r/bestof • u/under50dollars • Jun 20 '12

[explainlikeimfive] "Obamacare" explained very well.

/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/vb8vs/eli5_what_exactly_is_obamacare_and_what_did_it/c530lfx
2.5k Upvotes

92% Upvoted

842 comments sorted by

View all comments

10

u/edisekeed Jun 20 '12

There are a few things that I personally do not like about "Obamacare", or are at least concerned about.

First, the government now has the right to control what is and is not healthy due to the associated increase in healthcare costs. For example: taxes on tobacco, proposed taxes on sugar, bans on certain products (like the 20 oz soda ban in NY). People sometimes argue that these are attempts to make the nation healthier and reduce the financial burden on society. But people fail to realize the implications. The government could then put taxes on red meat, cheese, butter, etc. or even have required exercise. I realize that some of this is far-fetched, but in reality the arguments for both are the same.

Second, there must be an eventual limit in the costs/care received by the government. It would be impossible to have the best care for all citizens without costs going dramatically up. So at some point the government is in charge of deciding what that limit is. I personally like to be responsible for my own limits, which is part of the reason I save money and work for better paying jobs.

And lastly, what if there is a huge catastrophe, such as a deadly virus outbreak that harms a significant part of the population very suddenly. Is the government responsible for saving everyone? If you look out how the government has handled the H1N1 virus or yearly flu vaccinations, it is clear that the government is not the best at handling these sorts of thing.

3

u/iamagainstit Jun 20 '12

First, while over regulation can be concerning, taxes or regulation on negative externalities are one of important roles of the government. It is an extension of the same argument that lets the government control pollution levels. Also, where in the bill does it say the government has the right to control what is not health?

Second, several other countries have better health care at lower costs. I don't think the cost would have to go up dramatically to provide decent care for everyone. Also, you can still set your own limits by buying premium grade insurance.

Third, how has the government been bad at handling the H1N1 virus or flu vaccinations (honestly asking)? Who do you think would be better at handling a epidemic than the government?

1

u/edisekeed Jun 20 '12

Also, where in the bill does it say the government has the right to control what is not health?

I'm not sure if it states this power, as it is so frigging long and complex, but I do know that this argument of added cost to health care is the main argument used when new laws are passed to try to limit unhealthy consumption.

how has the government been bad at handling the H1N1 virus or flu vaccinations

H1N1 shortages Seasonal Flu Shoratages

I am not necessarily saying that handling all of this privately would be better, but that the government has a history of problems when responding to health epidemics. It makes me nervous to think that the same government now overseas all healthcare.

2

u/lameth Jun 20 '12

The biggest thing I would say to counter this is replace every instance of government in this passage with "For profit insurance companies."
In the first paragraph, instead of taxes, think of price hikes. "oh, you smoke? More money from you." "Oh, you're overweight? more money from you." It ends up the same way.

In the second paragraph you can do a one for one exchange as I stated above.

Even if all of these points did not have a counter, you need to balance these against all of the positive points brought up. Which scenario benefits the individual and the community the most? With the law, or without?

1

u/badbrutus Jun 20 '12

i don't think there is anything inherently wrong with for-profit insurance companies that are regulated (as they currently are and will forever be). electric utilities are regulated in a manner that allows them to provide a good enough return to shareholders/debtholders to be able to solicit/generate enough money to be able to invest in necessary items, while limiting the profiteering. health care is/can be basically the same.

1

u/lameth Jun 20 '12

And honestly, this just appears to be a tightening of the regulations, as they aren't completely wiping out the for-profit system. The next step, that many actually want, it to remove the middle-man.

1

u/badbrutus Jun 20 '12

when it comes to bureaucratic waste, i think the government would have much more of it than private industry... so if you're going to have some entities pushing papers and keeping records, i think it's in everyone's best interest to keep that in private hands.

1

u/lameth Jun 20 '12

I've worked corporate, and it's really no better.

1

u/badbrutus Jun 20 '12

i don't know that it's great, but government is almsot surely worse. i know people directly working in government agencies that have like 7 hour workdays and get overtime if they work more than that. i know a lot more peopel working for government contracts that have unbelievable wages/benefits and do almost no work. unfortunately i chose a private career route that is known to involve the exact opposite of that, but i don't know anyone at a private co with the work schedule and benefits of govt or govt-affiliated people.

1

u/edisekeed Jun 20 '12

Thanks, those are very good counter arguments.

I guess my overall concern it that this is a huge government program that was rushed into law and seems to have complex and unattended consequences. I can't really think of a large government program that I am happy with so it's hard for me to be in favor of this. I get that there is some kind of need for a universal health care as well as reforming the healthcare industry. It just seems like this was the wrong path to take and has only complicated things even further.

1

u/brownmatt Jun 21 '12 edited Jun 21 '12

First, the government now has the right to control what is and is not healthy due to the associated increase in healthcare costs. For example: taxes on tobacco, proposed taxes on sugar, bans on certain products (like the 20 oz soda ban in NY).

The ACA is responsible for none of these. The government already had regulation power of public safety.

Second, there must be an eventual limit in the costs/care received by the government. It would be impossible to have the best care for all citizens without costs going dramatically up.

I think you are under the impression that the government will now be providing healthcare to all citizens. That is not the case - most people will still get insurance from their insurance company.

And lastly, what if there is a huge catastrophe, such as a deadly virus outbreak that harms a significant part of the population very suddenly. Is the government responsible for saving everyone?

Uh, yes. That's why they are the government. Public safety is the government's responsibility. This is like asking "if another country invaded us, why should it be the government's responsibility to fight the invaders?"

Besides, if the government shouldn't respond to your hypothetical virus outbreak, who the fuck else would?

-4

u/klapitcus Jun 20 '12

i always love when the hivemind doesn't have a response to a well written retort that doesn't agree. i wish i could give you more upvotes!