Skip to main content

Hi all,
I have to argue for the affordable healthcare act, and while I know quite a bit about its advantages, I need to really understand the arguments against it, with rebuttals, to make a compelling argument for it.

My arguments for it are mostly anecdotal: people who have health insurance for the first time in years. I must admit, I haven't paid the attention I should have to the arguments against it, because they seemed ridiculous and pure propaganda fear mongering. Yet, I have to understand them to fight them effectively.

So if you know of an arguments against Obamacare, can you share it with how you would rebut it. Thanks in advance if you can help.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Skyye, emmasnacker

    My dog is a member of Dogs Against Romney: He rides inside.

    by adigal on Thu Feb 06, 2014 at 07:58:38 PM PST

  •  Here's a synopsis of the criticism (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    adigal

    from the right of Obamacare: It is an attempt by black radicals to destroy our country and institute a Soviet-inspired system of economic slavery for our citizens. And the only new jobs created will be death panels.

    Now how are you gonna argue against that?

    •  OK, this is one of the ones I generally ignore :) (0+ / 0-)

      Which is why I need some of the arguments they pretend to be more rational!!! Thanks for the chuckle, though.

      My dog is a member of Dogs Against Romney: He rides inside.

      by adigal on Thu Feb 06, 2014 at 08:19:53 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  economically it's a bad deal (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    adigal, NewDealer

    for younger healthier people, as the age rating bands are now required to be 3:1.

    IOW, The premiums for older people can be no more than three times the lowest rate offered. But older patients will have more than 3x the medical costs of the young.

    The net result is that younger (typically poorer) people will be subsidizing the healthcare costs of older (typically wealthier) people.

    One reason they had to put in a tax on people who don't buy insurance....the individual mandate.

    •  Thank you. This is very helpful!!! (0+ / 0-)

      And just what I need!!

      My dog is a member of Dogs Against Romney: He rides inside.

      by adigal on Thu Feb 06, 2014 at 08:20:47 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  you could also go with (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        adigal, NewDealer

        the fact that the employer mandate will kick in for companies with 50+ full-time employees. So for a company with 49 employees, the next hire will cost hundreds of thousands of dollars since the company must now provide insurance to all of their employees.

        which can also lead to companies hiring lots of part-time people as they don't have to provide them with healthcare. Apparently this was so problematic that it was delayed for a year and won't come into effect until 2015.

    •  This is the same concept that insurance companies (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      adigal, ybruti

      have been selling for decades in flat-rate Whole Life, as compared with term life, where your rate goes up every few years, and you pay for your entire risk at all times. With Whole Life you put in more money than you have to when young to keep your own premiums down when you get older. You end up subsidizing yourself.

      We could discuss the Return on Investment that results, but claiming that this is inherently a bad deal is merely pretense. It requires the assumption that the young will never get old. I know of only one way to accomplish that, and it is not a benefit.

      Back off, man. I'm a logician.—GOPBusters™

      by Mokurai on Thu Feb 06, 2014 at 09:08:04 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  That argument would carry more weight (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Skyye, adigal

      if there were no subsidies.

      If a younger person is earning less than 4 times the poverty rate - which I think means, $44,000 - they don't pay full freight.

      And, if the young person is under 27, they can get coverage on a parent's plan.

  •  It's Outlawed In Every Other Advanced Democracy (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tardis10, adigal, Skyye

    because it's based on for-profit selling of insurance for comprehensive essential health care.

    That's the rational argument against it.

    The American argument against it is that it requires government to involve itself in the general welfare.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Thu Feb 06, 2014 at 08:20:11 PM PST

  •  A number of the arguments you need are explained (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    adigal, Brainwrap

    by Kossack brainwrap and others here in his continuing series of diaries and his Web site on ACA signups state by state, in the exchanges, Medicaid expansion, and children under 26 staying on their parents' policies. You would be welcome to join us.

    He also has a page of media links to stories citing his numbers, some of which are of the character of

    01/04/14: Forbes: Can A Cure Be Found for Obamacare Brain Meltdown Syndrome? Putting the Lie to the Anti-ACA Talking Heads

    So, lots of objections and lots of ammunition against them.

    OK, they signed up, but did the insurance companies issue the policies? OK, they issued the policies, but did the people pay their premiums? OK, lots of people have insurance, but were they previously uninsured? Yes, yes, and yes.

    Obamacare forced my policy to be cancelled! My rate went up by a ridiculous amount!

    In all of the above objections, the answer is that the complainer did not actually look at the facts. People who lost policies can get better ones on the exchanges. No, your rate didn't go up that much; your lying insurance company is trying to sell you the most expensive policy it has, and is refusing to tell you that you can do better on the exchanges.

    But Obamacare is going to crash employment and destroy the economy! The CBO said so!

    No, the CBO did not say that two million people will lose their jobs. They said that millions of people will be able to work less or start new businesses without losing their insurance. Some want to have one spouse stay home to take better care of their children, or an elderly parent; some want to retire earlier; some just want to cut back from two jobs to one, or from a 60-hours-a-week job to 40.

    Back off, man. I'm a logician.—GOPBusters™

    by Mokurai on Thu Feb 06, 2014 at 09:38:02 PM PST

  •  The other problem (as argued to the SCOTUS) (0+ / 0-)

    is the idea of compulsory participation in commerce.

    We have no other examples in this country where the Government can force you buy a product.  The government certainly has power to regulate commerce and you as a free citizen are free to weigh the burden of that regulation against the benefits of engaging in the transaction at all.

    Dont want to deal with federal trade laws?  Dont sell your product across state lines.  Think the rules for owning a business are too burdensome, don't do it and work as an employee or independent contractor.  

    Even things that seem compulsory really aren't.  Many states "force" you to own automobile insurance but you are free to not own a car.  Property Insurance is required on most mortgages, but only because you CHOSE to borrow money from a bank to buy your home.

    This is a new interpretation of the commerce clause where now the government can say that you, as an American citizen, MUST buy this kind of product or else we will penalize your inaction by statute.

    FTR, the SCOTUS ruled that this IS NOT CONSTITUTIONAL as a power under the Commerce Clause, but that the penalty is actually a levied tax and therefore a permissible act of Congress.  This was the crux of the Roberts decision but the anti-ACA crowd just stops at the "not constitutional" part of the argument and refuses to accept the tax part of the ruling.

    Красота спасет мир --F. Dostoevsky

    by Wisper on Fri Feb 07, 2014 at 05:20:05 AM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site