FacebookTwitter

8 Things That Suck About Obamacare

By on May 28, 2013 | 37 comments

Share On GoogleShare On FacebookShare On Twitter

In case you haven’t noticed, starting January 1st 2014 you will be required to buy a health insurance policy from an exchange if you do not have employer coverage.  If you have insurance through your employer, he or she will have to decide between paying a $2,000 penalty or continuing to provide you with your current plan. However, many employers have figured out that offering a plan that covers only the minimum requirements under law may be a way of avoiding the larger penalty.

The concept of the “skinny”  insurance plans make up just one of 8 reasons why Obamacare sucks.

The problem with one-size-fits-all solutions is that everything has been decided for you and you will be forced to purchase a policy that costs more than you’d like, that contains features that you have no interest in.

“Given that Medicaid will spend $6,000 per person per year for around $1,250 in patient health spending and no improvement in health outcomes, it’s entirely appropriate — if not imperative — for conservatives to oppose Obamacare’s expansion of the Medicaid program.” 

We still have one of the best healthcare outcomes in the world. I’d like to keep it that way.  In 2008, Candidate Obama used the 2000 World Health Report to mislead Americans about the actual outcomes of our health system. Here’s an important read about it: The Worst Study Ever? Read and remember when you are challenged by the uninformed about how wonderful Cuba’s healthcare system is.

To read more on possible solutions, here are some recommended links that provide some replacement options for the current challenges we face with the our heavily regulated health system.

  1. The Singapore Model
  2. Fixing the US Health Care System: Look To Singapore
  3. The Myth of the Free-Market American Health Care System

My personal preference always defaults to a system that makes price transparent and allows folks to shop for insurance that best fits their life circumstances while preserving the incentive for profit and thus innovation.

Finally, insurance should serve its traditional intent — as a hedge against unforeseen events and not for standard expected care. 

The following two tabs change content below.
Amy Otto, contributor is a founding member of Pocket Full of Liberty . She also is a Senior Contributor at The Federalist and her work has been featured at Townhall and the UK site The Conservative Woman. Amy has worked in healthcare for over 18 years. Her work shifted from bench science to oversight of drug development and commercialization. Mom of three. California transplant. Steadfast Philadelphia Eagles fan. Armchair Oenophile. Capitalist. Amy received her BS in Biochemistry from University of Delaware and an MBA from Pepperdine University with a focus in Conflict Management and Resolution. Follow Amy on twitter @AmyOtto8

37 Comments

  1. Jon Rollings

    May 28, 2013

    Post a Reply

    Excellent piece. This was an awesome read.
    Great info and you also offered solutions, something most dissenters seem to have no interest in doing.
    Another fantastic article from Amy Otto & PFoL!
    Keep up the good work!

    Jon – #OpinioNation

  2. Jon Rollings

    May 28, 2013

    Post a Reply

    9th way Obamacare sucks…it has created a rift in this
    country that may take a really long time to heal.
    This was one of the flash points that really kicked off the
    Tea Party Movement & inspired Socialists, Communists, &
    others to emerge loud and proud. Thanks Barry!

    Jon – #OpinioNation

  3. Andrew Young

    May 28, 2013

    Post a Reply

    9. People who couldn’t afford healthcare prior to the passage of this law, still can’t afford healthcare. They make to much money to get the government help and not enough to pay for their own.

    The law should be repealed, stopped, whatever. How can it be tax and fine at the same time??

  4. DrkLrdBill

    May 28, 2013

    Post a Reply

    Your logic about employers cutting health benefits doesn’t add up. If employers are offering “full” health insurance now to employees that meets all the requirements of the Affordable Care Act, why would they have an incentive to reduce the insurance that they offer? Yes, the policies could go up in price, but wouldn’t having more people on the plan actually decrease the price if other employers bring their employees on that plan?

    These employers that offer health insurance now do for a myriad of reasons. Not one reason is because they are required to by law, so why would requiring them to offer health insurance cause them to reduce their offerings?

    I think the biggest issue with the Affordable Care Act is that the insurance industry still exists. While there are some downsides to socialized medicine like TRICARE in the military, I definitely think the system could work if applied to the general population with some tweaks (such as co-pays that create a disincentive for going when you don’t really NEED to go, $20 or so).

    This would also allow greedy doctors that don’t want to participate the option of just accepting $$$ as payments (while acting completely outside of the socialized system). This would give people, who can afford it, the option of just paying the best doctors in the world directly for the best health care, while also maintaining a basic standard level of health care (from doctors who do participate in the socialized system) as a right for all.

