a pediatrician is somehow better than a GP, why? Both are specialties that in the UK take about the same level and years of training.

sooperdooper Wed 26-Nov-14 16:48:41

I remember getting a fracture in the US, I went straight to a specialist in a day. In the UK same thing happened my GP just told me to wait and see if pain killers work - it wasn't till later that I was offered an X-ray when I insisted!

Erm, why did you go to the GP? In the UK, go to A&E with a suspected fracture and you'll get an x-ray confused you're not comparing the same things, of course a GP won't give you an x-ray

Just one example. Having a baby in the US really sucks compared to having a baby in the UK, I've done both. Pregnancy is considered a medical problem to be treated with a bunch of tests and pills to take. The birth is usually very medicalised. Aftercare is pretty much non-existent in the US. You leave the hospital and are told to make an appointment with a paediatrician a week later and that is pretty much it. No visiting midwife, no health visitor clinic, no help with breastfeeding unless you go out of the system and hire a private LC or you go to LLL.

LurcioAgain Wed 26-Nov-14 17:10:03

The intent behind Obamacare was to improve insurance provision for the working poor (people living in absolute poverty are, as I understand it, covered by Medicare etc. - it's the next rung or two up on the poverty ladder who struggle).

Talking to liberal (i.e. Democrat voting) American friends, the problem is that Obamacare was not implemented as originally intended - it ended up being so pulled around by the Republicans in (apologies, forget which) Senate/Congress that it ended up as the worst of all possible worlds - it doesn't improve the insurance cover of the people near the bottom of the heap, but has imposed all sorts of conditions on getting insurance care which mean people on middle incomes are now paying more for less cover. So for what I gather are fairly typical monthly insurance premiums of 300 to 400 dollars, there massive increases in co-pay - the amount you have to put towards the cost of treatment (think of it as like the excess on your home insurance) with less conditions covered.

Basically what Obama wanted to do was fine, what got put into practice was the worst kind of Frankenstein's monster imaginable.

To answer the original question... this is my take on it. I live in the US and have many friends who are republicans.

1) It has Obama's name on it. There are many people who are opposed strongly to Obama, think he should be impeached and would get pissy if he invited their widowed mother to tea.

2) It is another tax. Americans in general are anti more taxes. It doesn't matter that we are paying out the nose for health care already...

3) Americans are not fond of the government mandating stuff and making them do things they don't want to. It is anti-freedom.

4) Many politicians, talk show hosts and other talking heads have spouted some crazy rubbish about this (e.g. Palin and death panels) to put themselves in the spot light. Some of this idiocy has stuck because 1)

5) Many Americans are big on The American Dream where no matter what background you come from and what disadvantages you have you should pull yourself up by your bootstraps and be successful. Anyone who is not making it is obviously not trying hard enough. angry Many Americans (obviously not me!) feel like they should not be supporting lazy losers ugh ugh ugh. They see the ACA as that. So much wrong with this whole attitude but there you go. Many see it as personal responsibility and you should take care of yourself.

6) They see it as socialism and to them that is one tiny tiny step away from communism.

7) The ACA is screwed up because the house fought it so hard that the big compromise that remained is not a very good solution. It is easy to rail on something that sucks. It would have sucked less if the house had worked to make something better instead of fighting it as much as possible.

8) See 1) 4) & 7) we have a two party system which basically means that they fight each other. The house is controlled by the republicans and the president is a democrat so it is all about scoring points for your party and making the other one look bad.

9) the insurance companies are powerful lobbyists and it is in their interest for less laws. They can spend a lot of money making things look bad that are not in their interest. They have their hands in a lot of politicians pockets.

Lurcio, you beat me to it!

LurcioAgain Wed 26-Nov-14 17:19:01

Your explanation is way more entertaining, though grin

Bulbasaur Wed 26-Nov-14 17:19:26

In theory it was awesome! Everyone that was for it was excited.

What ended up being put into place was... the same shit we had to deal with being uninsured.

A $5,000 deductible is standard, which means you pay 5k out of pocket before insurance even starts helping you. For young healthy people who pay less out of pocket without insurance to be seen at urgent care, that's a joke. You get more of a break being uninsured and broke as far as bills are concerned than you do being insured and covered.

You're paying money each month for this crap, then on top of that you have to pay 5k with no breaks from the hospital? It's not affordable, and to make it worse, Obamacare took away catastrophe insurance (car accidents, broken bones, any immediate injury) that was cheap and affordable and relevant to what young/healthy people need.

So really, it's done nothing.

lljkk Wed 26-Nov-14 17:21:31

Not my views, but the ones I can understand and aren't ridiculous:

Broadly, because government is inefficient (maybe even corrupt) & uncaring & you get what you pay for. So if you have medical care that you paid peanuts for, it's probably not worth having & probably shouldn't be relied upon. It's fooling vulnerable people into complacency. It means massively less choice & more bureaucracy & things like cost-effective-analysis (effectively illegal in US medical care) to determine what treatments are available to you. Some faceless bureaucrat decides how severe your condition is and whether it needs treating any time soon or somebody else is more needy than you (maybe not on criteria you would agree with). It means longer waits for any treatment. You are more powerless in "the system". **

Also, there are already forms of cheap/free medical care for disabled/homeless etc., so it was unnecessary to create this huge expensive faceless machine to protect anyone. It will also mean lack of continuity of care with any particular doctor.

If instead, you paid good money for your medical care then "they" are accountable to you, and you will get actual customer service.

**this was already all pretty much true for people on things like MediCaid & Medicare in some states. So, would it be right to encourage working people into this system, too, or to keep (what's perceived as) a better quality system and find ways to get more money into pockets of more people (reduce size of govt. overall) so that more people can afford the better quality system.

AliceinWinterWonderland Wed 26-Nov-14 17:22:20

Yes, my charming sister (American) ranted for ages about how she didn't see why she should pay more tax to cover medical insurance for poor people who were too damn lazy to get off their asses and work. "If they want health care, go out and earn it." Oh, yep, she's a charmer. hmm

Tournesol Wed 26-Nov-14 17:24:45

My sister lives in the US and one of her friends was in a terrible car crash and the insurance would not pay, so he lost his job, his house and was in a world of debt.

Made me thank my lucky stars I live in the UK.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now