    • robert

      May 28, 2013

      Post a Reply

      It has nothing to do with employers who already offer full coverage. It refers to employers who currently don’t offer any coverage who (because they can’t afford to), who wish to avoid a $2000 per employee fine (because they can’t afford that, either). Those companies have figured out they can offer crappy coverage that comes in cheaper than the $2000 fine for each employee.

    • DrkLrdBill

      May 28, 2013

      Post a Reply

      Robert:

      Did we read different articles: “If you have insurance through your employer, he or she will have to decide between paying a $2,000 penalty or continuing to provide you with your current plan”

    • Amy

      May 28, 2013

      Post a Reply

      Its already happening in states and cities.. http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2013/05/27/obamacare-leads-states-and-cities-consider-dumping-employees-cutting-ba
      A quote :
      “Sen. Ron Johnson, a Republican from Wisconsin, also criticized the move.

      “Not long ago, Rahm Emanuel worked for a president who told Americans, ‘If you like your health care, you can keep it.’ Unfortunately, the way Obamacare is designed incentivizes employers to cancel coverage, change health care plans, or simply dump workers into Obamacare exchanges against their will,” Johnson said. “While White House Chief of Staff Emanuel may have denied that, Mayor Emanuel’s actions demonstrate it.”

    • Lynn

      June 13, 2013

      Post a Reply

      In regards to the companies that have insurance plans, many employees don’t take the insurance because they can’t afford it or they have different priorities. Now it’s going to cost the company so much money, they have to find ways around it, hurting those employees that have the insurance. Employees hours will be cut among other ways to “survive’ the system. I have a doctor that I really need that is already gearing up to switch to concierge medicine.

  5. Lawful Plunder

    May 28, 2013

    Post a Reply

    Great piece Amy!…Thx for the Singapore link, very interesting.

    To the extent there ever was a healthcare “crisis”, it was exclusively about cost, not coverage. And Obamacare doesn’t deal with the fundamental factors driving cost.

    A) Huge govt involvement combined with huge subsidies.

    B) Third party payer where costs are opaque as far as the consumer is concerned. No real incentive to economize/”price shop”

    C) Heavily regulated industry—> lots of mandates/limited competition between insurers.

    D) Lastly, what I’ll call “unrealistic attitudes” about death, driven by the Medicare system where the cost of care isn’t a factor. The cost of care in the last few weeks/months of life is huge.

    But let me say a hopeful word about the exchanges. To the extent it makes prices more visible/enhances competition, it could have a dampening effect on rates.

    Didn’t talk about the Oregon study, but obviously that’s huge. Dems have been arguing forever that having insurance is critical to health outcomes, but it just isn’t so. (If the study is right)

    • jamie

      January 26, 2014

      Post a Reply

      it hurts people. people that are doing their best to keep food on the table. and survive, some just can’t do this. then what? less food?…don’t like it at all!

  6. Lawful Plunder

    May 28, 2013

    Post a Reply

    As for a 9th thing wrong with Obamacare, how about the 3.8% surtax on investment income paid by the “wealthy”.

    We’re mired in debt, and we’re taking measures to discourage savings/investment for the benefit of consumption. Makes no sense.

  7. Amy

    May 28, 2013

    Post a Reply

    thank you everyone for your comments.

    I’d like to clarify the definition of a right. If it involves taking someones labor its theft, not a right.
    No one has a right to make a doctor work, unless you are recommending leg irons.

  8. Austen

    May 28, 2013

    Post a Reply

    A lot of rhetoric and blind assertion in this article, with very little evidence. The one salient question the author raises — will employers drop health coverage? — can only be answered in time. For now, we know the similar reforms in Mass did not lead to more employers dropping healthcare.

    And from California, we have new evidence suggesting costs will be lower than our worst fears.

    Obamacare isn’t perfect. But it is a positive reform of an obviously flawed institution. So let’s tinker with Obamacare till it is near perfect and befitting this great society.

  9. DrkLrdBill

    May 28, 2013

    Post a Reply

    So there is no right to public education? Fetuses don’t have a right to life by your definition, since their existence requires the labor (in two ways) of the mother. Fetuses are guilty of theft if they are an unwanted pregnancy. Guilty of theft of biological resources.

    • me

      May 29, 2013

      Post a Reply

      No, there is no “right” to education. That would mean that those who have knowledge would be slaves to those that didn’t. You have no right to healthcare. We as a society have decided that no one will be turned away but the person giving the services just makes the rest of us pay. Pregnancy is 100% preventable. Don’t have sex. With rights come responsibilities. The only “rights” you have are those which don’t interfere with the rights on someone else. If you choose to make decisions that impinge on someone elses life then you get to have the responsibility. When a woman has sex she is choosing to take the chance of creating another life. Once that life exists she doesn’t get to choose to end that life. A man has the same responsibilities once he decides to engage in sex. He is now responsible for the life of the mother and the child.

      There are NO rights that do not have responsibilites with them

    • SkepticalAtWorst

      March 19, 2015

      Post a Reply

      Wow, seriously?

      Right to education (as it stands, to high school level), most people agree that publicly available education should be there. That’s a silly argument to attempt to get someone to square off against you on a topic you feel you can win. That’s a weak tactic. I would argue you would find few, even the most vehement libertarians, who would actually propose shutting down public schools if they had power right now, today.

      You will find a large group of people (myself included) who think that one should be able to opt out of the public school system and use their personal contribution to help pay for their child’s education at a private institution, along generally with a chunk of money they provide.

      This is about as far as you’re likely to get most people to go on this topic in an actual conversation unless you use these types of childish and polarizing tactics. The tactic is this – I’m going to argue an ideological point that I know you disagree with to get you to make a statement, and then press your stated opinion to the point of an unpalatable outcome using an example that would not agree to on its own.

      It’s weak and disingenuous.

      Coerced maternal labor (not work here, you’re talking actual labor and delivery of a child) as a theft of a child from its mother?

      The child delivery process is not a policy decision, it’s a biological imperative once a woman is pregnant. Similar to urinating after you drink water, you shall pee; that’s not a policy decision, it’s a biological inevitability
      (unless you die first).

      And I would argue vehemently that the right to life probably predates and trumps all others if you accept that we have any ‘rights’ at all. Although even this ‘right’ is truly only a human construct (and as such I think should only apply to humans, but that’s another discussion altogether). There is no right to life in nature, however biological impulses and lack of tools prevent all animals except humans (as far as I know) from killing their unborn young intentionally.

      I don’t understand how you can possibly try and extend that argument at all. I understand that you’re trying to be contrary, but you’re really not helping anyone here see any other side since your analogy is so weak, and it’s such a stretch. I think the problem with your argument is that it’s not really an argument at all, you’re really just trying to create absurd scenarios to throw out after you get your ‘opponent’ to state their rough position ideologically.

      What you are doing is exactly what’s wrong with any actual discussion of policy with most Americans, it devolves into silly abstract scenarios that each side uses to try and pin the other down once anyone makes any ideological stance known.

      I can tell you who I think wins and who I think loses when we as a people allow ourselves to take part in this type of divisiveness. We are dividing ourselves, and you’re doing your best to help. Thanks for that (sarcasm).

  10. Sarah

    May 29, 2013

    Post a Reply

    Your opening paragraph states that as of 1/1/14 individuals will have to purchase insurance through an exchange if they don’t have group insurance. That is not correct. An exchange is simply another marketplace from which to purchase insurance, and the only place where one may receive a subsidy. Individuals and groups will still be able to purchase coverage off the exchange, directly from the carriers, as we do now. As a matter of fact, individuals that don’t qualify for a subsidy are better off buying coverage outside of the exchange where there will be more carrier and plan options.

  11. Lynn

    June 13, 2013

    Post a Reply

    The answer isn’t shoving this down our throats. The answer is providing insurance that is so affordable that the public wants to buy it!

  12. Marty Murray

    June 30, 2013

    Post a Reply

    Obamacare is a monster. Don’t let it happen. Maybe we should riot in the streets. Seriouly.

    It is ridiculous that a monster program that most do not want will start to be enforced by IRS drones next year.

    Don’t let it happen.

  13. anthony

    July 2, 2013

    Post a Reply

    another beautiful conservative explains things where i can fully understand them, my young doctor only takes cash now now checks, credit cards no nothing green money only 40.00 A Visit, blood work free on Wednesday, sounds like capitalism

  14. colonel marstellar

    September 27, 2013

    Post a Reply

    Its passed and im glad!! Now when it comes crashing down.. Obama and the rest of the despots in DC got no one to blame but themselves. We want,, no more encumbents!! And we absolutely have to have a new way to make sure the voters are legit and that the vote counter is monitored!! Otherwise were done if? We aint dont now!! Idiots!!

  15. disqus_dtpUoBpMK6

    October 1, 2013

    Post a Reply

    clearly the author isn’t from the us.

    move on and shaddddddup. if you don’t like it then leave. that goes for us citizens as well.

    everyone will have a different opinion about everything the government does. writing articles to inform the public of your opinion and crude interpretations (both parties are guilty) don’t do anything. writing to your member of congress does.

    americans aren’t known to sit around and let things happen. if this change isn’t supported by americans enough then it’ll change in due time. complaining does nothing except make you look like morons.

  16. Julia Havey

    October 9, 2013

    Post a Reply

    Just found out that I HAVE to add/pay for Maternity AND newborn care despite being post menopausal and barren!

  17. Zebra52

    October 10, 2013

    Post a Reply

    Illegals hate O’bamy care…….why would they pay for isurance when they can just clog up emergency rooms and get their healthcare at taxpayer expense.

  18. peterjameslaidler

    October 29, 2013

    Post a Reply

    Obama sells snake oil & we will be fined/taxed if we don’t consume it.

  19. Mara Van Dyke

    April 27, 2014

    Post a Reply

    My family had good health insurance coverage through my husband’s employer. Now with Obamacare his employer decided it is cheaper to pay the penality the provide coverage to their employee’s. So now my kids only quality for Medi-Cal which they haven’t received yet, and my husband can’t quality for Medi-Cal, now he has to pay $207 a month for blue shield with higher co-pays, and the government is going to subside $540 of his insurance. It seems to me that’s going to put the country in brankruptcy. Oh and he still doesn’t have blue sheild yet, it won’t become effective until May. In the meantime he had to go to the ER due to no health insurance. Maybe I should send the bill to Mr. Obama, I hope he rots in hell.

  20. Guest

    December 17, 2014

    Post a Reply

    The plan is doesn’t go nearly far enough. What they should have done was extend Medicare to new workers by taxing the employer 7% of income for every employee. New workers would also pay an additional 7% tax, for life, just like they do in Canada or the U.K. Universal, single payer is the way to go. As for older adults, the ones who paid premiums their entire working lives and were denied coverage when they needed it the most, make the insurance companies set up a pool cover their healthcare costs. All children should automatically get universal health coverage at no cost, but there should also be lifetime caps for expenses. No more million dollar lung transplants. We simply can’t afford it all.

    • SkepticalAtWorst

      March 19, 2015

      Post a Reply

      That sounds like a great cure for unemployment, especially at the very bottom of the income ladder.

      I hate to be that guy but increasing the cost of having employees will not get the meany greedy business owners to hire more people, and the ones they will tend to lay off in droves are the poorest. Same with a slew of other initiatives to help the poor, they end up hurting them more than anything.

      Example.

      When I was young I didn’t go straight to college, I worked at slightly above minimum wage for a few years. They had a studio apartment available for $300 a month, which I could afford and have some money to live on given my $700 a month income. Well, they needed to help the poor and ensure they had ‘good’ housing in AZ, so they passed a law that made that type of apartment (basically any apartment without a full kitchen, it had a galley kitchen with a microwave which was more than sufficient for me) illegal.

      So I had two options, take on a room mate for $750 a month a split rent (which I tried until they flaked out on me), or pay for a one bedroom myself for $625 a month. Luckily I found a job that paid a bit more in the meantime and could actually afford the one bedroom after my room mate ran out on the lease.

      But this policy, designed to and sold as a way to help the working poor (which I was), did not help me at all. I thank God I didn’t have a family or children to worry about at the time.

      • Marty Murray

        March 19, 2015

        Post a Reply

        Yes. You nailed it. That is so typical of what happens when “they”, figure out a way to “help the poor.”

        Also, guess what. There are reasons why people are poor, and one of those is that they don’t know how to help themselves. So, all too often, by pandering to what they want, one is not going to help them, because, in many cases, if what they want were good for them, they would not be poor in the first place.

  21. Scott Manning

    February 24, 2015

    Post a Reply

    I signed up for this crap. I then went to the providers website and started calling doctors. They would say that they were accepting new patients. Then they would check my insurance and say were not taking any obomacare.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. On Obamacare: If You Like Your Plan, You Should Be Able to Keep It | Pocket Full Of Liberty - […] I object to the Medicaid expansion for reasons I won’t get into here, it’s not likely that Senate […]
  2. Obamacare’s Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Week | Pocket Full Of Liberty - […] Obamacare. It still sucks. […]
  3. The glaring evidence that Obamacare is a catastrophic FAILURE continues to mount - Page 214 - US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum - […] 8 Things That Suck About Obamacare | Pocket Full Of Liberty […]

Submit a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>